I noticed the Tuber here had to "hold everyone's hand" through this. This is selective research at its finest. Why do you let your liberal pals tell you what happened and what didn't? Afraid to think outside of the box? Mistakes happened on both sides, but someone here obviously wants a squeaky clean Clinton administration.
the nation, even the world, was engaged in this debate for months leading up to the war. polls showed that almost 90% of americans supported it at one point, half for humanitarian reasons, half for their own selfish safety concerns. when no wmds were found, the selfish half started talking about being deceived, even though many of their own favorite politicians had been saying the same things for years. it was all political BS.
Clinton blew it. Allowed North Korea to gain nukes, failed to pursue Bin Laden, a failed Iraq policy, supporting UN genocyde of Iraqis under false pretense of WMD's....ass hole.
Blue, I agree that we should get to the 9/11 commission recommendations, and it is sad that both sides need to be wasting time focusing on a BS telepicture when there are such real problems out there. But the issue is the Bush Administration and their cadre's consistant use of spin, misinformation and outright lies to manipulate public opinion.
Mm-hmm, and what are these p911sux videos if not all of the above? And the telepicture is fictionalized, but far from BS. All those '90s attacks, all that business with Afghanistan, really did happen. Bush and Clinton really did make whopping mistakes. That's the damned point.
Both Bush and Clinton did make big mistakes. But I have yet to see a 6 hour network "docudrama" that depicts something like Bush being drunk when Condi reviewed the August 6th 2001 PDB. To make a point with slanderous scenes that the screenwriter admits that he made up, make you wonder exactly what the real damned point was.
Huh, you're right. Still, they had to invent a Voice of Reason during the early Bush administration (again, drama), and they chose Dick Clarke to fulfill the role. Doesn't seem party-line to me. And I know the FBI and CIA were debilitated under Bush, but they at least got to use TELEPHONES.
And unfortunately, there is no debate about "if" the filmmakers of Path to 9/11 are republican. They are self admitted conservative activists. Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer, recently was one of the main speakers at the seminar "Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift"
Considering the "Bush didn't get our enemies and wait, do we have enemies?" tone of this author's complete works, maybe it took a conservative activist to show a whit of common sense. Even-handed common sense.
And not sure where you get that notion. We have a real enemy in Al Qaeda. We seem to have quit pursuing them long ago. Unless you consider "even handed" to be a synonym for "believes that Hussein was behind 9/11" we haven't done a damn thing about Al Qaeda since early 2002.
When, in the entire course of the film, did ABC ever mention Hussein? And perhaps you're not keeping up, but al-Qaeda is NOT the only group with "Death to America" as a standing slogan, and we are, in fact, fighting al-Qaeda and other such groups in Iraq. Going there was a blunder, but staying there sure as hell isn't.
p911sux seems only to consider Islamism a problem when it suits her argument.
For God's sake, can we get past the blame game for one minute? It is NOT the focus of the movie. The focus is: a) Islamists want to kill infidels (and moderate Muslims who stand in their way) and have for quite some time. b) We should follow the 9/11 Commission recommendations already. The various screw-ups (on both sides - there was no planned capture of bin Laden, but Clinton did know where he was in 1998, and Bush screw-ups get an equal share of attention -) come tertiary, if that.
Ummm, Scream, until the last two days before air, ABC WAS trying to promote this as exactly what happened, claiming that it was from the 9/11 commission report in spite of the numerous invented scenes. Incidentally there were no scenes invented which slam Bush, and the only Bush admin principle who took a hit was Condi Rice. And the people who were on the anti-terror beat during Clinton do say this never happened, nor anything like it.
the film gave the blame even-handedly to the Clinton and Bush administration.
The film was also never indended to be an exact depiction of what precisely happened, word for word. It is a dramatization, and uses ficticious scenes to give the viewers a gist of what was going on.
And, unless you (or anyone, including myself) were actually there in the room with these people, there is no way to determine exactly what did and did not happen.
We need a "dramatization" of 9/11 like we need a hole in the head. Give it up to Disney to F this one up. Too many voting couch potatoes out there that believe anything they see on TV is true. What a shame.
Also manofsan, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing based on the change in your tone, claim to even handedness and growing anger at opposing views that you like your cocktails at night, no ?
Angstone, sorry, my change in tone was directed at mitchmanTX, and not you. My post just got accidentally posted under yours, when it was intended towards him.
You -- the Voters -- have ONE DAY, November 2, 2006, to hold the Bush Administration accountable for what's happened in Iraq, and here at home. ONE DAY -- election day. If you like the way things are going, vote Republican. If you think things need to change, VOTE DEMOCRATIC. Seize the day. It's your very last chance.
Man, you seem to be blinded by quite a bit of bias yourself. You admit that the whole move into Iraq was a lie, but you clearly feel that Clinton did worse. Sheesh.
Clinton did his share of wrong too, when it came to causing 9/11. Bush's mistakes were post-9/11, while Clinton's mistakes were pre-9/11 and thus the cause of 9/11. How can anyone seriously claim that Bush's mistakes were pre-9/11 when he was only in office for a few months? Those who reflexively defend Clinton are just as corrupt, blind and partisan as those who reflexively defend Bush.
Manofsan, I agree that Clinton could and should have struck back harder for the Embassy attacks and Cole, that said, the GOP controlled Congress was INTENSELY opposing all Clinton military action at that time, claiming it was an attempt to change the subject for Lewinsky. Also, to the point is the fact that Bush, Cheney and Rice all reject Clinton's outgoing insistance that they focus on Al Qaeda. There is no debate that we dropped our guard against Al Qaeda between Clinton and Bush.
Bush's mistakes were post-9/11? You mean like the August 6th PDB Bush ignored that told him the attacks were imminent, the intelligence indicating that Al Queda planned to fly airplanes into buildings (who could imagine that?), ignoring the Clinton administration's advice to make Al Queda his top national security threat (which Bush/Cheney ignored because fighting Al Queda & Saudi terrorism wasn't part of the neocon agenda - it still isn't).
manofasan, 8 months before 911 Bush took frequent vacations and Al Qaeda was rarely spoken of at the Whitehouse. Clinton wasn't perfect, but at least anti-terror was his OBSESSION, tracking Al Qaeda's every move, bombing/disrupting cells repeatedly, tripling FBI anti-terror budget, all while republicans worried about a stain. Bush ordered troops out of Tora Bora where Osama was cornered, a year after 911 saying he's not the priority and doesn't care where he is.
Gee, you must have been outraged when Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban goverment in Afghanistan in the spring of 2001 (within months of taking office) - while people like me were RAILING against the stupidity of Bush funding the Taliban.
I guess Limbaugh, Hannity, and FOX News have forgotten to mention that part of Bush's glorious legacy.
Buddy, in case you don't remember, Clinton was trying to garner bipartisan support for Taliban by roping in Republicans, and the greedy Bush camp were only too happy to hold hands with them. The Clinton camp were interested in 'liberating' CentralAsia from the Russians, who were Clinton admin's main fixation (Brzinski Doctrine = Albright's parentage). Why fight the Republicans when it was easy to get them onside for that?
