CLINTON AND FORMER OFFICIALS

[kaydee457 13]

I think they should voice their concerns and complaints to Michael Moore!

[Fuzzness 2]

Making money off a tragedy like this sucks big time. I will not be watching this movie.

[Dean iWait 0]

I did get the story eventually. It quoted a letter not from Clinton himself.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.

The movie is set to air on Sunday and Monday nights. Monday is the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

Based on the 9/11 commission's report, the miniseries is also being provided to high schools as a teaching aid - although ABC admits key scenes are dramatizations.

The letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton's office, accuses the ABC drama of "bias" and a "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."

Yeah, so if it is a letter from Clinton's top lawyer and head of his foundation what's the difference? It isn't any different than a letter from Clinton himself since he would have had to of directed his lawyer and his head of foundation to write the letter. They are both his employees after all.

So I guess you would rather blindly trust Clinton and his officials that they are telling the truth on this?

Do you read what you provide links to?

ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes." But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission's report, although that report contradicts several key scenes.

...

Berger is seen as refusing authorization for a proposed raid to capture bin Laden in spring 1998 to CIA operatives in Afghanistan who have the terrorist leader in their sights. A CIA operative sends a message: "We're ready to load the package. Repeat, do we have clearance to load the package?" Berger responds: "I don't have that authority."

Berger said that neither he nor Clinton ever rejected a CIA or military request to conduct an operation against bin Laden. The Sept. 11 commission said no CIA operatives were poised to attack; that Afghanistan's rebel Northern Alliance was not involved, as the film says; and that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet decided the plan would not work.

...and so on

Read what you post. It's not just Clinton's folks saying that much of the production is fabricated. It's the 9/11 commission saying the same thing. But you go ahead and keep on relying on Murdoch's rag...

Oh I read every word of it. Tell me something. If it is a dramatization and not a documentary what's the big deal. Why should anybody censor a dramatization? Do you beleive in censorship?

I'll tell you what I think went down. Tenet asked for authorization for the operation to capture Bin Laden. Neither Clinton nor Berger had the balls to authorize it. So they said "George you go ahead if you want, but if you do and the plan goes south it your ###" So none of them had the balls to do anything.

[clloyd 0]

Remember that mini-series on Regan the right wing complained about, so they moved it off the network?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Tell me something. If it is a dramatization and not a documentary what's the big deal. Why should anybody censor a dramatization? Do you beleive in censorship?

See below:

Remember that mini-series on Regan the right wing complained about, so they moved it off the network?

Oh, yes I do.

[Nagishkaw 510]

" devil with the blue dress on....."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'll tell you what I think went down.

It's insignificant what you think went down. I say the only thing that went down was an intern in a blue dress.

Edited September 8, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Dean iWait 0]

Remember that mini-series on Regan the right wing complained about, so they moved it off the network?

No what miniseries was that?

Tell me something. If it is a dramatization and not a documentary what's the big deal. Why should anybody censor a dramatization? Do you beleive in censorship?

See below:

Remember that mini-series on Regan the right wing complained about, so they moved it off the network?

Oh, yes I do.

Ok, so since you believe in censorship. What else do you think should be censored?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Remember that mini-series on Regan the right wing complained about, so they moved it off the network?

No what miniseries was that?

CBS Won't Air 'Reagans' Miniseries

Tell me something. If it is a dramatization and not a documentary what's the big deal. Why should anybody censor a dramatization? Do you beleive in censorship?

See below:

Remember that mini-series on Regan the right wing complained about, so they moved it off the network?

Oh, yes I do.

Ok, so since you believe in censorship. What else do you think should be censored?

When did I say that support or believe in censorship? I believe that those that are depicted in a manner not consistent with the truth have a right not to be depicted that way. It's easy: Just start the move off saying that it is purely fictional and it's done. Part fact, part fiction? Who's to keep apart which is what?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

The NY Post. A tabloid rag. Rupert Murdoch. You take what they print seriously?

From Wikipedia:

When Rupert Murdoch once asked the chairman of Bloomingdale's why he wasn't buying ads in the [NY] Post, he was allegedly told "because, dear Rupert, your readers are my shoplifters."

:lol:

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I did get the story eventually. It quoted a letter not from Clinton himself.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.

The movie is set to air on Sunday and Monday nights. Monday is the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

Based on the 9/11 commission's report, the miniseries is also being provided to high schools as a teaching aid - although ABC admits key scenes are dramatizations.

The letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton's office, accuses the ABC drama of "bias" and a "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."

