Thread: The Liberal Media and The Path to 9/11

Wasn't there always a wall between the CIA and FBI and other agencies sort of for checks and balances reasons? I believe Clinton was scared of trying to look as if he were "Wagging the dog" during the Deepthroat affair so he didn't do as much to try and get Bin Laden as he could and should have.

No I have to check the blinker fluid levels and change the air in my spare tires in all of my cars those two nights.

When I hear "liberal" media I think free unrestricted, why wouldn't we want our media to be free and unrestricted. Thereby I see this show as having as much right to do as it pleases as any other medium. And as I tell those who complain about just about everything in the media these days I will choose to not watch it.

Originally Posted by maniclion

When I hear "liberal" media I think free unrestricted

That sounds peachy, but that's simply not the case. It means that they tow the Democrat party line. It's no more "free" than the "conservative media." Hell, there are no "free" major news outlets.

The Colts/Giants are on NBC Sunday night. Eli Manning vs Peyton Manning. How could anyone watch anything else and call themselves a true American?

Originally Posted by Decker

ABC will present a docudrama about the attacks of 9/11 on its fifth anniversary this Sunday and Monday. Disney/ABC bankrolled the $40 million dollar show and will air it without commercial interruption. That’s a lot of lost revenue for the media giant but it’s done in the service of edifying this important moment in American history (Disney plans to distribute the film to schools across the country as an educational device via the Internet).

The movie purportedly contains portrayals of the Clinton administration as criminally negligent at best and diabolically indifferent at worst. For example:

• Clinton’s administration refused to permit the CIA’s assassination or capture of Osama Bin Laden
• Clinton erected (hahaha) a wall between the CIA and FBI
• Clinton is portrayed as absorbed in the Monica Lewinsky affair and thus completely indifferent to the exploits of Bin Laden
• Madeleine Albright is shown to ‘tip-off’ the Pakistanis about a US bombing raid to get Bin Laden therefore allowing Bin Laden time to escape.

The commonality to all of the above situations is that they never happened. Complete fabrications.

Defenders of the film claim that those above scenes are composites based on multiple sources and subject to artistic interpretation. On the other hand, these same defenders also trumpet the official 9/11 Commission Report as the main source of the film. Incidentally, the Bush Administration suffers from no such negative interpretations in the movie.

First, is there anyone out there that still seriously believes in the Liberal Media? This little gem of a movie—broadcast nationwide, commercial free—coincides with the upcoming election cycle.

Second, will you watch?

yes, I do believe it liberal media bias...and right media bais. They are ALL bias. This movie is going to be the rights version of farenheit 9/11...except hollywood won't give them an award and call the producer aan american hero.

second, I'm sure there is a lot of historical fiction...but how do you KNOW all of that is NOT true...not that its important anyway...the past is the past and I could care less about slick willie.

third, I will watch it and thank you for feeding the hype.

www.itsallpolitics.com

Originally Posted by lnvanry

yes, I do believe it liberal media bias...and right media bais. They are ALL bias. This movie is going to be the rights version of farenheit 9/11...except hollywood won't give them an award and call the producer aan american hero.

second, I'm sure there is a lot of historical fiction...but how do you KNOW all of that is NOT true...not that its important anyway...the past is the past and I could care less about slick willie.

third, I will watch it and thank you for feeding the hype.

www.itsallpolitics.com

Originally Posted by DOMS

That sounds peachy, but that's simply not the case. It means that they tow the Democrat party line. It's no more "free" than the "conservative media." Hell, there are no "free" major news outlets.

What I mean by free, is Freedom of Speech it doesn't have a little * and a note saying "But only if deemed factual by Goofus or Gallant."

Originally Posted by maniclion

What I mean by free, is Freedom of Speech it doesn't have a little * and a note saying "But only if deemed factual by Goofus or Gallant."

What I mean by free is: Free of agenda. It it's not, it shouldn't be called news, it should be called entertainment.

You're okay with hidden agenda masquerading as news, but I'm not.

Bill Clinton has gone on camera stating that he doesn't want any LIES to be in the movie...

how credible is he when it comes to honesty?

Originally Posted by lnvanry

Bill Clinton has gone on camera stating that he doesn't want any LIES to be in the movie...

how credible is he when it comes to honesty?

True story, and George Bush, his son GWB, Nixon and Reagan never told lies and are/were 100% credible. ROFL

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

True story, and George Bush, his son GWB, Nixon and Reagan never told lies and are/were 100% credible. ROFL

True Story, I agree 100%

Originally Posted by I Are Baboon

The Colts/Giants are on NBC Sunday night. Eli Manning vs Peyton Manning. How could anyone watch anything else and call themselves a true American?

Absofuckinglutely

That is truly disgusting. I know if I watch it I will become angry again, suspect every middle eastern person that I see a suicidal maniac and be worrysome of flying on airplanes. Fuck that, I spent the last 5 years getting rid of those feelings, I'll be watching football.

