-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Democrats urge ABC to withdraw 9/11 movie
- Thread starter Cityboy
- Start date
Cityboy
Banned
OkeeDon said:
OK - so what evidence can you offer to prove that dems are, or will be tough on terrorism? What evidence can you offer to show that if Americans check the "D" on their ballots that they will move to protect America from Islamic terrorism?
Other than standing up against the Islamo-Fascists, I can't tell much difference between the "R's" and the"D's". I'm seeking enlightenment. Convince me with facts and logic why we should entrust America's defense to the dems.
And, why is censorship of the media justifiable when congressional democrats call for it?
AndyM
Charter Member
OkeeDon said:
Why bother trying then? They think they're right... you think you're right. I'm the one here with the hard job--
My opinions are right and allof you are wrong, and I've got to get all of you to see things that way!
(attempt at humor guys!)OkeeDon said:
That would be anyone who thinks either of the two political parties will save us. The only think each party cares about is 1) getting elected to a political office and 2) spending the next two, four, or six years trying to keep that office. Nothing substantial ever really gets accomplished during any of their terms except trying to hold on to power. In the meantime, I will continue to evaluate each candidate on a case by case basis, and vote for the best one for each job... Democrat, Republican, or Other.
Last edited:
Hey, you said it, not me. But so far, enlightenment has not worked.Cityboy said:Could it be that everyone here is a blithering idiot except for Don?
That sounds about right to me, and is proven by all the bull crap that has been thrown at me on this thread.Cityboy said:
What the hell does Michael Moore have to do with it, anyway? The miniseries that is being protested is being presented by a national TV network, at their own expense, without commercial support. They are advertising it to be based on an official report by a commission authorized by the United States government. Then, they fictionalized it.Cityboy said:
I absolutely guarantee you that if the Dems had NOT protested, it would never have become generally known that the miniseries is essentially fiction.
Micael Moore, on the other hand, is NOT a TV Broadcasting network but is simply an individual who had something to say and made a movie. There is a world of difference, and to compare them is apples to oranges.
(And, here's your parting shot...) I'm surprised you didn't understand that.
Cityboy said:
But, see, you have it all backwards. First of all, the R's are not standing up to the I-F's, at least not effectively. Do you really think they're still doing a good job in Afghanistan? Can you really say that Iraq has been anything buy a miserable failure? Have we caught Osama? Didn't the Supreme Court slap down the administrations handling of terrorist captives? Are there any fewer terrorist acts worldwide?Cityboy said:
Oh, wait, about here is where you use a negative to try to prove a positive. "There haven't been any more attacks on American soil since 9/11". Well, gee, there weren't any attacks on American soil during the Clinton administration after the '93 Trade Center bombing, either. So, how does that make the Clinton folks weak and the Bush folks strong? If you look back at terrorist activity, you'ss see that there are frequent long intervals between major terrorist attacks. I think it is just as accurate to say that the Bush folks have not been standing up to I-F, they've just been lucky since 9/11. Further, there are more terrorists who are more active as a result of the Bush actions.
Second of all, I have never said a word about America's defense in the hands of Dems. I never said it would be better. What I have said is that the country would be run better, and there would be far fewer mistakes! You know, there are one or two other issues in the scheme of things that have at least as much importance as our so-called war.
Who's calling for censorship? More misunderstanding on your part. Censorship is when the censor forces the broadcaster to change something. The Dems are requesting the broadcaster to be more accurate. HUGE difference.Cityboy said:And, why is censorship of the media justifiable when congressional democrats call for it?
Good reply Don. 
I to see no reason to prove the D's will do better. The R's have screwed things up so bad, they do not deserve another chance from my view of things.
However ...like Andy, I vote for the best person for the job more than any party. I hope the D's can get their shit together and come up with a quality candidate. At this point I do not have faith that they will do that.
I to see no reason to prove the D's will do better. The R's have screwed things up so bad, they do not deserve another chance from my view of things.
However ...like Andy, I vote for the best person for the job more than any party. I hope the D's can get their shit together and come up with a quality candidate. At this point I do not have faith that they will do that.
Cityboy
Banned
OkeeDon said:
I'm just curious as to what is actually fictionalized? Have you seen the mini-series? There has got to be something there that has the dems completely up in arms, and Clinton is concerned to the point that he has deployed his lawyers to threaten ABC. Why not air the show and then we can all investigate what is actually true and what is embellished? Unless of course there is actually some damaging information in the series that the dems and Clinton want to repress through threats and censorship. Either way, there is something stinky about all this official democrat "outrage".
