Path to 9/11

[Ban Hammer 13,977]

I'm sorry guys all this crud you are spewing about pathto911.com is ridiculous!

To be honest the "deception" in the website is far less damning then the statement in the trailer posted in this thread, which claims it is:

the OFFICIAL TRUE STORY

Which, I state again, ABC has stated that key scenes are made up.

So IF key scenes are made up, how can it THEN be THE OFFICIAL TRUE STORY?

the same way many believe farenheit 911 is the absolute truth. both stories are propaganda.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So IF key scenes are made up, how can it THEN be THE OFFICIAL TRUE STORY?

It isn't. But it is time that Clinton is blamed for 9/11 and all evil that has befallen the US prior and since. Remember, the mid-terms are upon us and people don't like or trust the emperor anymore. They know now that he's naked.

[Fuzzness 2]

I'm sorry guys all this crud you are spewing about pathto911.com is ridiculous!

To be honest the "deception" in the website is far less damning then the statement in the trailer posted in this thread, which claims it is:

the OFFICIAL TRUE STORY

Which, I state again, ABC has stated that key scenes are made up.

So IF key scenes are made up, how can it THEN be THE OFFICIAL TRUE STORY?

the same way many believe farenheit 911 is the absolute truth. both stories are propaganda.

so it was fabricated? all of it?

[Scott & Lai 12]

On a side note, does anyone recall any Republican government officials demanding serious editing or complete cancellation of Fahrenheit 9/11? Is the First Ammendment still valid?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Which, I state again, ABC has stated that key scenes are made up.

So IF key scenes are made up, how can it THEN be THE OFFICIAL TRUE STORY?

Indeed. How do you license and commodify a national tragedy?

9/11 has been used for political purposes by both Democrats and Republicans. One important difference however is the way in which the Bush administration has taken sole ownership of the tragedy, using it to encourage nationalistic sentiments as a means to to justify increasingly aggressive policies (not to mention the executive branch's increasingly brazen accumulation of power) while at the same time laying almost total blame for the mistakes and oversights leading to the attack at the feet of the other side.

The current administration has shown us that they are quite prepared to use footage from 9/11 for strictly political ends, as was demonstrated by a number of TV campaign ads (for which they were criticised) in the 2004 election.

Essentially "Vote for us - unless you want this to happen again". Despicable.

[I'm Gone 60]

Anyone that gets their history lessons from Made for TV movies is a #######.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._on_bin_la.html

Clinton's Artless Equivocation on 'The Path to 9/11'

By Dennis Byrne

If the worst criticism of President Bush is that he lied to us about Iraq, then we just got a whopping reminder of Bill Clinton's extraordinary talents for deception.

In a letter to ABC's chief Bob Iger, Clinton's attorney, Bruce Lindsey, alleges that the network's program, The Path to 9/11 is "factually and incontrovertibly" inaccurate in suggesting that the Clinton administration let Osama Bin Laden slip through its fingers. Clinton's defenders, from their high horses, arrogantly have demand that the program be edited to their satisfaction, or be pulled entirely.

Bristling at evidence that Clinton and his administration were wavering and indecisive, the letter asserted that the president aggressively tried to "take a shot at Bin Laden." It cites the 9/11 Commission Report for supposedly giving credit to Clinton for approving "every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

This is close enough to the truth to make the "I-didn't-inhale" and "I-didn't-have-sex-with-that-woman" Clinton think he can get away with it. But it is far enough away from the truth to be classified as, if not a bold lie, an artless equivocation.

As usual, Clinton figures that the rest of us are too stupid or lazy to look it up for ourselves. And having read the complete report when it came out more than two years ago, I think it is an inescapable fact that a vacillating, equivocating administration had more than one opportunity to take out terrorist mastermind Bin Laden, but blew it.

A good place to look is the report's "Chapter 4: Responses to Al Qaeda's initial assaults," Section 4.5, "Searching for Fresh Options." There you have details of how Bin Laden was ready to be plucked, but someone in the administration either ignored or nixed it. Or put it on an endless "you-decide, not-me" merry-go-round.

