ABC Mini-series - Path to 9/11

[pourts]

Ah yes, the free ride of Clinton's entire time in office... I forgot about how everyone in the press rolled over.

Clinton getting "reamed" in the press? I vehemently disagree with you, sir. For the most part he got a free pass. But I will say this: the free pass was partly due to his political TALENT. That man could talk Chuck Norris into putting on a nurse outfit and switching places with Monica. When you start off with a general philosophy of distrusting the main stream media (like Bush) they will make you pay for that.

Some have claimed that some scenes from the miniseries are not anything like the 9/11 report. Well, Abel Danger wasn't included in the 9/11 report, and that took place. Maybe the reason some of these damning anecdotes aren't in the report is because Sandy Berger destroyed documents before the hearing:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050908-1121-bergersentenced.html

Sure hindsight is 20/20; but Clinton was in the best position to deal with bin Laden, and it was his responsibility. Given the public's lack of interest in UBL, it is almost understandable that Clinton passed on taking him out/ capturing him on several occasions (via Sudan, UAE prince incident, etc). However, this "dirty laundry" of what led to 9/11 needs to be "aired" (via ABC) lest people forget about these jihadi's and drift back to the law enforcement "LET THEM COME TO US" approach.

Not saying that invading every country is the right approach, but sitting back with thumbs up a$$es (the path to 9/11) is not the way to go.

 

[thenuge]

Yeah, Clinton could have done more prehaps, so could have Bush. What I am really interested in though is the sequel--The Path to Iraq.

Just out of curiosity- If we got hit tomorrow, whose fault would it be? No, no, let me guess...Clinton's

 

[jmiller82]

Pourts, I agree with you.. Man, I forgot all about the Bergen incident of documents being withheld/destroyed.. Another questionable act of the Clinton administration was when the current CinC (Bush) and his family & staff moved into the White House, the Clintons had their staff rip up the carpet and destroy a lot of the "personal" touches that the Clintons had selected during their tenure at the White House. Pretty crumby if you ask me, but also since the taxpayers have to buy all new carpet again (I think it had been replaced just for Hillary, so it was fairly new, too)..
Anyway, not my place to bring it up, but since it seems to be occurring more often: I thought it was against policy/unwritten law to openly speak against the current CinC (regardless of who's in office).. If so, then why are people still "second-guessing" the current CinC's decisions, etc., especially given that alot of them are actually carrying them out? Just a question, not naming any names..

 

[Flash]

Clinton getting "reamed" in the press? I vehemently disagree with you, sir. For the most part he got a free pass. But I will say this: the free pass was partly due to his political TALENT. That man could talk Chuck Norris into putting on a nurse outfit and switching places with Monica. When you start off with a general philosophy of distrusting the main stream media (like Bush) they will make you pay for that.

Some have claimed that some scenes from the miniseries are not anything like the 9/11 report. Well, Abel Danger wasn't included in the 9/11 report, and that took place. Maybe the reason some of these damning anecdotes aren't in the report is because Sandy Berger destroyed documents before the hearing:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050908-1121-bergersentenced.html

Sure hindsight is 20/20; but Clinton was in the best position to deal with bin Laden, and it was his responsibility. Given the public's lack of interest in UBL, it is almost understandable that Clinton passed on taking him out/ capturing him on several occasions (via Sudan, UAE prince incident, etc). However, this "dirty laundry" of what led to 9/11 needs to be "aired" (via ABC) lest people forget about these jihadi's and drift back to the law enforcement "LET THEM COME TO US" approach.

Not saying that invading every country is the right approach, but sitting back with thumbs up a$$es (the path to 9/11) is not the way to go.

Please, not with the Able Danger BS again. Please show me proof that particular program did any good......and something more than the 'recollections' of several of the people who were peripherally involved in the program. If you did not kno walready, the main guy pushing Able Danger had his security clearance suspended, before he went public (ie. not a result of him goign public).