Originally Posted by lnvanry

...This movie is going to be the rights version of farenheit 9/11...except hollywood won't give them an award and call the producer aan american hero.

First, I don't recall hollywood's anointing Moore a hero. But did Farenheit 9/11 trumpet that it was "taken from the pages of the 9/11 commission's report?" (read, the official account of what happened on 9/11) Was it distributed across the country as an education aid to schools? Was it given free of charge to every american in the country?
No to all of those questions. So your comparison is not apt.

Originally Posted by Ivanry

second, I'm sure there is a lot of historical fiction...but how do you KNOW all of that is NOT true...not that its important anyway...the past is the past and I could care less about slick willie.

Irrelevant. I don't have to disprove all historical fiction; only the fiction of Path to 9/11.

Originally Posted by Ivanry

third, I will watch it and thank you for feeding the hype.

www.itsallpolitics.com

I don't have to feed the hype...apparently you've already indulged your appetite w/ the fantasy of this "docudrama."

Originally Posted by Decker

ABC will present a docudrama about the attacks of 9/11 on its fifth anniversary this Sunday and Monday. Disney/ABC bankrolled the $40 million dollar show and will air it without commercial interruption. That’s a lot of lost revenue for the media giant but it’s done in the service of edifying this important moment in American history (Disney plans to distribute the film to schools across the country as an educational device via the Internet).

The movie purportedly contains portrayals of the Clinton administration as criminally negligent at best and diabolically indifferent at worst. For example:

• Clinton’s administration refused to permit the CIA’s assassination or capture of Osama Bin Laden
• Clinton erected (hahaha) a wall between the CIA and FBI
• Clinton is portrayed as absorbed in the Monica Lewinsky affair and thus completely indifferent to the exploits of Bin Laden
• Madeleine Albright is shown to ‘tip-off’ the Pakistanis about a US bombing raid to get Bin Laden therefore allowing Bin Laden time to escape.

The commonality to all of the above situations is that they never happened. Complete fabrications.

Defenders of the film claim that those above scenes are composites based on multiple sources and subject to artistic interpretation. On the other hand, these same defenders also trumpet the official 9/11 Commission Report as the main source of the film. Incidentally, the Bush Administration suffers from no such negative interpretations in the movie.

First, is there anyone out there that still seriously believes in the Liberal Media? This little gem of a movie—broadcast nationwide, commercial free—coincides with the upcoming election cycle.

Second, will you watch?

Clinton dropped the ball BEFORE 9/11,

Bush dropped the ball AFTER 9/11.


The military leaders asked for 600-800 troops for Tora Bora.

They got 50 to 60.


The leaders of the U.S. government do not want to catch Bin Laden.

It's better for them to have him out there.

Originally Posted by DOMS

....hidden agenda masquerading as news, but I'm not.

I like that statement. It's not so much that the movie is baloney, it's that it exists in the dual world of entertainment and news. That's a recipe for propaganda. The distribution of the film bothers me--free to anyone w/ a TV and free to schools as a teaching aid. That implies something of an official record.

That and the fact that the producers keep mentioning 'torn from the 9/11 report...'

Question the veracity of the film and they say it's only a docudrama. Talk about having it both ways.

Originally Posted by Mr_Snafu

Clinton dropped the ball BEFORE 9/11,

Bush dropped the ball AFTER 9/11.

The evidence out there is that Clinton did not drop the ball and that Bush did not even care there was a game. The so-called wall btn the FBI and CIA was erected long before Clinton took office. Did Clinton's admin catch the bombers from the '93 bombing of the towers? Yes. Did clinton try to have the foreign safe havens for financing (money laundering) terrorism shut down? Yes. But he was soundly defeated by the republicans (esp. Phil Gramm--he called it totalitarian) in that respect. Oh yes, the heritage foundation shared that sentiment. Did Clinton try to kill Bin Laden? Yes, he authorized the assassination and tried to bomb him. There's much more than this.

Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:

• Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
• Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
• Passenger Profiling: $10 million
• Screener Training: $5.3 million
• Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
• Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
  million
• Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
• Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
• Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
• Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
• Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
• Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
• Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
• Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
• Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
• Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
• Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
• Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
• Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
• Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
• Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
• Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million

Clemson....are you reading this? Cut and paste cut and paste cut and paste....all cutting and no pasting makes Decker a dull boy....all cutting and no pasting makes......

Originally Posted by Decker

I like that statement. It's not so much that the movie is baloney, it's that it exists in the dual world of entertainment and news. That's a recipe for propaganda. The distribution of the film bothers me--free to anyone w/ a TV and free to schools as a teaching aid. That implies something of an official record.

That and the fact that the producers keep mentioning 'torn from the 9/11 report...'

Question the veracity of the film and they say it's only a docudrama. Talk about having it both ways.

I'm not just talking about the movie. I'm also referring to the major media outlets. It should be illegal for a news company to go public. It's a conflict of interest.

Originally Posted by Decker

The evidence out there is that Clinton did not drop the ball

Your post lost credibility right here. Slick Willey dropped the ball in a spectacular fashion. By never really retaliating, he sent the message that attacking the US was a safe thing to do. This culminated in 9/11.