Bottom line: There must be something extremely embarrassing for the political left in this film for them to trot out all these party officials and other hacks in opposition to it. Hopefully ABC won't cave in and all us lemmings can judge for ourselves.
As to the comparison to Michael Moore; it is equally valid because the media gave Moore hours of free coverage and promotion of his film, so it is more apples to apples than you care to admit.
Cityboy
Banned
Doc said:Good reply Don.
I to see no reason to prove the D's will do better. The R's have screwed things up so bad, they do not deserve another chance from my view of things.
However ...like Andy, I vote for the best person for the job more than any party. I hope the D's can get their shit together and come up with a quality candidate. At this point I do not have faith that they will do that.
As I have said many times before; the tax and spend policies of the repubs are not much different than that of the dems. However, the dems have repeatedly demonstrated their penchant for appeasment, and have put forth no plan to make things better. They are simply driven by their hatred for George Bush and have no plan or platform for improvement.
Cityboy
Banned
OkeeDon said:
What allegations might that be? This thread is about the dems trying to get this series pulled because it contains informations the dems do not want aired to the general public.
OkeeDon said:
I recall differently, but lets just address how anything would be better with the dems. The repubs are doing things the same way the dems will as far as taxing and spending. The repubs have caved in at every turn where social welfare programs are concerned. The repubs have not been fiscally conservative and have tried being "friends" with the dems by trying to win their approval with run away spending. Neither party is willing to cut any government spending whatsoever, so what is the major difference? The appeasement issue is the difference; a lesser of two evils is the only choice we seem to have right now.
OkeeDon said:
Come on Don.
The dems are outright calling for the film to be pulled. It is all over the news. Who is calling for censorship? The dems and Clinton are calling for censorship. Look at the articles that have been posted in this thread. I can't believe you even posted that statement.Here is some of the article by a NY Times reporter that appeared in this morning's Palm Beach Post.Cityboy said:
--------------------------------------------
The first words spoken on The Path to 9/11 are at check-in at Logan Airport at 7:13 a.m. "OK, Mr. Atta," an American Airlines agent says over the clickety-clack of computer keys. "One way, nonstop to Los Angeles, no return."
Moments before American Airlines Flight 11 hits its target, ABC's miniseries pivots back 8-1/2 years to a Ryder rental van that blew up in the parking lot of the World Trade Center on feb. 26, 1993.
...........
The outside pressure was intense enough to persuade ABC to re-edit one of trhe more contested made-up scenes in the film. In the version sent to critics....
-------------------
There were several other references to dialogue, clips, visuals and scenes, far too accurate to be made up. Despite all the assumptions and press reports, its obvious that the NY Times reporter saw it, or talked to someone who did see it and had photgraphic memory. Obviously, enough people saw it to get the information back to the Dems.
Because, that's the ultimate proof. Dems who are protesting cannot be making this stuff up. If they were, everyone who saw the program would instantly know that the program didn't match the Dems' claims.
Debate it after the broadcast? YOu know that's too late. You know that everyone who gets negative news can never outlive it or overcome it; there are no corrections big enough to overcome first impressions.
They're presenting historical records, now, to show that what has been reported to be in the program is wrong. If you won't believe them now, why in hell would you believe them after the fact? Nothing would change in your closed mind. The only way to prevent a gross injustice is to eliminate the inaccurate fiction now, before it gets aired.
Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to take one of your old, left-bashing messages and write a report about it. The only thing is, I'm going to fictionalize it a little so you actually come out looking like a card-carrying Democrat running down the GOP. Then, I'm going to leak it to you that I plan to show it to all your right-wing buddies at the country club or volunteer fire department or whereever you hang out.
Then, when you start screaming, "You can't do that!", I'm going to smile and say, "It's OK, I just dramatized it a little. Author's license."
Duh! Of course there is! That's what has them all upset! There is something in there that is a lie, and doesn't belong in there! How hard is that for you to understand?Cityboy said:
Once again I ask you, why does it have to be that there is something the Dems want to hide? Is it because that's the kind of person you are, and you can't understand anyone acting any other way?Cityboy said:
Let's get the easy one out of the way, first.
