ABC Path To 911 Movie

[kg4kww]

I watched the movie both nights it was on and I felt that it showed the truth that the Dems showed cowerdace in the face of danger. It showed how the FBI and CIA agents tried to tell the higher ups the truth about what was going on and how they were ignored.

Good Movie.

[N7RJD]

Didn't see it, don't watch networks at all, ever.

Judging by the previous comments regarding that program you may now want to duck with all due haste. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K0RGR]

The program was written by a personal friend of Rush Limbaugh, who loved the nice propaganda piece.

ABC is banned from my house forever, along with Disney.

We need a
responsible political discourse in America, not Rush ditttohead propaganda on prime time TV.

Even if Clinton personally bought the airline tickets for Osama, it does not matter at all in light of what the Bushies have done since then.

[K6BBC]

A classic case of one seeing what one wants to see.

It seemed to me that the Clinton administration was at least engaged in the terror issue. It sure appeared to me that the Bush admin was not even interested. Bush got a warning the Bin Ladin was “determined to strike inside America” and they ignored it.

Although the movie was based on a true story, it was a fictional account.

Bottom line for me was it was a very cool movie and pointed out that our government is grossly incompetent. But I knew that. I’ve been to the DMV.

K6BBC

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Sep. 14 2006,11:53)]Bush got a warning the Bin Ladin was “determined to strike inside America” and they ignored it.
Can you say too busy trying to figure out how to get the public to accept going into Iraq to finish what Daddy started?

Of course I say GW trying to finish for Daddy but let's not forget who was Defense Secretary in 1991 and the first Gulf War, Mr. Dick Halliburton Cheney himself.

[K6BBC]

Quote[/b] (KE7DLG @ Sep. 14 2006,18:28)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Sep. 14 2006,11:53)]Bush got a warning the Bin Ladin was “determined to strike inside America” and they ignored it.
Can you say too busy trying to figure out how to get the public to accept going into Iraq to finish what Daddy started?

Of course I say GW trying to finish for Daddy but let's not forget who was Defense Secretary in 1991 and the first Gulf War, Mr. Dick Halliburton Cheney himself.
Personally, I don’t believe (at least I hope not) that is true. I think they became fixated on Iraq after 9/11 – but perhaps I am being very naive. I really sensed Bush turned to the neo-cons after 9/11 because he really did not have a clue what to do. This is a guy who had so little intellectual curiosity about the world that he never left North America until he became president.

K6BBC

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Sep. 14 2006,18:35)]Quote[/b] (KE7DLG @ Sep. 14 2006,18:28)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Sep. 14 2006,11:53)]Bush got a warning the Bin Ladin was “determined to strike inside America” and they ignored it.
Can you say too busy trying to figure out how to get the public to accept going into Iraq to finish what Daddy started?

Of course I say GW trying to finish for Daddy but let's not forget who was Defense Secretary in 1991 and the first Gulf War, Mr. Dick Halliburton Cheney himself.
Personally, I don’t believe (at least I hope not) that is true. I think they became fixated on Iraq after 9/11 – but perhaps I am being very naive. I really sensed Bush turned to the neo-cons after 9/11 because he really did not have a clue what to do. This is a guy who had so little intellectual curiosity about the world that he never left North America until he became president.

K6BBC
No - Bush was talking about Iraq long before 9/11, and Richard Clark and Bush's first Treasury Secretary have both told us that at the very first cabinet meeting, Bush told them to find any evidence they possibly could use against Iraq.

This war was a done deal as soon as Bush's brother down in Florida stufffed all those ballot boxes.

[KA8DKT]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Sep. 14 2006,20:14)]I watched the movie both nights it was on and I felt that it showed the truth that the Dems showed cowerdace in the face of danger. It showed how the FBI and CIA agents tried to tell the higher ups the truth about what was going on and how they were ignored.

Good Movie.
You "felt" it showed the truth.

Did you trouble yourself to check public records? #Did you trouble yourself to verify the events depicted in the movie?

No, obviously you did not, or you would have understood that the movie was substantially inaccurate about the history it claimed to portray.