HOw did this show fare? I imagine it shitbombed, but think Fahrenheit would have this far out from the event as well.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Your post lost credibility right here. Slick Willey dropped the ball in a spectacular fashion. By never really retaliating, he sent the message that attacking the US was a safe thing to do. This culminated in 9/11.

He had the '93 bombers arreste.

I also think it is fairly plain to see that attacking terrorists(i.e., use of traditional military) is a hopeless fiasco. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. The best way to battle terrorism is through competent police work---the sort the British used to foil that recent terrorist plot. It goes to the nature of your opponent: decentralized guerillas.

Clinton did authorize the assassination of OBL--our main nemesis, he went after Al Qaeda's financial underpinnings and he passed progressive measures now being taken up by the Dept. of Homeland Security. As a matter of record, Clinton's effort to battle terrorism was defeated by a reactionary republican majority. For a back-burner topic, he did quite a bit to battle terrorism.

Originally Posted by Decker

He had the '93 bombers arreste.

I also think it is fairly plain to see that attacking terrorists(i.e., use of traditional military) is a hopeless fiasco. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. The best way to battle terrorism is through competent police work---the sort the British used to foil that recent terrorist plot. It goes to the nature of your opponent: decentralized guerillas.

Clinton did authorize the assassination of OBL--our main nemesis, he went after Al Qaeda's financial underpinnings and he passed progressive measures now being taken up by the Dept. of Homeland Security. As a matter of record, Clinton's effort to battle terrorism was defeated by a reactionary republican majority. For a back-burner topic, he did quite a bit to battle terrorism.

Yeah, he got the '93 bombers. He didn't do anything of substance afterwards. Bomb an aspirin factory? Bomb an empty terrorist training facility? Get the UN to issue some tough sounding letters?

The British weren't he only ones to foil their plans (nice ommision though). No the best way is not to go after their financial backing (thought it does help). The best way is to make it clear that any country found harboring the terrorists gets bombed into nothing. After one or two examples are made, the other countries will also take an interest in getting rid of the terrorist. After a while, they'll have no place to hide.

"Clinton did authorize the assassination of OBL" Whoopdie-doo. And he didn't do crap about it. He was offered OBL on three occasions by the Saudis and turned them down.

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

True story, and George Bush, his son GWB, Nixon and Reagan never told lies and are/were 100% credible. ROFL

that had absolutely nothing to do with his point. The subject was Clinton's lies. I'm not defending Bush in any fashion, but your failure to stay on topic & once again make it about Bush is what you should be 'ROFL' about.

But to no surprise, BigDyl agrees.

Originally Posted by Decker

The evidence out there is that Clinton did not drop the ball

I made it this far.. won't bother with the rest.

Sorry Decker, but that was too well put not to laugh at.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

that had absolutely nothing to do with his point. The subject was Clinton's lies. I'm not defending Bush in any fashion, but your failure to stay on topic & once again make it about Bush is what you should be 'ROFL' about.

But to no surprise, BigDyl agrees.

I made up a new term for him: dick puppet.

that'll work.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Yeah, he got the '93 bombers. He didn't do anything of substance afterwards. Bomb an aspirin factory? Bomb an empty terrorist training facility? Get the UN to issue some tough sounding letters?

Yes those are things of substance. Here're some more:
These things are from the 1996 Omnibus anti-terro legislation....1996:
· Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
· Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
· Passenger Profiling: $10 million
· Screener Training: $5.3 million
· Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
· Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
· Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
· Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
· Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
· Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
· Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
· Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
· Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
· Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
· Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
· Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
· Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
· Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
· Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
· Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
· Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
· Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million

Originally Posted by DOMS

The British weren't he only ones to foil their plans (nice ommision though). No the best way is not to go after their financial backing (thought it does help). The best way is to make it clear that any country found harboring the terrorists gets bombed into nothing. After one or two examples are made, the other countries will also take an interest in getting rid of the terrorist. After a while, they'll have no place to hide.

The British were the principals and the Pakistanis helped. How does that omission change the substance/conclusion that sound Police work is superior to a ham-handed military invasion? The results speak for themselves---Iraq invasion-Bad; British arrests--Good (and a lot less costly in money and lives). I cannot argue with the point that wholesale obliteration of a people or society is desirable. I find that irrational.

Originally Posted by DOMS

"Clinton did authorize the assassination of OBL" Whoopdie-doo. And he didn't do crap about it. He was offered OBL on three occasions by the Saudis and turned them down.

Look, when clinton authorized the assassination, you, and I'd wager a good portion of the public, did not even know who Osama Bin Laden was. In light of the ongoing republican war against him and the low profile of the matter, Clinton did a pretty damn good job. As for the Bin Laden's head on a platter fantasy, it never happened. The 9/11 commission made that conclusion.

Why Clinton's opponents have to manufacture shit like The Path to 9/11 or OBL's head on a platter....3 TIMES is beyond me.

Clinton did other things that I'd argue were criminal but certainly not that BS.