Then, the GOP took over. They promised to be the party of smaller government, but the government is far bigger than during the Clinton days. They did cut taxes, but most of it acrrued only to the wealthiest Americans. They economy almost collapsed, and the only way they got it to "sort of" recover was not to tax and spend, but to borrow and spend -- and borrow, and borrow, and borrow some more, mostly from foreign sources like China and Saudi Arabia. You've seen the articles posted by jdwilson; foreigners own our national debt, and since it is the largest debt in the history of the world, they could easily own our country. The GOP let that happen; the debt was being paid off under the Dems.
In the past 20 years, the parties have been gradually reversing. The Dems are now the only party that can be trusted to reduce spending and balance the budget. They are no longer the party of tax and spend.
You mentioned social welfare; remember that in all the years of trying, no GOP administration could get a welfare reform bill passed. Only Clinton had the ability to pull off real welfare reform, and he did it by continually backing the GOP into a corner every time they sent him a bullshit welfare bill that even they didn't really want passed. Finally, they had to get realistic, and he signed it into law. That takes leadership.
And, finally, that is the real bottom line. I know nothing I can ever say will convince you, but Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry are leaders, something that can never be said of George Bush.
You make this kind of statement, and you wonder why i call you dumb. Do you know the meaning of the word censorship? It is only censorship if one party does it to another party. If I was a moderator and went in and changed the words on your post, that would be censorship. But, if I ask you to change the words in your post, that is NOT censorship. Learn how to communicate by using words accurately and maybe I can finally get through to you.Cityboy said:Come on Don.
Here we go again. You have a real talent for getting things totally backwards. The Dems have a reputation for tax and spend. It was probably deserved at one time, although John Kennedy pushed through a heck of a tax cut. But, under Clinton, that reputation completely changed. Taxes were raised -- on the wealthiest people. There was a small gasoline tax increase that affected the middle class, but the revenue was used to lower other costs, and the middle class was overall better off. Spending was reduced. The size of government did not grow as fast as under the GOP; some would even say it was reduced. The deficit was reduced to almost nothing and real payments were made to reduce the national debt. Some would even say there was a surplus.Cityboy said:
Then, the GOP took over. They promised to be the party of smaller government, but the government is far bigger than during the Clinton days. They did cut taxes, but most of it acrrued only to the wealthiest Americans. They economy almost collapsed, and the only way they got it to "sort of" recover was not to tax and spend, but to borrow and spend -- and borrow, and borrow, and borrow some more, mostly from foreign sources like China and Saudi Arabia. You've seen the articles posted by jdwilson; foreigners own our national debt, and since it is the largest debt in the history of the world, they could easily own our country. The GOP let that happen; the debt was being paid off under the Dems.
In the past 20 years, the parties have been gradually reversing. The Dems are now the only party that can be trusted to reduce spending and balance the budget. They are no longer the party of tax and spend.
You mentioned social welfare; remember that in all the years of trying, no GOP administration could get a welfare reform bill passed. Only Clinton had the ability to pull off real welfare reform, and he did it by continually backing the GOP into a corner every time they sent him a bullshit welfare bill that even they didn't really want passed. Finally, they had to get realistic, and he signed it into law. That takes leadership.
And, finally, that is the real bottom line. I know nothing I can ever say will convince you, but Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry are leaders, something that can never be said of George Bush.
Hmmm, according to the folks (Democrats) that sent the emails to Junkman the only people who got to view it were the consevative pundits. Now it appears that legitimate critics may have seen a pre-release version. I guess even the Democrats who are screaming foul are liars because they can't even send emails to other Democrats without sending them a lie or two?OkeeDon said:
Cityboy
Banned
OkeeDon said:
No, Don; what I would do is present the original post and make you look less than credible. You can post anything you want, but you must be prepared to handle the truth when it is revealed, especially if you knowingly present a falsehood as truth.
OkeeDon said:
I don't think so. I think there is a great possibility that there are facts that can be verified that will be damaging to the dems and Clinton's place in American history. That is why they are upset. If it was a simple fiction that could be refuted, then there would be no uproar
OkeeDon said:
There is no reason to get personal in your posts Don. The kind of person I am? We are simply having a discussion here. Lets stick with the issue, shall we? If the dems had nothing to hide, then there would be no uproar and demands from lawyers, would there? Simple logic. How often are falshoods and generalizations made about the political right? Everytime you turn on the news, there is some misrepresentation or other being made. The difference here is the official democrat party demands to pull this film. I cannot recall the repubs ever officially coming out against any media outlet like this. On the other hand, the political left has been attempting to stop conservative talk radio for years, so I guess this is simply par for the course for the dems. The first amendment apparently does not apply when the free speech might incriminate the dems.