Oh, those poor vulnerable Republicans! Little did Bush/Cheney know when they were meeting with the Taliban leaders at Bush's ranch prior to 9/11 to discuss plans of allowing Unocal to build a pipeline through Afghanistan to Iraq, that maybe dealing with these cutthroat terrorists would come back to bite them in the ass if they gave the Taliban millions of dollars. Nah, I'm sure Bush/Cheney knew what they were doing. We've only had ONE 9/11 - heckuva job, Bushie!
Excuse me, but the Clinton Whitehouse had gone out of their way to gain some "bipartisan support" by inviting the Republicans, Unocal, and the Bush camp to court Taliban. And the reason for this was that the Clinton admin was concerned foremost with using Taliban to undermine Russia's grip on CentralAsia. So Clinton was willing to hobknob with Republican oilmen and hardliners in order to deal a blow against Russia.
Lyke -- Everyone who was there said this didn't happen. Richard Clarke, who was the anti-terror czar under both Clinton and Bush (and is treated well in the "docu-drama" says it never happened. Two FBI consultants quit during the making of this film because of the fabrications that were being spun, and the writer, who regularly speaks at conservative gatherings like " Rebels with a cause: How conservatives can reshape Hollywood" admits that he created many scenes from his imagination.
First of all LykeNd, how do you prove something never happened? Can you prove that you've never had sex with animals? You cannot prove a negative. No matter how much evidence you might present about your sexual habits, none of it PROVES you never had sex with a goat.
The onus of proof is always on those who assert that a specific event occurred. They must present evidence that supports their assertion and successfully refute evidence that contradicts their assertion.
Pages 198-199 of the 9/11 Commission report directly contradicts the movie's assertions. During the transition period that preceded his inauguration, Bush was briefed on UBL by Tenet while Clinton was still President. Bush asked if the CIA was authorized to kill UBL. Tenet told Bush the CIA had all the authority it needed from the Clinton Administration.
Lets take a look at the 1998 missed opportunity. Here is NBC coverage of it that ...oh my gosh..actually follows the 9/11 report!www dot msnbc dot msn dot com slash id slash 4540958 slash
That NBC article only contradicts the movie. In 1998, small unmanned/unarmed radio-controlled spy planes flew high above Afghanistan, taking pictures of what was believed to be Bin Laden, but later penetrating that supposed target/location from the info in the pictures was unachievable. This idiotic movie depicts U.S. agents already at a place where a confirmed Bin Laden is standing, and Clinton on the phone refusing to give the order to kill him, something ridiculous that never happened.
I totally recognize that Bush's diversion into Iraq was a big lie. I feel that Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle deserve the Rosenkrantz & Guildenstern Award for subverting the Whitehouse towards invasion of Iraq, by making fake arguments to justify it. They marginalized all the competent and qualified voices, including SecState Powell and JCS General Shinseki. But recognizing Bush's wrongs shouldn't compel silence on Clinton's wrongs. THEY BOTH ACTED WRONGLY.
I agree that more retaliation should have been taken for Embassy and the Cole. But on the Bush side, don't think Wolfy and Perle or Kristal were driving that train. The lead Neos were and are Cheney and Rummy.
Disagree - Cheney and Rummy are old salts who weren't the policymaking innovators. They didn't come up with the idea to invade Iraq, they simply committed their resources to it, and are now grimly plodding thru with it, along with Dubya. Team MacBeth. Wolfowitz and Perle initiated the whole Iraq idea, even though they've been dropped by the wayside -- the Ladies MacBeth. But Clinton and his East European-born SecState Madlenka Albright definitely let Taliban/AlQaeda snowball.
Accounts, undisputed by WH and Pentagon, reported in Woodward's "Plan of Attack" have Rumsfeld ordering all info on Iraq gathered up the day after 9/11, even after it had been determined to be Al Qaeda. I think you drastically overestimate Wolfie's ability to execute such a plan. Cheney was the one who put the rubber to the road here.
the democrats don't want to be exposed, so what they do is try to shut up anyone who opposed them, and in the process, freedom of speech...which they claim to love so much. BUNCH OF SPINELESS COWARDS!
Stinky -- If they could back any of the disputed points up with any documentation, it would be free speech. But given that the screenwriter admits inventing these scenes and actions, which are flat refuted by CIA, FBI and Richard Clarke, it's not free speech, it's the deliberate attempt to propugate a lie and as such a political smear.
Honestly, i don't put it past the clinton administration to have screwed up so royally. It's just a case of the democrats trying to look good when everything else shows otherwise. What they tried to do was to control freedom of the press....that's wrong.
Artistic licence is for drama, not documentary. I know... this is a docu-drama, kind of like an advertorial. Meaning, it's selling something. If the truth favored Bush/Cheney, that's what they'd tell. It doesn't.
Artistic License? In a "docu" drama? You need to go recheck your definitions. By your standard, I could put together a docudrama about you, Stinki Pete WhoEver, and even though I have no police records, add a scene where you murder a Nun, because I feel it represents the 'spirit' of your actions? This has nothing to do with freedom of the press, and, even in cases of public figures, has everything to do with slander.
Angstone, heard about that movie where Bush gets murdered? Despicable. Haven't heard you mention that one -- why? Because you're a selective liberal -- and selective liberalism isn't liberalism at all. How about Oliver Stone's movie JFK? It shows Nixon grinning evilly at the news of JFK's death -- implying he had something to do with it. What crap. But you liberals don't care when Republicans get smeared like that, huh?
ManofSam, Actually, I don't like the smears in either direction. The movie where Bush gets killed is foreign and not a part of this discussion. I think its stupid, but no one is going to be misled by it. I think Ollie Stone is a creative and factual mess, but I also don't think his stuff is that dangerous, because no one is claiming that it is factual. A better comparison is the Reagan slam docu that was slated to go on CBS, which I think was a smear.
'The Path to 9/11' isn't misleading - you're quibbling over dotted i's and crossed t's. It's 100% accurate that Clinton officials let AlQaeda and Taliban go out of control. Saying they signed some order is just a defensive procedural argument. The Clinton admin supported AlQaeda and Taliban in the beginning, because they were suckered by Pakistan into it, just like how Bush admin was goaded by Perle/Wolfowitz into Iraq.
BULL SHIT! The Clinton admin. was leaving office and offered it's 20 page report and plan to the Bush admin. Bush said "No thanks!" and went on vacation after 6 months of planning went ignored. Al Quaeda was armed and supported by Regan and Bush Sr. not Clinton.
Wrong, Dixie chump! AlQaeda was started by the Pakistani govt with financing from Saudi, and intelligence support from Clinton Admin. They sure didn't spring up in a mere 4 months! They sure didn't take over Afghanistan in just 4 months! Do you know when they appeared in Kandahar?? 1993, dumbass! Do you know when they reached the outskirts of Kabul? 1994, moron! Do you know how long they fought with Masood for control of Kabul? For the next 4 years, YOU GRINGO TOURIST!
I was following the Taliban story while you were potty training, and while the 9/11 commission were snoring and allowing the threat to go out of control! That's why 9/11 happened and the commission had to do a post-mortem instead of a preventative cure! Because Clinton was busy bombing Europeans, and ignoring AlQaeda, YOU STUPID TWIT!