For example, the report said the CIA was receiving "reliable" reports that Bin Laden would be in the Sheikh Ali hunting camp in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar until at least midmorning of Feb. 11, 1999. The military was targeting him for a hit with cruise missiles, and only needed a green light. Yet, no missiles were launched, to the disappointment of field agents and the CIA's "Bin Laden" unit. By Feb. 12, Bin Laden had moved on, and the golden opportunity passed.

Still, the CIA hoped that Bin Laden would return to the popular camp, but Richard Clarke, the nation's counterterrorism chief, may have blown it by calling the United Arab Emirate to express his concern about the their officials associating with Bin Laden at the hunting camp. Being no fools, the terrorists within a week had "hurriedly dismantled" and deserted the camp, the report said.

In May, 1999, the report said, the administration may have missed the best and last opportunity to hit Bin Laden with cruise missiles as he was moving in and around Kandahar. "It was a fat pitch, a home run," a senior military official told the commission, confident of the intelligence and the possibility of minimal "collateral damage." The report picks up the story:

"He expected the missiles to fly. When the decision came back that they should stand down, not shoot, the officer said, 'We all just slumped.' He told [the commission] he knew of no one at the Pentagon or the CIA who thought it was a bad game. Bin Laden 'should have been a dead man' that night, he said."

From there, the story gets cloudy. Some told the commission that former CIA Director George Tenet nixed the strike, believing the chance of the intelligence being accurate was only 50-50. (He may have been the only one who thought the odds were that bad.) Tenet told the commission he didn't remember the details. Berger's memory at this historic moment also turned sketchy. "Berger remembered only that in all such cases, the call had been Tenet's. Berger felt sure that Tenet was eager to get Bin Laden. In his view, Tenet did his job responsibly," the report said. It quoted Berger: "George would call and say, 'We just don't have it.'"

Judge for yourself, but to me this sounds like Berger tying to "pin the tail on Tenet."

The report added this tidbit about the administration's inaction: "Replying to a frustrated colleague in the field, the [CIA's] Bin Ladin unit chief wrote: '...having a chance to get [bin Laden] three times in 36 hours, and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry.'" [Emphasis added.] The field officer opined that it was Tenet who was pushing for an attack, but was standing alone, with Berger adopting the cover-your-### attitude that it was Tenet's decision, and "we'd go along" with whatever it was.

To be sure, the administration's approach was hesitant, if not overly cautious. Why? They were reflecting Clinton's policy, put into writing in several Memoranda of Notification that he wanted Bin Laden captured and treated humanely, but not killed, unless it was in the process of capture. He even personally edited one memorandum, making it more "ambiguous," the report said. "...t is possible to understand how the former White House officials and the CIA officials might disagree as to whether the CIA was ever authorized by the President to kill Bin Laden."

There should be no disagreement on this: Lindsey's letter to ABC is mere word play. It is couched in equivocations such as Clinton "authorized the use of force" and that the president and Berger had authorized Tenet to "get" Bin Laden. None of it means that Tenet was ordered to kill Bin Laden when he had a chance.

Ahmed Shah Massoud, an Afghanistan Northern Alliance commander who offered to kill Bin Laden for the United States, put the capture-not-kill-decision more succinctly: "You guys are crazy." Lt. Gen William Boykin, a founding member of the elite Delta Force, told the commission, "...opportunities were missed because of an unwillingness to take risks and a lack of vision and understanding."

If they weren't describing the Clinton administration, then who?

A full reading of the report makes clear that the Clinton administration understood the seriousness of the Bin Laden threat, but failed to act decisively. In this, when ABC said "general indecisiveness" allowed the 9/11 attacks, it was correct to include the Clinton administration.

And why the indecisiveness? Rack it up to the idea that he need to prosecute, not kill, terrorists; that someone who has literally declared war on us should be tried with all the rights of American citizens. Maybe we should have tried negotiations instead.

[iceyspots 0]

Which, I state again, ABC has stated that key scenes are made up.

So IF key scenes are made up, how can it THEN be THE OFFICIAL TRUE STORY?