Junkman
Extra Super Moderator
Cityboy said:
Gee..... I can remember when it was the other way around...... the Republicans hatred of Clinton kept them busy trying to bring him down and not much was accomplished by either side. When was the last time that any one party like the President of the other party??????? Only difference is that now, they are both just getting more mean and down 'n dirty about it.... There is no
for anyone on the other side any longer in Washington...Yes! You get it! That's exactly my point! How could the Democrats be trying to cover something up, when the coverup would be instandly revealed? After all, if ABC really believes they are telling the truth, they would never agree to change it, right? The truth would be shown, everyone would know the Dems were trying to cover something up, and the Dems would look worse than they would if they had kept quiet.Cityboy said:
Now, I don't know how dumb you think the Dems are, but if I can recognize that, and you can recognize that, then I'd say there is a fair chance that one or two of the Dems could recgnize that, and would never let this battle get as far as it has. I don't think there is anyone in the world who would deny that Bill Clinton is/was the smartest politician to ever hold the office; I'm sure it would occur to him that if the boradcast was true, and he was caught trying to cover it up, then he might look just leetle bit worse than if he hadn't protested.
Oops, you don't get it, after all. IF there are facts in the broadcast that can be verified, it would be MUCH better for the Dems to follow the Reps' lead and keep their mouths shut. The very fact that the Reps are NOT protesting tells me they KNOW that what's been said about them can be proven, and they're better off keeping quiet and not calling anyone's attention to it.Cityboy said:
Now, I assure you, the Dems are just as smart. The ONLY reason there IS and uproar is because they KNOW the depiction in the broadcast is WRONG, and they plan to get it out before idiots around the country start to believe it because they saw it on TV.
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, but I'm struggling to understand why you are so blind. The only reason I could come up with is that you think that everyone else thinks like you do. If you think the only reason to have an uproar is to hide something, then you must have things you want to hide! Such a thought would not have occurred to me.Cityboy said:
I fight all the time, but only when I know I'm right. If there's a chance that I could be wrong about my position, I keep my mouth shut. I see the Repubs doing that on this broadcast, and I respect them for it. If I saw the Dems keeping their mouths shut, I'd assume it was because they agreed with what the boradcast says.
The ONLY reason to fight is when the other side is WRONG! Once you understand that about me, you'll come a lot closer to understanding how I feel about everything. For example, this entire discussion between us is NOT political. It has nothing to do with Dems or Reps and their respective positions, other than they happen to be the parties under discussion. What this entire discussion is about is that you have presented a bass-ackwards, wrong-headed. illogical and poorly thought-out position, and I'm doing my best to help you out. If you were as wrong about the Repubs, I'd be defending them and still trying to straighten you out, for your own good.
THINK about it, man, THINK about it. Don't just spew the propaganda you swallow.
But we're to take your sources from the New York Times as credible?...........OkeeDon said:
It is IMO that Clinton did not act on or take terrorism seriously and Bush got saddled with Clinton's complacency. It is without question it took more time for the terrorist to prepare for 9/11 than the time Bush was in office. The majority of the time they spent training in the USA was under who's watch? Terrorist hit the USA numerous times during Clinton's watch and they never saw much in the way of repurcussion. It was too easy to continue, at our expense, in more blantant and horrendous fashion. Plain and simple, Clinton did not do what needed to be done on terrorism, that's very easy to see!
How can there be rebuttal..............?
Cityboy
Banned
Junkman said:Gee..... I can remember when it was the other way around...... the Republicans hatred of Clinton kept them busy trying to bring him down and not much was accomplished by either side. When was the last time that any one party like the President of the other party??????? Only difference is that now, they are both just getting more mean and down 'n dirty about it.... There is no
I think you can also remember too, the so-called Republican Revolution of 1994 which was motivated by Clinton's attempts to socialize medical care in America and other issues. The repubs mobilized and created the Contract With America, which was an excellent idea; but, as we all have witnessed, they have not continued to follow through today with the principals that won them the legislative majority.