No Angstone. Clark's incompetance has been shown many times over. The CIA and the 9/11 Commission Panels findings show the documentary to be correct. And no, Cheney has not been caught in lie after lie. Again..there are many soruces for the truth..open your eyes and your mind
Right -- Care to document any case of Clarke's incompetance? Care to document where in the 9/11 Commission report it mentions a missed shot at killing Bin Laden that was thwarted by the White House? And just because you heard Rush say it or Hannity yell it doesn't count.
Angstone: sure- 9/11 is Clarke's incompetence. He was on the job for 10 years while AlQaeda and Taliban mushroomed out of control and Clinton admin didn't effectively stop them. He could have gone public at any time, but he only quit much later? Tell me, who warned Bin Laden about the numerous attempts on his life? Pakistan did - after Clinton admin warned them. That's not incompetence? Sure it is - and Clarke never resigned or went public over that.
ManofSan -- Check your facts. Clarke was most informed and strident about Al Qaeda. Clinton took him fairly seriously, Bush not at all. Clinton met on Al Qaeda once a week. Bush not once until after 9/11. And also, the Pentagon warned Pakistan that there would be a missile attack coming through their airspace, so they wouldn't think it was India attacking. White House didn't do the warning. Do your research.
Angstone -- Bush wasn't in the Whitehouse when Taliban/AlQaeda were mushrooming during the 90s, so what Clinton did/didn't do about AlQaeda/Taliban is far more important than Bush's few months in office before 9/11. The fact that you don't see this shows your bias. Clinton didn't do anything significant against AlQaeda, and I assert to you that Clinton admin actually supported Taliban's rise in the beginning. How come Taliban weren't stopped during the 90s?
More BULL SHIT! 3,000 people didn't die under Clinton's watch. W. "It's hard work!" Bush (the record breaking vacationer) allowed terrorist to attack this nation. The lie that Clinton let Osama go is just that A LIE. Oh and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and ObL "is no longer a priority."
3000 people died by the time Clinton was done with his watch, BECAUSE THE TALIBAN/ALQAEDA MUSHROOMED DURING HIS WATCH! They sure didn't spring up during the 4 months Bush was in office! IF YOU WERE CLINTON'S CANCER PATIENT FOR 8 YEARS AND THEN BUSH'S FOR ONLY 4 MONTHS, WOULD YOU BLAME CLINTON OR BUSH FOR YOUR FATAL CONDITION???
Bush ignored Clinton's 20 page report and plan on al Queda. If Clinton had been president 9/11 would have never happened. Mushroomed under Clinton? Regan and Bush Sr. armed them. And their numbers have more than doubled under Bush.
No, US support to Afghan mujahedin started under the Carter administration. The fact is that both Democrat and Republican admins have armed guerrillas in Afghanistan, and pampered Pakistan like a poodle, even though it was intent on arming the worst nutcases instead of moderates. Bush has obviously committed wrongs, but that doesn't somehow make Clinton a saint.
Thanks for posting the sequence that Comrade Clinton was successful in CENSORING (Da, Comrade Clinton we will toe the Party line). Perhaps this is the event detailed in the documents that Sandy Burglar STOLE from the National Archives.
This scene is not a lie. It compresses several events into one. Richard Clarke says in his book there were 3 opportunities to hit OBL, Michael Scheuer (CIA OBL task force head) says there were 10. The disagreement is over who cancelled the strikes (Scheuer & Clarke say Tenet, the series implies Sandy Berger) and how solid the intel on OBL's location was. But this scene happened several times in 1998.
Sandy Burgler should be in prison for stealing the CIA documents. This movie should make it impossible for Hillary to run again as co-president, but then again, never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter. She might even win.
Further, Korbel-Albright's predecessor SecState Warren Christopher (more recently remembered as Gore's pregnant chads legal counsel), had a grudge against Iran which humiliated him as Carter's SecState during the 79 hostage crisis. Note how Taliban are virulently anti-Shiite (no random coincidence). CLINTON ADMIN WAS PRO-TALIBAN IN THE EARLY YEARS. They thought it'd be a nice way to 'liberate' CentralAsia from Russian dominance. Brzinski Doctrine. About as dumb as Bush's plan to 'liberate' Iraq.
Manofsan, fascinating how surgically you manage to dodge around Reagan's massive financial and logistical support of the Mujahideen, whom he referred to as Freedom Fighters. And the Mujahideen evolved directly into ...say it with me here...Al Qaeda. Granted Carter had a hand in enabling them too, but no one pushed their rise harder than Reagan
Angstone, I don't exonerate Reagan one bit -- he was the one who sent the stingers to them. But Brzinski started it all -- remember that the Democratic Party was the main party that absorbed the ethnic influx of East European immigrants -- immigrants like Brzinski and Albright, whose views on foreign policy were skewed towards fighting Moscow no matter what. My goal is not to excuse Republican militarism, but rather to ensure warmongers hiding in the liberal camp not be overlooked.
5tupidGit - alright then, Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzinksi was the one who started funding Afghan jihadis to attack the Soviet Red Army. Dr Brzinski is a notorious 'Dr Strangelove' nutjob himself, and Czech-born Madlenka Korbel-Albright acknowledges him as her ideological mentor. The Clinton admin clearly supported the Taliban during the initial period, but only resorted to isolation of Taliban when the attempt to patch up relations with Taliban didn't work.
PS - I love how the right suddenly loves the "Liberal Hollywood Elite" now that they're attacking Clinton. Why don't you understand that Clinton, Bush, Reagan... they've all been fighting for the same purpose. It's like the Gambino's Vs. Genovese's - they fight sometimes but they also work together to keep the whole mob operation in order. Just like them it's dollars, not people that matter.
Actually this is more true than you dems/lips want to believe. Why put up such a strong argument against some thing you know nothing about?? It's just the way you operate I suppose. Thats how they gain votes to begin with. Even IF you did read actual documents, heard bullet-proof testimony; All you would do is turn around and say LIE LIE LIE. You people amaze me. Pathological in your own lies. It's bizarre, but right in-line with your character. Almost predictable.
what lie, you tool?? as i recall, the few times clinton did attempt attacks on bin laden and al quaida, he was ripped by the wingnuts and the repugs in congress as "wagging the dog"
let me just add, you own condi rice stated "no one could have forseen them using planes as weapons"
does that not include clinton and the dems?
pathological is lying us into an unneccary war that has nothing to do with fighting terrorists
Clinton fans claim that Bush screwed up the war on terror, while Clinton admin did a perfect job. I don't dispute that Bush has flubbed the war on terror, but I feel that Clinton admin's job was far from perfect, which the Clinonites won't even admit in the slightest.
Clinton had 8 years to stop AlQaeda and Taliban but he didn't, and they kept growing. Bush has clearly screwed up since then. But Clintonites, READ MY LIPS: YOU SCREWED UP TOO -- BADLY!