Indeed. How do you license and commodify a national tragedy?

9/11 has been used for political purposes by both Democrats and Republicans. One important difference however is the way in which the Bush administration has taken sole ownership of the tragedy, using it to encourage nationalistic sentiments as a means to to justify increasingly aggressive policies (not to mention the executive branch's increasingly brazen accumulation of power) while at the same time laying almost total blame for the mistakes and oversights leading to the attack at the feet of the other side.

The current administration has shown us that they are quite prepared to use footage from 9/11 for strictly political ends, as was demonstrated by a number of TV campaign ads (for which they were criticised) in the 2004 election.

Essentially "Vote for us - unless you want this to happen again". Despicable.

That's sad that it has to come down to that, it's a real slap in the face to those victims and their families and their friends.

I read and watch what I want to but I take everything with a grain of salt.

[Marc and Olga 0]

On a side note, does anyone recall any Republican government officials demanding serious editing or complete cancellation of Fahrenheit 9/11? Is the First Ammendment still valid?

Please show me where the Michael Moore movie was claimed as "the OFFICIAL true story".

[Scott & Lai 12]

On a side note, does anyone recall any Republican government officials demanding serious editing or complete cancellation of Fahrenheit 9/11? Is the First Ammendment still valid?

Please show me where the Michael Moore movie was claimed as "the OFFICIAL true story".

Whether or not he used that particular term is irrelevant, though he certainly claims his movie is factual. My point is about government censorship of political speech....the very thing the Freedom of the Press clause in the First Ammendment was intended to prevent.

[Jenn! 918]

Is anyone else watching this? It seems pretty stupid to me. I think I'll go back to watching The Birdcage instead.

[Lewis 0]

Is anyone else watching this? It seems pretty stupid to me. I think I'll go back to watching The Birdcage instead.

agree, I'm channel surfing now!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

On a side note, does anyone recall any Republican government officials demanding serious editing or complete cancellation of Fahrenheit 9/11? Is the First Ammendment still valid?

Please show me where the Michael Moore movie was claimed as "the OFFICIAL true story".

Whether or not he used that particular term is irrelevant, though he certainly claims his movie is factual.

A claim that is clearly false. And one ought to have a right to say so. And those directly affected ought to have a right to have the product match the claim or have the product pulled off the shelve. Ever heard of false advertising? That's what this is. And the ones suffering from that false advertisement take action to stop it. Happens every day in America and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The First Amendment does not cover lies.

[Marc and Olga 0]

On a side note, does anyone recall any Republican government officials demanding serious editing or complete cancellation of Fahrenheit 9/11? Is the First Ammendment still valid?

Please show me where the Michael Moore movie was claimed as "the OFFICIAL true story".

Whether or not he used that particular term is irrelevant, though he certainly claims his movie is factual. My point is about government censorship of political speech....the very thing the Freedom of the Press clause in the First Ammendment was intended to prevent.

That particular term IS relevant as it is a CLAIM made by ABC which they later said that key scenes are made up, so tell me again, how is it the official true story but KEY scenes are made up?!

Remember I am not calling for removal or editing, I am outraged by the (admittedly) false claims of the network that this is "the official true story" and not the fact that the movie claims that President clinton's administration could have stopped OBL before 9/11 ever happened but didin't.

"Official true story" a claim that Michael Moore never made.

[Jenn! 918]

Is anyone else watching this? It seems pretty stupid to me. I think I'll go back to watching The Birdcage instead.

agree, I'm channel surfing now!

OMG, Donnie Wahlberg's in this movie. I HAVE to watch it now!

NKOTB rules!

[Lewis 0]

Is anyone else watching this? It seems pretty stupid to me. I think I'll go back to watching The Birdcage instead.

agree, I'm channel surfing now!

OMG, Donnie Wahlberg's in this movie. I HAVE to watch it now!

NKOTB rules!

New Kids on the Block? B) How many Wahlberg's are there?

Enjoy! I'm sticking with football and waiting for the DVD, although Keitel is a great actor.