Firstly, Clinton worked hard to put anti-terrorism legislation in place. #He was blocked by the Republican Congress. #This is documented history and in the public record. #Check the Congressional Record for those years and also the Federal Register.

Second, within six months of taking office the bush administration had dismantled virtually all of the anti-terrorism programs that Clinton had been successful in putting into place, watered down and weakened though they were by the Republican Congress. #This is also documented history and in the public record.

Of course, you "felt" it was an accurate portrayal. #It was designed to take you in, and you fell for it, because you just wanted to believe and were just basically too lazy to verify the information. #This is how the Neocons work. #They repeat a lie often and people who are just too lazy to do their own thinking start to believe it.

The Clinton administration did not ignore the reports. #In fact, Clinton himself understood the first attack on the WTC to be a wake-up call and said so more than once to Congresional leaders when he was trying to get Congress to do something about terrorism. #Also documented history and in the public record.

It is, in fact, the bush administration who both ignored the reports, and later falsified or "adjusted" the information they were given by the FBI and most notably the CIA, in order to further their agenda of attacking Iraq.

All available, not from the "lib" press, but in the public record, in records of the FBI and the CIA, and in the Congressional Record and the Federal Register.

The "lib" press only reported these facts, made them easily available to people like you, who ignored the information because, #1) You didn't like the source, and 2) you needed to believe something else, and 3) you listen way too much to Rush Limbaugh and those of his ilk.

Wake up!

-gary

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Sep. 14 2006,17:53)]Bottom line for me was it was a very cool movie and pointed out that our government is grossly incompetent. But I knew that. I’ve been to the DMV.
A ha!

The one in Simi Valley is actually quite nice and honors appointments.

I drive 10 miles over the hill just to go to that one, if I need something from them.

For excitement, of course, I can just don my bulletproof vest and visit the Canoga Park DMV. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But they make even terrorists wait in line.

Now, there's a thought: If we want to end terrorism altogether, we need to call them all to the DMV and tell them they can do whatever they want. It's normally such chaos, nobody would notice anything unusual going on. The terrorists would eventually get tired of waiting and fall asleep, then we can just round them up.

WB2WIK/6

[KC2ESD]

IMO both parties dropped the ball before 9/11.

[kg4kww]

Quote[/b] ]k6bbc-Bush got a warning the Bin Ladin was “determined to strike inside America” and they ignored it.


k6bbc, I know that you are a young whipper Snapper that's still wet behind the ears when it comes to these type of things.

You are forgetting that the Clinton Admistration was told before the Bush administration of the possibility of an attack by bin laden and friends.

The movie pointed this out.

You dems will never learn, that thr republicans have kept this country safe from harm for the past 5 years.

If the Dems had done as much, 9/11 might not have happened.

[WA3WDR]

Clinton kept the country safe for five and a half years after the first World Trade Center attack (February 1993). # And the attack on the US Embassies 5.5 years later did not happen on US soil. #Nor did the attack on the Cole. #But I'll put that aside.

If you attribute the slow motion attack mentality of al-Qaeda to something that Bush-Cheney administration did, then how do you account for the 5.5 year hiatus in the Clinton years? #Did Monica scare them off or something?


<edit> fixed typo

[w8cbc]

'WDR - Monica would scare just about anyone off. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

WIK/6 - "We take you now to a garage in Canoga Park..." http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KA8DKT]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Sep. 15 2006,18:31)]Quote[/b] ]k6bbc-Bush got a warning the Bin Ladin was “determined to strike inside America” and they ignored it.


k6bbc, I know that you are a young whipper Snapper that's still wet behind the ears when it comes to these type of things.

You are forgetting that the Clinton Admistration was told before the Bush administration of the possibility of an attack by bin laden and friends.

The movie pointed this out.

You dems will never learn, that thr republicans have kept this country safe from harm for the past 5 years.

If the Dems had done as much, 9/11 might not have happened.
Yes, Clinton was told. #And he tried to institute programs to find and stop the terrorists. #But he was stymied by the Republican Congress. #bush ended Catcher's Mitt and all of the other programs that Clinton did manage to get into place, all within six months of taking the Presidency.