"UAE prince incident".....Eh, show me some proof other than conjecture........until then.......:sleep_125

 

[Flash]

Pourts, I agree with you.. Man, I forgot all about the Bergen incident of documents being withheld/destroyed.. Another questionable act of the Clinton administration was when the current CinC (Bush) and his family & staff moved into the White House, the Clintons had their staff rip up the carpet and destroy a lot of the "personal" touches that the Clintons had selected during their tenure at the White House. Pretty crumby if you ask me, but also since the taxpayers have to buy all new carpet again (I think it had been replaced just for Hillary, so it was fairly new, too)..
Anyway, not my place to bring it up, but since it seems to be occurring more often: I thought it was against policy/unwritten law to openly speak against the current CinC (regardless of who's in office).. If so, then why are people still "second-guessing" the current CinC's decisions, etc., especially given that alot of them are actually carrying them out? Just a question, not naming any names..

Huh?! The Clintons took some furniture (still not clear about what they took) and the staff took out the W's on some computer keyboards but I never heard anything about ripping up the carpet, I think that something like that would have been big news. Please cite a source.......preferably not a blog......

 

[squorch2]

I never said he got reamed... I said that he didn't get a free pass.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

FYI....I was just setting my TiVo to record The Path to 9/11 tonight and tomorrow. Apparently, Pres. Bush is giving a speech right in the middle of the program tomorrow from 9:00 - 9:20pm. And then once the speech is complete, the program (9/11) tunes back in till 10:17pm. Interesting.....clever I might add.....regardless of whether this speech is "political" or not, I think the timing of it will get maximum exposure compared to waiting till after the 9/11 program is over.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

So, you can’t talk sh!t about the President while he is in the chain of command, but you can talk sh!t after he leaves office?

If you're specifically referring to folks in uniform criticizing their CINC.....no, that is bad juju. Now if on the other hand, you are referring to folks in uniform criticizing other presidents who are no longer in office and who are no longer CINC, then yes, that is entirely appropriate.

Or is that only acceptable when talking about former Democratic leadership?

I think you would find very few folks (military types) putting up with open criticism of a Democratic CINC just as you do a Republican CINC.

I repeat, I am not a Democrat.

I care more about philosophies and values than certain labels. Why are you so intent on ensuring we know you're not a Democrat. Does it really matter?

 

[pourts]

Please, not with the Able Danger BS again. Please show me proof that particular program did any good......and something more than the 'recollections' of several of the people who were peripherally involved in the program. If you did not kno walready, the main guy pushing Able Danger had his security clearance suspended, before he went public (ie. not a result of him goign public).

"UAE prince incident".....Eh, show me some proof other than conjecture........until then.......:sleep_125

I mentioned Able Danger only to reference the fact that pertinent things were left out of the 9/11 report. A good report all in all (nothing's perfect) but not 100% accurate.

The UAE prince link is in an earlier post on this thread.

Good or bad, there has been plenty of second guessing/questioning/hard looks at Bush and his foreign policy by the main stream media while he is a sitting president. Some think this undermines the mission and our deployed troops. Some think it is an important element of our democracy. I won't make a judgment on that here. However, I do think Clinton's record should be examined at least as thoroughly by the main stream media as Bush's is these days. Not saying anyone should go Dan Rather on Bill Clinton and falsify evidence, but his mistakes should get the same hard look.

 

[thenuge]

I care more about philosophies and values than certain labels. Why are you so intent on ensuring we know you're not a Democrat. Does it really matter?

I too care more about philosophies and values. I am not in lock step with either party. The reason I felt obliged to say I am not a democrat is because of the conservative atmosphere in general in the military or here where I live right now- that being the buckle of the bible belt, Nashville TN. And with signatures like, "Liberalism - The political ideology of people who live in a world filled with sunshine, lollypops, and rainbows."-- I thought it important to disclose that information.

Does it really matter? No it does not. I guess it's just out of habit that I say this. Too many bad experiences dealing with kool-aid drinkers on both sides of the isle. I have an innate sense if I am about to be called out for being one so I figured I would just preface what I said with " I am not a democrat".

Now, are you just f'ckn with me because of the whole "aight" thing from the supplement thread? :spin_125:

 

[Flash]

I mentioned Able Danger only to reference the fact that pertinent things were left out of the 9/11 report. A good report all in all (nothing's perfect) but not 100% accurate.

The UAE prince link is in an earlier post on this thread.