Taliban/AlQaeda's rise started from 93 onwards. Clinton admin didn't stop Taliban/AlQaeda, who kept growing unchecked. Clintonites resort to knee-jerk procedural arguments like he "never said this exactly" or "never spoke those words" despite Clinton admin's responsibility to stop Taliban/AlQaeda, rather than letting them snowball. Whining that Clinton gave whatever order is mere technical argument putting priority on defending Clinton's image over accountability on not protecting the public.
Thank you for posting these videos prior to the airing of Path to 911 in the US. This libelous and monsterously inaccurate protrayal of these events is a travesty to us all.
Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II:
Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden. The head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.
Look into the controversy going on over this. The director the screenwriter have both admitted they made up whole scenes for "dramatic purposes". Which would be fine if this wasn't being sold as "what actually happened". It's fiction. This didn't happen.
King -- Sorry to confirm that, NO THIS NEVER HAPPENED. Bin Laden was NEVER spotted EVER during either Bush or Clinton tenures by CIA or Afgan or Paki operatives. This is confirmed by CIA and Richard Clarke, anti-terror czar under both admins. Even the right wing writer who imagined this scene admits he made it up.
The only tool appears to be you. This is based on the 9/11 Commission Report as well as people that were involved. Why don't you take the time to learn for yourself. The 9/11 report is a learning tool but in no way the complete picture!
This is exactly the problem with this film, and exactly why democrats objected to it! You're using the "based on" argument to suggest this scene is factual, when it's not. Even the filmmakers have admitted they made this shit up for dramatic purposes (read: Clinton smear).
Democrats objected specifically on the grounds that ignoramuses like you would see the "based on" and think everything in the movie was factual.
Right Voices, by your logic, the right wing would have no basis to complain if the an avowed left wing activist writer wrote a 6 hour network "docudrama" that showed aides trying to read Bush the Aug. 6 2001 brief about Bin Laden's plans to attack, only to have Bush tell them they were using words too big, then going back to sleep.
No Angstone, that would not be logical. And in tonight's episode we will see them cover the Aug 6 memo that you refered to. Scheuer is right on the 1 and if people are interested, they could excercise their brains and do the research that includes soucing that disputes Clark's whitewash.
So the "complete picture" is a TV movie? I'm sure the director will also tell you his film is based on the word of God, but truth is the top 911 people, ESPECIALLY the 911 Commission Report, have already seriously contradicted the many inaccuracies in this movie. I understand hating those "libs" is an irresistible feeling for many of you, but why be such a tool for obvious propaganda, especially one that distorts the events of such a horrible day?
King - This information is everywhere. Newspapers, Google, and of course, the 9/11 commission report itself. I keep trying to link to specific URLs, but You Tube won't accept the posts. Go to thinkprogress dot Org and put Richard Clarke in the search and a number of articles will come up with Clarke, FBI, CIA and other former intel officers responses to this.
Richard Clark..HAHAHAHA Now he is a tool...And no, the writer did not admit that it was made up. Things like Sandy Berger slamming a phone down could be considered made up!
rightvoices -- Two retired FBI quit this project due to the falsifications they witnessed. Richard Clarke was one of the most accurate and viligant advocates against Al Qaeda during both Bush and Clinton. Hard to find objective voices against him. And Cheney has been caught in premeditated lie after lie regarding this war. Only in the inverted Hannity/Rush/Hugh Hewitt world can your information be believed.
But King: some facts that ARE documented: Clinton had top level anti-terror meetings focused on Bin Laden every week. Bush, in spite of being repeatedly warned by Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke and Richard Cohen that this was a grave danger, did not have a single meeting on the subject until AFTER 9/11.
Cheney's still saying that Tenet told him there was a connection between Hussein and Alqaeda... Tenet's already testified he was 'pressured' by the administration to produce intelligence findings that would bolster Bush/Cheney excuses for invading Iraq, and every legitimate account refutes their reasoning. So they gin up this phony docudrama selling their version of the story they want to peddle running up to the next election.
I noticed the Tuber here had to "hold everyone's hand" through this. This is selective research at its finest. Why do you let your liberal pals tell you what happened and what didn't? Afraid to think outside of the box? Mistakes happened on both sides, but someone here obviously wants a squeaky clean Clinton administration.
Oophorectomy 4 years ago
the nation, even the world, was engaged in this debate for months leading up to the war. polls showed that almost 90% of americans supported it at one point, half for humanitarian reasons, half for their own selfish safety concerns. when no wmds were found, the selfish half started talking about being deceived, even though many of their own favorite politicians had been saying the same things for years. it was all political BS.
ellwyn 5 years ago
Of course it never happened since Sandy Berger stole top secret documents from the National Archives erasing all the evidence from history.
mwe1967 5 years ago
"the big lie" is the relevant theme of USA politics. and the people take it. again and again.
Joeey 5 years ago
Clinton blew it. Allowed North Korea to gain nukes, failed to pursue Bin Laden, a failed Iraq policy, supporting UN genocyde of Iraqis under false pretense of WMD's....ass hole.
animefareast 5 years ago
Holy shit! I had no idea this miniseries was such BLATANT right wing propaganda! And the dialogue is SOOOOO corny! What a fucking crock of shit!!!
Wizard364 5 years ago
Donny Wahlberg is awesome. So is the guy from dodgeball.
GorterPoss 5 years ago
Besides, would "Republican filmmakers" have portrayed Dick Clarke like that? They're tossing in a bit of drama, end of story.
BlueReckless 5 years ago
Blue, I agree that we should get to the 9/11 commission recommendations, and it is sad that both sides need to be wasting time focusing on a BS telepicture when there are such real problems out there. But the issue is the Bush Administration and their cadre's consistant use of spin, misinformation and outright lies to manipulate public opinion.
Angstone 5 years ago
Mm-hmm, and what are these p911sux videos if not all of the above? And the telepicture is fictionalized, but far from BS. All those '90s attacks, all that business with Afghanistan, really did happen. Bush and Clinton really did make whopping mistakes. That's the damned point.
BlueReckless 5 years ago
Both Bush and Clinton did make big mistakes. But I have yet to see a 6 hour network "docudrama" that depicts something like Bush being drunk when Condi reviewed the August 6th 2001 PDB. To make a point with slanderous scenes that the screenwriter admits that he made up, make you wonder exactly what the real damned point was.
Angstone 5 years ago
How's Condi actually getting to see the PDB in the first place for made-up?
BlueReckless 5 years ago
National Security Advisor is on the distribution list for the PDB.
Angstone 5 years ago
Huh, you're right. Still, they had to invent a Voice of Reason during the early Bush administration (again, drama), and they chose Dick Clarke to fulfill the role. Doesn't seem party-line to me. And I know the FBI and CIA were debilitated under Bush, but they at least got to use TELEPHONES.
BlueReckless 5 years ago
And unfortunately, there is no debate about "if" the filmmakers of Path to 9/11 are republican. They are self admitted conservative activists. Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer, recently was one of the main speakers at the seminar "Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift"
Angstone 5 years ago
Considering the "Bush didn't get our enemies and wait, do we have enemies?" tone of this author's complete works, maybe it took a conservative activist to show a whit of common sense. Even-handed common sense.
BlueReckless 5 years ago
And not sure where you get that notion. We have a real enemy in Al Qaeda. We seem to have quit pursuing them long ago. Unless you consider "even handed" to be a synonym for "believes that Hussein was behind 9/11" we haven't done a damn thing about Al Qaeda since early 2002.
Angstone 5 years ago
When, in the entire course of the film, did ABC ever mention Hussein? And perhaps you're not keeping up, but al-Qaeda is NOT the only group with "Death to America" as a standing slogan, and we are, in fact, fighting al-Qaeda and other such groups in Iraq. Going there was a blunder, but staying there sure as hell isn't.
p911sux seems only to consider Islamism a problem when it suits her argument.
BlueReckless 5 years ago
For God's sake, can we get past the blame game for one minute? It is NOT the focus of the movie. The focus is: a) Islamists want to kill infidels (and moderate Muslims who stand in their way) and have for quite some time. b) We should follow the 9/11 Commission recommendations already. The various screw-ups (on both sides - there was no planned capture of bin Laden, but Clinton did know where he was in 1998, and Bush screw-ups get an equal share of attention -) come tertiary, if that.
BlueReckless 5 years ago
Nice Colbert Report take on all of the above:
http: SLASH SLASH movies DOT crooksandliars DOT com SLASH TCR-ABC-Path DOT wmv
Angstone 5 years ago
Ummm, Scream, until the last two days before air, ABC WAS trying to promote this as exactly what happened, claiming that it was from the 9/11 commission report in spite of the numerous invented scenes. Incidentally there were no scenes invented which slam Bush, and the only Bush admin principle who took a hit was Condi Rice. And the people who were on the anti-terror beat during Clinton do say this never happened, nor anything like it.
Angstone 5 years ago
the film gave the blame even-handedly to the Clinton and Bush administration.
The film was also never indended to be an exact depiction of what precisely happened, word for word. It is a dramatization, and uses ficticious scenes to give the viewers a gist of what was going on.
And, unless you (or anyone, including myself) were actually there in the room with these people, there is no way to determine exactly what did and did not happen.
screamifyoulikeit 5 years ago
We need a "dramatization" of 9/11 like we need a hole in the head. Give it up to Disney to F this one up. Too many voting couch potatoes out there that believe anything they see on TV is true. What a shame.
jaxne 5 years ago
Also manofsan, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing based on the change in your tone, claim to even handedness and growing anger at opposing views that you like your cocktails at night, no ?
Angstone 5 years ago
Angstone, sorry, my change in tone was directed at mitchmanTX, and not you. My post just got accidentally posted under yours, when it was intended towards him.
manofsan 5 years ago
Not to worry. I wasn't offended.
Angstone 5 years ago
You -- the Voters -- have ONE DAY, November 2, 2006, to hold the Bush Administration accountable for what's happened in Iraq, and here at home. ONE DAY -- election day. If you like the way things are going, vote Republican. If you think things need to change, VOTE DEMOCRATIC. Seize the day. It's your very last chance.
HNK222 5 years ago
Yeah, sure, create the Taliban all over again, as occurred during THE 1990s WHEN CLINTON WAS IN CHARGE.
manofsan 5 years ago
Man, you seem to be blinded by quite a bit of bias yourself. You admit that the whole move into Iraq was a lie, but you clearly feel that Clinton did worse. Sheesh.
Angstone 5 years ago
Clinton did his share of wrong too, when it came to causing 9/11. Bush's mistakes were post-9/11, while Clinton's mistakes were pre-9/11 and thus the cause of 9/11. How can anyone seriously claim that Bush's mistakes were pre-9/11 when he was only in office for a few months? Those who reflexively defend Clinton are just as corrupt, blind and partisan as those who reflexively defend Bush.
manofsan 5 years ago
Manofsan, I agree that Clinton could and should have struck back harder for the Embassy attacks and Cole, that said, the GOP controlled Congress was INTENSELY opposing all Clinton military action at that time, claiming it was an attempt to change the subject for Lewinsky. Also, to the point is the fact that Bush, Cheney and Rice all reject Clinton's outgoing insistance that they focus on Al Qaeda. There is no debate that we dropped our guard against Al Qaeda between Clinton and Bush.
Angstone 5 years ago
Bush's mistakes were post-9/11? You mean like the August 6th PDB Bush ignored that told him the attacks were imminent, the intelligence indicating that Al Queda planned to fly airplanes into buildings (who could imagine that?), ignoring the Clinton administration's advice to make Al Queda his top national security threat (which Bush/Cheney ignored because fighting Al Queda & Saudi terrorism wasn't part of the neocon agenda - it still isn't).
HNK222 5 years ago
manofasan, 8 months before 911 Bush took frequent vacations and Al Qaeda was rarely spoken of at the Whitehouse. Clinton wasn't perfect, but at least anti-terror was his OBSESSION, tracking Al Qaeda's every move, bombing/disrupting cells repeatedly, tripling FBI anti-terror budget, all while republicans worried about a stain. Bush ordered troops out of Tora Bora where Osama was cornered, a year after 911 saying he's not the priority and doesn't care where he is.
Shogun0fHarlem 5 years ago
Gee, you must have been outraged when Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban goverment in Afghanistan in the spring of 2001 (within months of taking office) - while people like me were RAILING against the stupidity of Bush funding the Taliban.
I guess Limbaugh, Hannity, and FOX News have forgotten to mention that part of Bush's glorious legacy.
HNK222 5 years ago
Buddy, in case you don't remember, Clinton was trying to garner bipartisan support for Taliban by roping in Republicans, and the greedy Bush camp were only too happy to hold hands with them. The Clinton camp were interested in 'liberating' CentralAsia from the Russians, who were Clinton admin's main fixation (Brzinski Doctrine = Albright's parentage). Why fight the Republicans when it was easy to get them onside for that?
manofsan 5 years ago
Oh, those poor vulnerable Republicans! Little did Bush/Cheney know when they were meeting with the Taliban leaders at Bush's ranch prior to 9/11 to discuss plans of allowing Unocal to build a pipeline through Afghanistan to Iraq, that maybe dealing with these cutthroat terrorists would come back to bite them in the ass if they gave the Taliban millions of dollars. Nah, I'm sure Bush/Cheney knew what they were doing. We've only had ONE 9/11 - heckuva job, Bushie!
HNK222 5 years ago
Excuse me, but the Clinton Whitehouse had gone out of their way to gain some "bipartisan support" by inviting the Republicans, Unocal, and the Bush camp to court Taliban. And the reason for this was that the Clinton admin was concerned foremost with using Taliban to undermine Russia's grip on CentralAsia. So Clinton was willing to hobknob with Republican oilmen and hardliners in order to deal a blow against Russia.
manofsan 5 years ago
Lyke -- Everyone who was there said this didn't happen. Richard Clarke, who was the anti-terror czar under both Clinton and Bush (and is treated well in the "docu-drama" says it never happened. Two FBI consultants quit during the making of this film because of the fabrications that were being spun, and the writer, who regularly speaks at conservative gatherings like " Rebels with a cause: How conservatives can reshape Hollywood" admits that he created many scenes from his imagination.
Angstone 5 years ago
so can u prove this never happened cuz u really didnt explain much. you just kind of insulted some people and that was it.
LykeNd 5 years ago
First of all LykeNd, how do you prove something never happened? Can you prove that you've never had sex with animals? You cannot prove a negative. No matter how much evidence you might present about your sexual habits, none of it PROVES you never had sex with a goat.
p911sux 5 years ago
The onus of proof is always on those who assert that a specific event occurred. They must present evidence that supports their assertion and successfully refute evidence that contradicts their assertion.
p911sux 5 years ago
Pages 198-199 of the 9/11 Commission report directly contradicts the movie's assertions. During the transition period that preceded his inauguration, Bush was briefed on UBL by Tenet while Clinton was still President. Bush asked if the CIA was authorized to kill UBL. Tenet told Bush the CIA had all the authority it needed from the Clinton Administration.
p911sux 5 years ago
Lets take a look at the 1998 missed opportunity. Here is NBC coverage of it that ...oh my gosh..actually follows the 9/11 report!www dot msnbc dot msn dot com slash id slash 4540958 slash
I wonder if Clintons lawyers will go after them!
rightvoices 5 years ago
That NBC article only contradicts the movie. In 1998, small unmanned/unarmed radio-controlled spy planes flew high above Afghanistan, taking pictures of what was believed to be Bin Laden, but later penetrating that supposed target/location from the info in the pictures was unachievable. This idiotic movie depicts U.S. agents already at a place where a confirmed Bin Laden is standing, and Clinton on the phone refusing to give the order to kill him, something ridiculous that never happened.
Shogun0fHarlem 5 years ago
A question to the right-leaning posters here -- How many of you think that Hussein was involved directly or indirectly in the 9/11 attacks?
Angstone 5 years ago
I totally recognize that Bush's diversion into Iraq was a big lie. I feel that Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle deserve the Rosenkrantz & Guildenstern Award for subverting the Whitehouse towards invasion of Iraq, by making fake arguments to justify it. They marginalized all the competent and qualified voices, including SecState Powell and JCS General Shinseki. But recognizing Bush's wrongs shouldn't compel silence on Clinton's wrongs. THEY BOTH ACTED WRONGLY.
manofsan 5 years ago
I agree that more retaliation should have been taken for Embassy and the Cole. But on the Bush side, don't think Wolfy and Perle or Kristal were driving that train. The lead Neos were and are Cheney and Rummy.
Angstone 5 years ago
Disagree - Cheney and Rummy are old salts who weren't the policymaking innovators. They didn't come up with the idea to invade Iraq, they simply committed their resources to it, and are now grimly plodding thru with it, along with Dubya. Team MacBeth. Wolfowitz and Perle initiated the whole Iraq idea, even though they've been dropped by the wayside -- the Ladies MacBeth. But Clinton and his East European-born SecState Madlenka Albright definitely let Taliban/AlQaeda snowball.
manofsan 5 years ago
Accounts, undisputed by WH and Pentagon, reported in Woodward's "Plan of Attack" have Rumsfeld ordering all info on Iraq gathered up the day after 9/11, even after it had been determined to be Al Qaeda. I think you drastically overestimate Wolfie's ability to execute such a plan. Cheney was the one who put the rubber to the road here.
Angstone 5 years ago
the democrats don't want to be exposed, so what they do is try to shut up anyone who opposed them, and in the process, freedom of speech...which they claim to love so much. BUNCH OF SPINELESS COWARDS!
stinkipete 5 years ago
Stinky -- If they could back any of the disputed points up with any documentation, it would be free speech. But given that the screenwriter admits inventing these scenes and actions, which are flat refuted by CIA, FBI and Richard Clarke, it's not free speech, it's the deliberate attempt to propugate a lie and as such a political smear.
Angstone 5 years ago
if that is so, ever hear about artistic lisence?
Honestly, i don't put it past the clinton administration to have screwed up so royally. It's just a case of the democrats trying to look good when everything else shows otherwise. What they tried to do was to control freedom of the press....that's wrong.
stinkipete 5 years ago
Artistic licence is for drama, not documentary. I know... this is a docu-drama, kind of like an advertorial. Meaning, it's selling something. If the truth favored Bush/Cheney, that's what they'd tell. It doesn't.
Zino1 5 years ago
Artistic License? In a "docu" drama? You need to go recheck your definitions. By your standard, I could put together a docudrama about you, Stinki Pete WhoEver, and even though I have no police records, add a scene where you murder a Nun, because I feel it represents the 'spirit' of your actions? This has nothing to do with freedom of the press, and, even in cases of public figures, has everything to do with slander.
Angstone 5 years ago
Angstone, heard about that movie where Bush gets murdered? Despicable. Haven't heard you mention that one -- why? Because you're a selective liberal -- and selective liberalism isn't liberalism at all. How about Oliver Stone's movie JFK? It shows Nixon grinning evilly at the news of JFK's death -- implying he had something to do with it. What crap. But you liberals don't care when Republicans get smeared like that, huh?
manofsan 5 years ago
ManofSam, Actually, I don't like the smears in either direction. The movie where Bush gets killed is foreign and not a part of this discussion. I think its stupid, but no one is going to be misled by it. I think Ollie Stone is a creative and factual mess, but I also don't think his stuff is that dangerous, because no one is claiming that it is factual. A better comparison is the Reagan slam docu that was slated to go on CBS, which I think was a smear.
Angstone 5 years ago
'The Path to 9/11' isn't misleading - you're quibbling over dotted i's and crossed t's. It's 100% accurate that Clinton officials let AlQaeda and Taliban go out of control. Saying they signed some order is just a defensive procedural argument. The Clinton admin supported AlQaeda and Taliban in the beginning, because they were suckered by Pakistan into it, just like how Bush admin was goaded by Perle/Wolfowitz into Iraq.
manofsan 5 years ago
BULL SHIT! The Clinton admin. was leaving office and offered it's 20 page report and plan to the Bush admin. Bush said "No thanks!" and went on vacation after 6 months of planning went ignored. Al Quaeda was armed and supported by Regan and Bush Sr. not Clinton.
mitchmanTX 5 years ago
Wrong, Dixie chump! AlQaeda was started by the Pakistani govt with financing from Saudi, and intelligence support from Clinton Admin. They sure didn't spring up in a mere 4 months! They sure didn't take over Afghanistan in just 4 months! Do you know when they appeared in Kandahar?? 1993, dumbass! Do you know when they reached the outskirts of Kabul? 1994, moron! Do you know how long they fought with Masood for control of Kabul? For the next 4 years, YOU GRINGO TOURIST!
manofsan 5 years ago
I was following the Taliban story while you were potty training, and while the 9/11 commission were snoring and allowing the threat to go out of control! That's why 9/11 happened and the commission had to do a post-mortem instead of a preventative cure! Because Clinton was busy bombing Europeans, and ignoring AlQaeda, YOU STUPID TWIT!
manofsan 5 years ago
No Angstone. Clark's incompetance has been shown many times over. The CIA and the 9/11 Commission Panels findings show the documentary to be correct. And no, Cheney has not been caught in lie after lie. Again..there are many soruces for the truth..open your eyes and your mind
rightvoices 5 years ago
Right -- Care to document any case of Clarke's incompetance? Care to document where in the 9/11 Commission report it mentions a missed shot at killing Bin Laden that was thwarted by the White House? And just because you heard Rush say it or Hannity yell it doesn't count.