Yeah, so if it is a letter from Clinton's top lawyer and head of his foundation what's the difference? It isn't any different than a letter from Clinton himself since he would have had to of directed his lawyer and his head of foundation to write the letter. They are both his employees after all.

So I guess you would rather blindly trust Clinton and his officials that they are telling the truth on this?

Do you read what you provide links to?

ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes." But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission's report, although that report contradicts several key scenes.

...

Berger is seen as refusing authorization for a proposed raid to capture bin Laden in spring 1998 to CIA operatives in Afghanistan who have the terrorist leader in their sights. A CIA operative sends a message: "We're ready to load the package. Repeat, do we have clearance to load the package?" Berger responds: "I don't have that authority."

Berger said that neither he nor Clinton ever rejected a CIA or military request to conduct an operation against bin Laden. The Sept. 11 commission said no CIA operatives were poised to attack; that Afghanistan's rebel Northern Alliance was not involved, as the film says; and that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet decided the plan would not work.

...and so on

Read what you post. It's not just Clinton's folks saying that much of the production is fabricated. It's the 9/11 commission saying the same thing. But you go ahead and keep on relying on Murdoch's rag...

Oh I read every word of it. Tell me something. If it is a dramatization and not a documentary what's the big deal. Why should anybody censor a dramatization? Do you beleive in censorship?

I'll tell you what I think went down. Tenet asked for authorization for the operation to capture Bin Laden. Neither Clinton nor Berger had the balls to authorize it. So they said "George you go ahead if you want, but if you do and the plan goes south it your ###" So none of them had the balls to do anything.

So, you're suggesting that Tenet was lying when he testified to the 9/11-commission? That's a serious accusation.

[Dean iWait 0]

So, you're suggesting that Tenet was lying when he testified to the 9/11-commission? That's a serious accusation.

Oh no I'm sure nobody in the government ever lies about anything to anyone! ROFLMAO!

Edited September 8, 2006 by Dean iWait

[Fischkoepfin 1]

So, you're suggesting that Tenet was lying when he testified to the 9/11-commission? That's a serious accusation.

Oh no I'm sure nobody in the government ever lies about anything to anyone! ROFLMAO!

Politicians lie compulsively, but Tenet is not a politician but the former head of a security agency. To insinuate he lied (presumably under oath) in a testemony to an independent comission is not like your typical government lie, but more like Clinton's famous act of perjury. It might be befitting your world view to assume that since he lied to protect Clinton, but not only is that highly unlikely given the circumstances of his testemony but also a serious accusation falling into the category of libel if you can't proof it.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Fischkoepfin

[Dean iWait 0]

So, you're suggesting that Tenet was lying when he testified to the 9/11-commission? That's a serious accusation.

Oh no I'm sure nobody in the government ever lies about anything to anyone! ROFLMAO!

Politicians lie compulsively, but Tenet is not a politician but the former head of a security agency. To insinuate he lied (presumably under oath) in a testemony to an independent comission is not like your typical government lie, but more like Clinton's famous act of perjury. It might be befitting your world view to assume that since he lied to protect Clinton, but not only is that highly unlikely given the circumstances of his testemony but also a serious accusation falling into the category of libel if you can't proof it.

Just my opinion and my right to free speech. Do you really take the 9/11 comission report as the gospel truth? If you do I have some land in Florida I would like to talk to you about. And apprently you don't understand libel laws in the U.S. You actually have to prove some type of monetary damages to someone due to comments you made about them and even then it's very hard to prove. Due to our free speech rights in the U.S. libel is almost impossible to pursue in the courts and win. George is that you??

[Marc and Olga 0]

So, you're suggesting that Tenet was lying when he testified to the 9/11-commission? That's a serious accusation.

Oh no I'm sure nobody in the government ever lies about anything to anyone! ROFLMAO!

Politicians lie compulsively, but Tenet is not a politician but the former head of a security agency. To insinuate he lied (presumably under oath) in a testemony to an independent comission is not like your typical government lie, but more like Clinton's famous act of perjury. It might be befitting your world view to assume that since he lied to protect Clinton, but not only is that highly unlikely given the circumstances of his testemony but also a serious accusation falling into the category of libel if you can't proof it.

Just my opinion and my right to free speech. Do you really take the 9/11 comission report as the gospel truth? If you do I have some land in Florida I would like to talk to you about. And apprently you don't understand libel laws in the U.S. You actually have to prove some type of monetary damages to someone due to comments you made about them and even then it's very hard to prove. Due to our free speech rights in the U.S. libel is almost impossible to pursue in the courts and win. George is that you??

3 words:

Defamation of Character