Good or bad, there has been plenty of second guessing/questioning/hard looks at Bush and his foreign policy by the main stream media while he is a sitting president. Some think this undermines the mission and our deployed troops. Some think it is an important element of our democracy. I won't make a judgment on that here. However, I do think Clinton's record should be examined at least as thoroughly by the main stream media as Bush's is these days. Not saying anyone should go Dan Rather on Bill Clinton and falsify evidence, but his mistakes should get the same hard look.

Neither example you give is a very good one, both have so many holes in them I wouldn't use them to back up your arguments.

 

[pourts]

What about it? It's not like these issues aren't discussed, examined, and soul-searched by the mainstream media ad nauseum. You say you agree Clinton dropped the ball... where's the insightful, retrospective special reports saying "this is how Clinton screwed up and this is how we can avoid being so complacent in the future"?? It's not like there's any shortage of ammunition to hit him with there, give how little he payed attention to national security issues. Billy Boy has gotten a free pass, and that's where the rage comes from.

Flash: This is going in circles now, sir. Turn and Burn said it all above earlier. While the exact events in the miniseries absolutely didn't happen as filmed, those type of events most certainly did-- Clinton's administration had many chances to get UBL after he attacked us throughout the 90's, PERIOD. Look at reports from any credible western news agency, ex-CIA case officer interviews, or even the 9/11 report to fill in those "holes" you vaguely reference in my links. Or, ask Sandy Berger about the info in the documents he destroyed.
I even gave you an "out" by saying that very few in USA paid serious attention to bin Laden before 9/11.

Regarding the actual show--it was nice not having any commercials. ABC did a damn good job unlike most of what else is on TV.

 

[The Chief]

... Regarding the actual show--it was nice not having any commercials. ABC did a damn good job unlike most of what else is on TV.

Absolutely. Fine job. Hats off to ABC.

 

[Flash]

Flash: This is going in circles now, sir. Turn and Burn said it all above earlier. While the exact events in the miniseries absolutely didn't happen as filmed, those type of events most certainly did-- Clinton's administration had many chances to get UBL after he attacked us throughout the 90's, PERIOD. Look at reports from any credible western news agency, ex-CIA case officer interviews, or even the 9/11 report to fill in those "holes" you vaguely reference in my links. Or, ask Sandy Berger about the info in the documents he destroyed.
I even gave you an "out" by saying that very few in USA paid serious attention to bin Laden before 9/11.

Regarding the actual show--it was nice not having any commercials. ABC did a damn good job unlike most of what else is on TV.

The above statement shows that you just don't get my point at all. While this mini-series portrays itself as a history of events up to 9/11, it 'dramatizes' several things for effect. That is not history, it is fiction. PERIOD. If you want to portray something as a history then stick to the facts, not what you supposed might have happened or similar to what happened.

If you want to debate the merits of the program or the Clinton administrations' reaction to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, then present some facts, not scenes from a TV movie or discredited innuendo. And if you really want to debate the history of our dealings with terrorist organizations then you might want to go further back, to the Carter administration, and through the Reagan, Bush I and Clinton adminsitrations. If I remember correctly, only one administration ever tried to make a deal with a terror organization and its supporters. It also happened to be the first one that tried to strike back at the state supporters of terrorism. Can you guess the administration? To get a full historical perspective on this country's experience with terrorism you have to look back a lot further than the 90's.

One more historical inaccuracy that was pointed out in a review was the misidentification of the newspaper that was the source of the leak about the US tracking Bin Laden's satellite phone as the Washington Post. Can anyone guess the newspaper that did leak that info?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

History is largely dependent on the person interpreting and writing about historical "facts", as well as that person's political, cultural, and personal biases.

I'll give you an example just for reference. I have four books on my bookshelf that cover U.S. history from the pre-colonization period to "present day" - present day meaning anywhere from the late 80's to early '00's. All four books take a different view on historical events. Some views are only slightly different, while others seem like they're explaining completely different circumstances. That's just the nature of history.

The books are:
A History of the American People, by Paul Johnson
A Patriot's History of the United States, by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen
The Penguin History of the USA, by Hugh Brogan
A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn