| 13th September 2006 05:48 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
The Path To 9-11 was incredible. So many chances & so many missed opportunities. Both sides, BTW. |
| 13th September 2006 08:37 PM |
|
|
| kath |
quote:
Jon Stewart reaches out to the President while Little Richard gives us the low down…
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/...s-the-low-down/
LOL!!!
i really thought that was pretty good, but i think some fecal material is gonna make contact with the wind-making device.
[Edited by kath] |
| 13th September 2006 10:41 PM |
|
|
| SweetVirginia |
quote:
glencar wrote:
The Path To 9-11 was incredible. So many chances & so many missed opportunities. Both sides, BTW.
I thought it was fascinating. Did you watch part 2 yet? I'm glad that General Massoud was portrayed so sympathetically. We let him down time and again. If he were still alive, there would be no Bin Laden today. His assisination was an essential component of Bin Laden's 9/11 plan.
|
| 13th September 2006 11:41 PM |
|
|
| Lethargy |
quote:
jb wrote:
We are all in this together-democrat, republican, etc. We must stand together, as one, united against evil. I know some of you lost friends or loved ones, and the one thing we can never allow is their deaths to be in vain. To see the children of those who died, 5 yrs later, still suffering from their losses, is truly heartrendering. I watched a piece on Glenn Beck(CNN) about a group , sort of like Big Brothers/Sisters, who provide friendship/companionship for those children whom lost a parent. We owe it to these children to come together and never allow this evil to unveil it's ugly head again. I pray for all of the victims, their families and our nation, who needs to come together again, like we did after 9/11, and show the world what America does when we are attacked. God bless America.
[Edited by jb]
You're the best, JB. If only more Democrats like you could set aside partisian obsessions on this one topic that unites us all. YOU realize the truth of what we're up against, and that doesn't mean you've "turned republican". You know there's plenty of things to still debate - the social issues, the welfare state, health care, social security, etc. - but you're smart enough to realize that on this topic it's a no-brainer that we should all be united.
But alas, to many people - millions, it appears - the only thing that matters is Bush-bashing, Republican-bashing, at literally the expense of all other causes. It's just plain disgusting. |
| 13th September 2006 11:56 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
SweetVirginia wrote:
I thought it was fascinating. Did you watch part 2 yet? I'm glad that General Massoud was portrayed so sympathetically. We let him down time and again. If he were still alive, there would be no Bin Laden today. His assisination was an essential component of Bin Laden's 9/11 plan.
Yes, I did see Pt. 2 earlier this evening. I remember when those ancient Buddhas came down as per Taliban orders. I thought, "What's the big deal?" That was about a week before 9-11. Masoud was killed about then also. |
| 14th September 2006 07:19 AM |
|
|
| Angiegirl |
I totally forgot to watch it! BBC broadcast it here. But then again, all stations only had 9-11 documentaries on, mostly about the conspiracy theories like Loose Change and Michael Moores Fahrenheit 911. I did see a good and balanced one on Belgian TV (I think, or maybe it was one of our own channels) on Sunday night and some other stuff. Ive seen these towers fall way too often this week.
Oh yeah, and there was this show that had an interview with the parents of the only Dutch victim (she run a small business in the North tower of WTC), a young woman, that was quite touching, these poor folks...
[Edited by Angiegirl] |
| 14th September 2006 09:43 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
I saw a TV interview with some nutjob who seriously thought the towers were an inside job. Explosives were rigged & what we saw was apparently a figment of our eyes. The reason? The metal in the towers was giving out & that & the expenses of removing old asbestos made it cheaper to take down the towers. This guy was 100% serious. |
| 14th September 2006 10:51 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
Thanks to all! The laughs I've gotten from this thread are great. Scary, but great! Yeah, the Wilson/Plame have been proven liars! Great stuff! What version of the story is Novak on now? Judy Miller's "liberal NYT"? The we love Bush's Iraq debacle WaPo? Thinking that propaganda hit piece the other night was factual? Stop, it hurts! |
| 14th September 2006 10:55 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
I didn't say it was factual. Some scenes were clearly made up as no one knows what the terrorists had for dinner the night before they killed 3000 people. But teh basic facts are correct & both Clinton & Bush ignored the threat. Some of it was a new administration getting started in Bush's case but the territorialism of the Clinton admin makes one gasp. How fucking stupid were those people? There were many, many warnings & nothing was done to stop the plotters. |
| 14th September 2006 11:58 AM |
|
|
| jb |
Glencar, why was the Yemin ambassador, played by well known conservative Patricai Heaton of Ray Romano show fame, so hostile towards the CIA. Also, I agree, it was a drama, not a documentary. However, the production company, Liberty Films, is a well known right wing organaization, who allowed conservativers like Rush Limbaugh the see it before the critics. |
| 14th September 2006 12:00 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Her name was Barbara Bodine. The movie might have been financed by right wingers but Richard Clarke got a nice edit & he's certainly no friend of conservatives. I will do a search of this Barbara Bodine & see what comes up... |
| 14th September 2006 12:04 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
For my friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Bodine |
| 14th September 2006 12:05 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
It sounds like she was a career diplomat. Maybe she got all turf-happy. In any case, she can't be counted as a partisan casualty. |
| 14th September 2006 12:07 PM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
glencar wrote:
It sounds like she was a career diplomat. Maybe she got all turf-happy. In any case, she can't be counted as a partisan casualty.
I would have banged her. She had a nice boob job and succulent mouth. |
| 14th September 2006 12:10 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
Not to mention written by an unabashed Clinton hater and former Falcon Crest writer. Also, until they were called on it, ABC did all they could to promote this as THE events that led up to that horrible day. Their posters proclaimed it was based on the 9/11 Commission Report and right up until it aired overseas they were proclaiming that it was TRUE account.
Sorry, but the REAL story was plenty dramatic and didn't need to be changed to pursue a partisan agenda.
Meanwhile, 5 years later, the man responsible for 3000 deaths that day is still running around and only seems to become important for this Administration around election times. But, we sure taught that Saddam guy a lesson, didn't we? |
| 14th September 2006 12:13 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Ooh, a Falcon Crest writer! What was that - 20 years ago? About that time Al Franken was unemployed. It looks likely that he'll be unemployed again shortly. Life is good. And yes, the Clintonistas had many, many chances to get UBL & they punted. Thanks, assholes! |
| 14th September 2006 12:13 PM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Not to mention written by an unabashed Clinton hater and former Falcon Crest writer. Also, until they were called on it, ABC did all they could to promote this as THE events that led up to that horrible day. Their posters proclaimed it was based on the 9/11 Commission Report and right up until it aired overseas they were proclaiming that it was TRUE account.
Sorry, but the REAL story was plenty dramatic and didn't need to be changed to pursue a partisan agenda.
Meanwhile, 5 years later, the man responsible for 3000 deaths that day is still running around and only seems to become important for this Administration around election times. But, we sure taught that Saddam guy a lesson, didn't we?
You sound like one of those pussies we've been talking about...enlist or shut the fuck up |
| 14th September 2006 12:16 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
Now that was funny! |
| 14th September 2006 12:17 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Ooh, a Falcon Crest writer! What was that - 20 years ago? About that time Al Franken was unemployed. It looks likely that he'll be unemployed again shortly. Life is good. And yes, the Clintonistas had many, many chances to get UBL & they punted. Thanks, assholes!
Nice try. Were opportunities missed? Possibly. But ignored, not quite. His administration did more to fight terrorism than any previous administration despite Republican obstructionists. And when he did use military force to try to get bin Laden, the Republicans jumped up and down in a tizzy screaming something about dogs and wagging. Meanwhile, Dubya is warned that AQ is the biggest threat he'll face and plans for war with Iraq. He's given another threat assessment that AQ is determined to carry out a massive strike and he stays on vacation, clearing brush. To date, there is no evidence that the Bush Administration to the threat of terrorism seriously prior to 9/11. In fact, Condi was scheduled to deliver a major speech on 9/11 about the "threat" Iraq posed. I guess that was telling as to what they were focusing on. Good job and thanks.
[Edited by rasputin56] |
| 14th September 2006 12:44 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
I am just curious, is there anyone that posts here that really thinks that 9/11 was an inside job or a conspriacy?
I am dead serious, I would like to know if anyone truly believes this. |
| 14th September 2006 12:48 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Nice try. Were opportunities missed? Possibly. But ignored, not quite. His administration did more to fight terrorism than any previous administration despite Republican obstructionists. And when he did use military force to try to get bin Laden, the Republicans jumped up and down in a tizzy screaming something about dogs and wagging. Meanwhile, Dubya is warned that AQ is the biggest threat he'll face and plans for war with Iraq. He's given another threat assessment that AQ is determined to carry out a massive strike and he stays on vacation, clearing brush. To date, there is no evidence that the Bush Administration to the threat of terrorism seriously prior to 9/11. In fact, Condi was scheduled to deliver a major speech on 9/11 about the "threat" Iraq posed. I guess that was telling as to what they were focusing on. Good job and thanks.
[Edited by rasputin56]
Plenty of times opportunities were missed. Tenet couldn't commit to General Masoud. He couldn't commit to offing UBL. Sandy Burglar was another fool. Madeline Albright was adequate at the macarena but really, we needed an actual SecState. Did you actually catch the movie? Or are you one who criticizes what you can't see? |
| 14th September 2006 12:52 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
Is there anyone here that believes that the US government has divulged everything it knows about the attacks of 9/11? |
| 14th September 2006 12:53 PM |
|
|
| jb |
What happened to Mossoud? He was the Northern Alliance leader and seemed favorable to the US. |
| 14th September 2006 12:54 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
No, I didn't catch the "movie". I've read actual transcripts of some of the made up scenes, though. Why deal with fantasy? I read the 9/11 Commission report which to date is the only body that has actually investigated and used actual evidence to come to conclusions based on that evidence (despite the objections of the President and the Republicans). I guess I'd rather go by that than some right-wing, evangelical-backed hit piece like this mockumentary was. |
| 14th September 2006 12:56 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
quote:
jb wrote:
What happened to Mossoud? He was the Northern Alliance leader and seemed favorable to the US.
He was taken out by BinLaden on Sept 9th, 2001. |
| 14th September 2006 12:56 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
jb wrote:
What happened to Mossoud? He was the Northern Alliance leader and seemed favorable to the US.
He was assassinated by a crew pretending to do an interview with him. That actor playing him did a real great job especially considering he was probably an evangelical & all... |
| 14th September 2006 12:59 PM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
monkey_man wrote:
He was taken out by BinLaden on Sept 9th, 2001.
Not good. |
| 14th September 2006 01:00 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
No - it ruined his day!
|
| 14th September 2006 01:09 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Via Ann C:
According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:
— Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."
— CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."
— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process." (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)
— Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."
Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush — but eight years of Bill Clinton.
Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen. |
| 14th September 2006 01:26 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Via Ann C:
According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:
— Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."
— CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."
— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process." (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)
— Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."
Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush — but eight years of Bill Clinton.
Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.
Lies Blue! All contemptable lies!! LOL! Shit there was a speech that Bubba made in 2002 where he specifically recalls Sudan trying to unload UBL to the USA,but Bubba said that we did not "have sufficient evidence" that he was "directly" responsible for "many of those attacks" so Bubba begged(his words!) Suadi Arabia to take him but they refused to. The rest is history,but it points to exactly to the method that Dems,even to this day,deal with terrorism. Namely handle it as a crime,and not the obvious act of war that it is. And they expect us to trust them with national security?!?!?! Please! See-Jimma Carter(worst POTUS ever)
Riffy |