Angstone 5 years ago
Angstone: sure- 9/11 is Clarke's incompetence. He was on the job for 10 years while AlQaeda and Taliban mushroomed out of control and Clinton admin didn't effectively stop them. He could have gone public at any time, but he only quit much later? Tell me, who warned Bin Laden about the numerous attempts on his life? Pakistan did - after Clinton admin warned them. That's not incompetence? Sure it is - and Clarke never resigned or went public over that.
manofsan 5 years ago
ManofSan -- Check your facts. Clarke was most informed and strident about Al Qaeda. Clinton took him fairly seriously, Bush not at all. Clinton met on Al Qaeda once a week. Bush not once until after 9/11. And also, the Pentagon warned Pakistan that there would be a missile attack coming through their airspace, so they wouldn't think it was India attacking. White House didn't do the warning. Do your research.
Angstone 5 years ago
Angstone -- Bush wasn't in the Whitehouse when Taliban/AlQaeda were mushrooming during the 90s, so what Clinton did/didn't do about AlQaeda/Taliban is far more important than Bush's few months in office before 9/11. The fact that you don't see this shows your bias. Clinton didn't do anything significant against AlQaeda, and I assert to you that Clinton admin actually supported Taliban's rise in the beginning. How come Taliban weren't stopped during the 90s?
manofsan 5 years ago
More BULL SHIT! 3,000 people didn't die under Clinton's watch. W. "It's hard work!" Bush (the record breaking vacationer) allowed terrorist to attack this nation. The lie that Clinton let Osama go is just that A LIE. Oh and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and ObL "is no longer a priority."
mitchmanTX 5 years ago
3000 people died by the time Clinton was done with his watch, BECAUSE THE TALIBAN/ALQAEDA MUSHROOMED DURING HIS WATCH! They sure didn't spring up during the 4 months Bush was in office! IF YOU WERE CLINTON'S CANCER PATIENT FOR 8 YEARS AND THEN BUSH'S FOR ONLY 4 MONTHS, WOULD YOU BLAME CLINTON OR BUSH FOR YOUR FATAL CONDITION???
manofsan 5 years ago
Bush ignored Clinton's 20 page report and plan on al Queda. If Clinton had been president 9/11 would have never happened. Mushroomed under Clinton? Regan and Bush Sr. armed them. And their numbers have more than doubled under Bush.
mitchmanTX 5 years ago
No, US support to Afghan mujahedin started under the Carter administration. The fact is that both Democrat and Republican admins have armed guerrillas in Afghanistan, and pampered Pakistan like a poodle, even though it was intent on arming the worst nutcases instead of moderates. Bush has obviously committed wrongs, but that doesn't somehow make Clinton a saint.
manofsan 5 years ago
Thanks for posting the sequence that Comrade Clinton was successful in CENSORING (Da, Comrade Clinton we will toe the Party line). Perhaps this is the event detailed in the documents that Sandy Burglar STOLE from the National Archives.
crane0456 5 years ago
I think the conspiracy theory novices would have us believe that the CIA invented Islam.
snouter 5 years ago
This scene is not a lie. It compresses several events into one. Richard Clarke says in his book there were 3 opportunities to hit OBL, Michael Scheuer (CIA OBL task force head) says there were 10. The disagreement is over who cancelled the strikes (Scheuer & Clarke say Tenet, the series implies Sandy Berger) and how solid the intel on OBL's location was. But this scene happened several times in 1998.
waltereg0 5 years ago
Oh, right, "disagreement". So I say it was Santa Claus who cancelled the strikes - do we have a "disagreement" now, or am I just a lying idiot?
flug747 5 years ago
Sandy Burgler should be in prison for stealing the CIA documents. This movie should make it impossible for Hillary to run again as co-president, but then again, never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter. She might even win.
snouter 5 years ago
Further, Korbel-Albright's predecessor SecState Warren Christopher (more recently remembered as Gore's pregnant chads legal counsel), had a grudge against Iran which humiliated him as Carter's SecState during the 79 hostage crisis. Note how Taliban are virulently anti-Shiite (no random coincidence). CLINTON ADMIN WAS PRO-TALIBAN IN THE EARLY YEARS. They thought it'd be a nice way to 'liberate' CentralAsia from Russian dominance. Brzinski Doctrine. About as dumb as Bush's plan to 'liberate' Iraq.
manofsan 5 years ago
Manofsan, fascinating how surgically you manage to dodge around Reagan's massive financial and logistical support of the Mujahideen, whom he referred to as Freedom Fighters. And the Mujahideen evolved directly into ...say it with me here...Al Qaeda. Granted Carter had a hand in enabling them too, but no one pushed their rise harder than Reagan
Angstone 5 years ago
Angstone, I don't exonerate Reagan one bit -- he was the one who sent the stingers to them. But Brzinski started it all -- remember that the Democratic Party was the main party that absorbed the ethnic influx of East European immigrants -- immigrants like Brzinski and Albright, whose views on foreign policy were skewed towards fighting Moscow no matter what. My goal is not to excuse Republican militarism, but rather to ensure warmongers hiding in the liberal camp not be overlooked.
manofsan 5 years ago
5tupidGit - alright then, Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzinksi was the one who started funding Afghan jihadis to attack the Soviet Red Army. Dr Brzinski is a notorious 'Dr Strangelove' nutjob himself, and Czech-born Madlenka Korbel-Albright acknowledges him as her ideological mentor. The Clinton admin clearly supported the Taliban during the initial period, but only resorted to isolation of Taliban when the attempt to patch up relations with Taliban didn't work.
manofsan 5 years ago
PS - I love how the right suddenly loves the "Liberal Hollywood Elite" now that they're attacking Clinton. Why don't you understand that Clinton, Bush, Reagan... they've all been fighting for the same purpose. It's like the Gambino's Vs. Genovese's - they fight sometimes but they also work together to keep the whole mob operation in order. Just like them it's dollars, not people that matter.
Wake up.
5tupidGit 5 years ago
manofsan (2 hours ago)
Taliban/AlQaeda's rise started from 93 onwards.
Actually the Taliban have been a force since we helped put them in power back in '80. Y'all need to think beyond "teams".
Stop being Democrats. Stop being Republicans. Start being Americans.
5tupidGit 5 years ago
Shameless GOP propaganda.
CatAtomic99 5 years ago
Actually this is more true than you dems/lips want to believe. Why put up such a strong argument against some thing you know nothing about?? It's just the way you operate I suppose. Thats how they gain votes to begin with. Even IF you did read actual documents, heard bullet-proof testimony; All you would do is turn around and say LIE LIE LIE. You people amaze me. Pathological in your own lies. It's bizarre, but right in-line with your character. Almost predictable.
sqladmin 5 years ago
This sort of shallow, debunked garbage is targetted specifically at know-nothing, boot-licking, idiots like you.