What have the dems proposed? What is their plan for America? They have no plan, that is why they have not already replaced the repubs, who have basically morphed into democrats. The dems are offering nothing different. You are right, Junk, that the repubs dogged Clinton continuously until he left office, just like the dems are doing Bush and the dems did to Reagan. Given this current political climate, the public should be screaming for the repubs to be replaced, and the dems should win in a landslide. But it will still be a hard fight for the dems to gain any seats because no one knows what they stand for and they have given the American public no reason to vote for them instead of the repubs. They are still running on the "anybody but Bush" mentality and basically are doing little to get their message across and continue to resort to what is political name-calling; as someone else here at FF does.
Cityboy said:
It would be much easy to accept dem policy if there was any, all you get is critique of rep with NO follow up as to what they would do. There are no fresh ideas from either side. People know what they got with rep and are more insecure and suspect as to what they'll get without a plan which is the dem dilemma.
Cityboy
Banned
OkeeDon said:
Sorry, Don, but you lack the capability to hurt my feelings. If I chose to drop into the name-calling ditch with you, I could raise your blood pressure to the point your head exploded; but I'm not going there.
You view everone else as an idiot, and yourself as the All-Knowing, All-Seeing, condesending holder of all wisdom and knowledge; and when everyone does not immediately agree with you, you get frustrated and call them names "for their own good".
Please forgive all us idiots for being too blind to see things your way when you spew your propaganda
I completely agree with you Big Dog... A large part of the problems Bush has faced are reminants of Clintons presidency.. It is typical for one administration to leave what some will call a disaster for the next guy to clean up...
Don, I think what you are missing is the possibility for someone else to be right.. You very well may be right, but how can you emphaticly defend your possition on a show you havent seen? Doesnt that leave you vulnerable to look like a fool? I have to say I admire your passion for any subject you get involved in, but your tactics dont win you any supporters.. If you are in fact trying to help people "see the light" , calling names wont get it to happen...Its not about hurting feelings, its more about respect wich you dont show anyone with differing opinions.. Remember the opinion thing... In your opinion, Clinton was brilliant and the perfect supplement to him was Gore(gathered from your previous posts)... Some of us dissagree, automaticly, you call those that dissagree "dumb"(or some other name).. Why is it so difficult for the typical(most of the ones I have met) democrat to accept that there are differing points of veiw, without them just being discounted as stupid??What makes your Republican bashing sources any better than someones Democrat bashing sourses?? ITs all the same crap, based on opinions..
I also agree with CB here, I havent heard any plans...I followed the Bush/Kerry election more than I have any other before and I honestly couldnt tell you one thing Kerry actually stood for other than giving power back to the UN for national security.. Everything else appeard to be a direct negative of whateve Bush said...
Unfortunatly, I also see the Dem-Rep morph...... It was ironic to see the other thread about the origin of a liberal and how its meaning has changed over the years.. I'm not a die hard Republican, in fact I could care less what party one belongs to, as long as they sell themselves with the issues that are important to me withought insulting my intelegance (Dems are fighting a serious deficiency trying to win me over right now).. In reality, we all know that all politicians lie, so its all about selling themselves and showing progress in their past actions, simply voting for a party is the ultimate in ignorance.. He who does it best, wins... If your guy looses, there's no use crying about it, just move on and wait for your next chance..I think we would all be more interested in a viable alternative to the Big Two, and the country would probably be better off... It has turned into a Jerry Springer type show between them and we are forced to pic the guy that addresses our biggest issue.. For some of us, its national security.. For others its welfare and abortion rights(to name a few)... So we are forced to pic whats important to us, whether you agree of not....
Holy Cow.OkeeDon said:
You're sure that of the 6.5 BILLION people in the world, everyone agrees on this?
Lets narrow that down some. Do you actually think the 300 MILLION people in the US would all agree to that?
I for one don't believe he was the smartest...
Here's a bunch of clips from the series:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/krempasky/2006/sep/09/abcs_path_to_9_11_clip_synopsis
I haven't watched them but thought some of you might want to.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/krempasky/2006/sep/09/abcs_path_to_9_11_clip_synopsis
I haven't watched them but thought some of you might want to.
I thought this was interesting. It is not the entire article, just the first part. I highlighted the last sentence, but that is just to show a little contrast in the way the parties seem to be dealing with this.
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]
[/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]Friday, September 8, 2006
[/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Verdana,][SIZE=-1]DAY OF INFAMY 2001[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino,]Clinton aide says
9/11 film 'correct'[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=+1]Producer consulted with military attaché
who saw aborted attacks on bin Laden[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][SIZE=-1]Posted: September 8, 2006
3:33 p.m. Eastern
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]By Art Moore
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=-1] © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Buzz Patterson with President Clinton [FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
In an interview with WND, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty" as a source for the drama. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of "The Path to 9/11" to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
"I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur," Patterson declared. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson was one of five men entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football," which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
Reached by phone at his home in Southern California, Nowrasteh affirmed to WND he consulted with Patterson and gave him a preview of the drama.
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]During the interview this morning, Nowrasteh took a moment to watch as President Clinton's image turned up on his nearby TV screen to criticize the movie. The director did not want to respond directly to Clinton's comments, but offered a general response to critics. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
"Everybody's got to calm down and watch the movie," Nowrasteh told WND. "This is not an indictment of one president or another. The villains are the terrorists. This is a clarion bell for people to wake up and take notice." [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
Patterson pointed out the Bush administration also is depicted in an unfavorable light in the months before 9/11. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]Friday, September 8, 2006
[/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Verdana,][SIZE=-1]DAY OF INFAMY 2001[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino,]Clinton aide says
9/11 film 'correct'[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=+1]Producer consulted with military attaché
who saw aborted attacks on bin Laden[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][SIZE=-1]Posted: September 8, 2006
3:33 p.m. Eastern
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]By Art Moore
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=-1] © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Buzz Patterson with President Clinton [FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
In an interview with WND, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty" as a source for the drama. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of "The Path to 9/11" to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
"I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur," Patterson declared. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson was one of five men entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football," which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
Reached by phone at his home in Southern California, Nowrasteh affirmed to WND he consulted with Patterson and gave him a preview of the drama.
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]During the interview this morning, Nowrasteh took a moment to watch as President Clinton's image turned up on his nearby TV screen to criticize the movie. The director did not want to respond directly to Clinton's comments, but offered a general response to critics. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
"Everybody's got to calm down and watch the movie," Nowrasteh told WND. "This is not an indictment of one president or another. The villains are the terrorists. This is a clarion bell for people to wake up and take notice." [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
Patterson pointed out the Bush administration also is depicted in an unfavorable light in the months before 9/11. [/FONT][/FONT]
Big Dog said:
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]B_Skurka said:
The facts are that the Clinton administration took bin Laden very seriously and put great effort into tracking him and trying to "get" him. The cruise missiles targeted at Dudan were part of it, as were several bombings at training sites in Afghanistan.
It's true that theere was several missions planned and then pulled at the last minute either by the military leaders (most often) or someone at the State Department. In every case that I can recall (and I followed this carefully at the time), it was because there was a suspicion that someone related to our allies was in the area. For example, there was extensive planning to attack one training facility because bin Laden was supposed to be there. At the last moment, someone reported that a Sauidi Arabian official was also in that camp, and the mission was aborted to avoid offending the Saudis. In this regard, the Clinton administration's record was no better than Bush's; they are all kow-towing too much to the Saudis. Of course, the Saudis own a big chunk of us, so they really have no choice.
It's also an established fact -- I'll search and get the details if I must -- that the Clinton administration prepared an extensive position paper on al Queda, bin Laden and the terrorist movement in general. They considered it one of the most important transition documents they handed over. But, the Bush folks largely ignored it. I think that's what you'll see portrayed in the program as being "unfavorable in the months before 9/11".
If that was the extent of it, there weould be no controversy. It's a fact that some missions to get bin Laden were aborted, And, it's fact that the Buh folks were more interested in other things than they were terrorism, and possibly let 9/11 happen because they were asleep at the switch. This is pretty much what the 9/11 commission found in their investigation, and is the principle reason why Bush was so much against the 9/11 Commission before he was forced to authorize it. By the way, there was a lot more protesting from the GOP in those days about the 9/11 Commission than there has been from the Dems over this film.
The problem is, according to reports, this film did not stop with facts. It made up dramatic sequences, primarily about Sandy Berger's role in aborting one of the missions, and also about Madelaine Albright's role. There was no other reason to make up these sequences than to increase dramatic response, and also to try to balance the damage that was being done legitinally to the Bush administration.
"Fictionalize" or "make it up" is a polite way to say, "lie". If the allegations of the DEmocratic protesters are true, then the scenes should be changed to be more accurate.
Several people have raised the issue that I have not seen the film. They miss the point. I am NOT saying that the Dems are right or wrong; I don't know, as pointed out, I haven't seen the film. What I HAVE been protesting is the automatic assumption by the bigots on this forum that the Democrats MUST be wrong because...well, because they're Demsocrats. Go back and read every word I have written; I have never said ABC should or should not pull the scenes; I have said the scenes should be edited IF the Dems are correct, and I'm apparently more willing to let the Dems and ABC sort it out, instead of jumping in like sheep and bleating, "the Dems MUST be wrong, the Dems MUST be wrong..."
It is the words and actions of many of the people on this forum that I'm upset with, not ABC, the Dems or the GOP. You are not open minded, not thinking and not allowing any possibility that something other than your viewpoint might be correct.
If I'm taking extreme measures, or using harsh words, or sounding belligerant or insulting, it's because I'm done being Mr. Nice Guy Democrat. Those tactics don't work with right-wingers. I'm taking a page from Mr. Lumbaugh and using ridicule. I'm taking a page from Mr. O'Reilly and using outrage. I'm taking a page from Mr. Hannity and using bullying. And, I'm taking a page from Ms. Coulter and accusing the Bush folks of TREASON!
As for Robert "Buzz" Patterson, you could hardly have found a less likely neutral witness. He is a super-right wing, ultra conservative ex-militray officer who has a fanatic web site, is a typical right-wing talk show host, and author of a book highly criitical of the Clinton administration -- which has been found to be riddled with exaggerations and inaccuracies.
[/FONT][/FONT]
Last edited:
By the way, I didn't go into it on the other post, but beyond the facts that the Bush administration ignored the Clinton report on terrorism is the allegation that the reason why they piad no attention is because they were already too busy planning an invasion of Iraq -- not only before 9/11, but even before they officially took office, during the transition -- when they should have been paying attention to the Clinton report.
This general situation is nothing new. Adlai Stevenson once made a promise:
I will make a bargain with the Republicans.
If they will stop telling lies about Democrats,
we will stop telling the truth about them.
This general situation is nothing new. Adlai Stevenson once made a promise:
I will make a bargain with the Republicans.
If they will stop telling lies about Democrats,
we will stop telling the truth about them.
No. I'm not the one who started all this on this forum by trying to make someone look bad. It was the blind-faith, right-wing crew on this forum who accused the Democrats of trying to pull something when they entered their protests. My comments are based on a fair, open-minded possibility that the Democrats might actually be right -- I'm the only one of this forum who is publicly willing to take that position. I'm not saying they're right; I don't know. But, it is equally impossible for the right-wingers to say the Dems are wrong, unless they are close-minded, unthinking and not allowing any other viewpoint. And, my protest is against those who automatically assume the Dems are wrong. That is bigoted and prejudiced.bczoom said:Isn't that statement a little hypocritical?
Don, just to satisfy some of my curiosity, I did a google search of "Robert Buzz Patterson" and I'd encourage anyone else to do the same. I went through the first 5 pages of google results. There was no mention of any "exaggerations and inaccuracies" in any of the book reviews. In fact in those first 5 pages of google results, there was nothing bad said about the man in any way shape or form. Perhaps a different search would yield a different result.OkeeDon said:
It does appear that the man does have a web page, but when I reviewed it I would not call it a "fanatic web site" in any way. He is obviously a conservative, not sure that I'd say superpright wing, ultra conservative because most of his views expressed seem to revolve around military type issues, so we have no clue where he stands on many other issues that might define him more closely. I'm sure those can be found. But after reading about him, I would say he is a right wing guy who is upset by what he personally witnessed. His books are a reflection of his concern and if they were riddled with the level of inaccuracies you point out, then it is likely someone would have sued him for liable. But I couldn't find any slander/liable suits against him either.
Perhaps he is more reasonable than you might suggest.
As for the Bush administration, I still don't see the problem with the Path to 9/11 criticizing the Bush administration. If they are also at fault then I want them criticized. I've certainly not been a big defender of the Bush administration. I'm willing and able to see both sides take the heat.