CatAtomic99 5 years ago
what lie, you tool?? as i recall, the few times clinton did attempt attacks on bin laden and al quaida, he was ripped by the wingnuts and the repugs in congress as "wagging the dog"
let me just add, you own condi rice stated "no one could have forseen them using planes as weapons"
does that not include clinton and the dems?
pathological is lying us into an unneccary war that has nothing to do with fighting terrorists
bush has the blood of thousands on his hands
bacci40 5 years ago
Pathological is right, but that description applies to the filmmaker, not the Democrats objecting this propaganda/smear campaign.
Either the scene is true or it's not.
It's not, and you didn't offer any evidence to show that it was.
temsi 5 years ago
Clinton fans claim that Bush screwed up the war on terror, while Clinton admin did a perfect job. I don't dispute that Bush has flubbed the war on terror, but I feel that Clinton admin's job was far from perfect, which the Clinonites won't even admit in the slightest.
Clinton had 8 years to stop AlQaeda and Taliban but he didn't, and they kept growing. Bush has clearly screwed up since then. But Clintonites, READ MY LIPS: YOU SCREWED UP TOO -- BADLY!
manofsan 5 years ago
Taliban/AlQaeda's rise started from 93 onwards. Clinton admin didn't stop Taliban/AlQaeda, who kept growing unchecked. Clintonites resort to knee-jerk procedural arguments like he "never said this exactly" or "never spoke those words" despite Clinton admin's responsibility to stop Taliban/AlQaeda, rather than letting them snowball. Whining that Clinton gave whatever order is mere technical argument putting priority on defending Clinton's image over accountability on not protecting the public.
manofsan 5 years ago
ABC and Disney have handed the Republican Party a $40 million campaign advertisment disguised as "the official true story". It is all lies.
McCamyTaylor 5 years ago
I love the screenwriters defense for blowing the hell out of anything... "Well, this is the nature of intelligence, or something!"
Yeah, right. Intelligence is backed by two sources at all times lady. This movie is such bull.
ShinTofu 5 years ago
Two FBI agents quit consulting for this movie because the producers were just "making it up".
tehdaveyeah 5 years ago
Thank you for posting these videos prior to the airing of Path to 911 in the US. This libelous and monsterously inaccurate protrayal of these events is a travesty to us all.
Sinequanonblog 5 years ago
Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II:
Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden. The head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.
seriousartspam1 5 years ago
To whoever the jerk lib that put the titles on the screen: how the hell do you know that this didn't happen? WERE YOU THERE PAL?
king60 5 years ago
Look into the controversy going on over this. The director the screenwriter have both admitted they made up whole scenes for "dramatic purposes". Which would be fine if this wasn't being sold as "what actually happened". It's fiction. This didn't happen.
seriousartspam1 5 years ago
King -- Sorry to confirm that, NO THIS NEVER HAPPENED. Bin Laden was NEVER spotted EVER during either Bush or Clinton tenures by CIA or Afgan or Paki operatives. This is confirmed by CIA and Richard Clarke, anti-terror czar under both admins. Even the right wing writer who imagined this scene admits he made it up.
Angstone 5 years ago
If what you say is true ANGSTONE, please supply the exact place where I can go and review this information, ok.
king60 5 years ago
It's called the 9/11 Commission Report, on which this movie is decidedly NOT based. THis is conservative propoganda crap.
DrFrankLives 5 years ago
The only tool appears to be you. This is based on the 9/11 Commission Report as well as people that were involved. Why don't you take the time to learn for yourself. The 9/11 report is a learning tool but in no way the complete picture!
rightvoices 5 years ago
This is exactly the problem with this film, and exactly why democrats objected to it! You're using the "based on" argument to suggest this scene is factual, when it's not. Even the filmmakers have admitted they made this shit up for dramatic purposes (read: Clinton smear).
Democrats objected specifically on the grounds that ignoramuses like you would see the "based on" and think everything in the movie was factual.
temsi 5 years ago
Right Voices, by your logic, the right wing would have no basis to complain if the an avowed left wing activist writer wrote a 6 hour network "docudrama" that showed aides trying to read Bush the Aug. 6 2001 brief about Bin Laden's plans to attack, only to have Bush tell them they were using words too big, then going back to sleep.
Angstone 5 years ago
No Angstone, that would not be logical. And in tonight's episode we will see them cover the Aug 6 memo that you refered to. Scheuer is right on the 1 and if people are interested, they could excercise their brains and do the research that includes soucing that disputes Clark's whitewash.
rightvoices 5 years ago
So the "complete picture" is a TV movie? I'm sure the director will also tell you his film is based on the word of God, but truth is the top 911 people, ESPECIALLY the 911 Commission Report, have already seriously contradicted the many inaccuracies in this movie. I understand hating those "libs" is an irresistible feeling for many of you, but why be such a tool for obvious propaganda, especially one that distorts the events of such a horrible day?
Shogun0fHarlem 5 years ago
King - This information is everywhere. Newspapers, Google, and of course, the 9/11 commission report itself. I keep trying to link to specific URLs, but You Tube won't accept the posts. Go to thinkprogress dot Org and put Richard Clarke in the search and a number of articles will come up with Clarke, FBI, CIA and other former intel officers responses to this.
Angstone 5 years ago
Richard Clark..HAHAHAHA Now he is a tool...And no, the writer did not admit that it was made up. Things like Sandy Berger slamming a phone down could be considered made up!
rightvoices 5 years ago
rightvoices -- Two retired FBI quit this project due to the falsifications they witnessed. Richard Clarke was one of the most accurate and viligant advocates against Al Qaeda during both Bush and Clinton. Hard to find objective voices against him. And Cheney has been caught in premeditated lie after lie regarding this war. Only in the inverted Hannity/Rush/Hugh Hewitt world can your information be believed.
Angstone 5 years ago
But King: some facts that ARE documented: Clinton had top level anti-terror meetings focused on Bin Laden every week. Bush, in spite of being repeatedly warned by Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke and Richard Cohen that this was a grave danger, did not have a single meeting on the subject until AFTER 9/11.
Angstone 5 years ago
THe 9/11 Commission Report and everyone involved says there was no such event, you tool.
DrFrankLives 5 years ago
Cheney's still saying that Tenet told him there was a connection between Hussein and Alqaeda... Tenet's already testified he was 'pressured' by the administration to produce intelligence findings that would bolster Bush/Cheney excuses for invading Iraq, and every legitimate account refutes their reasoning. So they gin up this phony docudrama selling their version of the story they want to peddle running up to the next election.
Zino1 5 years ago
Why is it that you repeat lies rather than look up the truth. You little tale doesn't match the facts
rightvoices 5 years ago
I guess there were no men left in Washington other than Sandy Pants Berger. Too bad he couldn't stuff all of the videos in his pants.
m11091940 5 years ago
Wait a second... do you think this is actual, real-life footage of something that actually happened?
HA!!! What a tool! You poor, poor soul.
counters 5 years ago
"The bigger the lie, more people will belive it"
- Hitler
hikkaveks 5 years ago
It's funny how not knowing didn't keep him out of Iraq. But knowing did keep him out of Katrina.
fuzzfoot 5 years ago