Catcher's Mitt was tracking many, if not all, of the people involved with 9-11, and many others.

So, Clinton had some programs in place, and was tracking potential terrorists, bush quietly ended the programs. #After bush ended these programs, we then had 9-11. #The warnings that that both the FBI and the CIA gave were ignored by bush, not by Clinton. #

Do you really have to think about what went wrong?

This is all, by the way, a matter of public record if you trouble yourself to research it. #

The current administration is counting on you not taking that trouble to do your own research and thinking so they can try to make you believe whatever they want. #And, with the help of people like Rush they keep repeating what they want you to believe. #And if you do not seek the truth yourself, you can begin to fall for their stories.

What you saw in the movie was an almost complete fiction. #Sure, you thought it was the truth, because you wanted to believe and thus never bothered to find out what really happened. # So, the movie pointed out nothing. #No facts, anyway. #It was a piece designed to stoke the fears of people unable or unwilling to examine the public record carefully and determine what really happened. #And to try to cement in place the false idea that only the Neocons can protect us from the terrorists. #The fact is that Clinton had more programs in place and had proposed far more legislation, potentially effective legislation, than the current administration has. #Fact.

But like a true "believer", you won't look at the facts, because they are contrary to the belief in which you already have an emotional investment. #This is what the neocons are counting on. #That you are an easy mark.

Time to wake up!

-gary

[kk7ue]

How then did the socialist media allow such a puff piece on the air? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[KA8DKT]

Quote[/b] (kk7ue @ Sep. 15 2006,21:37)]How then did the socialist media allow such a puff piece on the air? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Proof that it is not socialist media, after all.

-gary

[w8cbc]

Indeed.

It sure wasn't any "Liberal Media Elite" that made all the uproar over cigar stains on Clinton's dress or whatever that ridiculous nonsense last decade was about.

[nq6v]

The "Sleeper Effect" of mass media communications state that after a propaganda champain has ended, an attitude change occurs in the target audience. Since the average american wants to be entertained first, informed second,a state of "willing suspension of disbelif" goes into effect.

Bush cannot be elected again. But other repulivs can. The right is tring to remind us of Clintons "Incompentence".

There is a philosophical rule that public knowledge is fact. Since we are told over and over by many different sources that it is a fact that it was Clintons falt, then it is Clintons fault. Facts do not enter into the picture. Appearently the govt has an adnormal control over the media.We are at war.Public knowledge will hold more weight when it comes to elect new leaders then facts.

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (KE7DLG @ Sep. 14 2006,19:28)]Can you say too busy trying to figure out how to get the public to accept going into Iraq to finish what Daddy started?
THERE !!

Been waiting for someone to say that.

That's EXACTLY why we are there. I just wish his dady finished it then so we can get something else accomplished now !!

[nx6d]

Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Sep. 15 2006,22:57)]Quote[/b] (KE7DLG @ Sep. 14 2006,19:28)]Can you say too busy trying to figure out how to get the public to accept going into Iraq to finish what Daddy started?
THERE !!

# # # #Been waiting for someone to say that.

# #That's #EXACTLY why we are there. #I just wish his dady finished it then so we can get something else accomplished now !!
At least we would have had more "moral authority" to topple Saddam under Bush 41. Saddam DID instigate the Kuwait mess.

Bush 41 made the right decision to NOT push on to Baghdad as he and his policy advisers were smart enough to predict the fiasco that his stubborn myopic son stepped into. Bush 41 had the background (and experience) to recognize a potential fiasco when he saw one.

Bush 43 doesn't know, well, I'll let you finish the quotation...

Dave NX6D
Sonoma County, CA

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (nx6d @ Sep. 16 2006,01:34)]Quote[/b] (w0uzr @ Sep. 15 2006,22:57)]Quote[/b] (KE7DLG @ Sep. 14 2006,19:28)]Can you say too busy trying to figure out how to get the public to accept going into Iraq to finish what Daddy started?
THERE !!

# # # #Been waiting for someone to say that.

# #That's #EXACTLY why we are there. #I just wish his dady finished it then so we can get something else accomplished now !!
At least we would have had more "moral authority" to topple Saddam under Bush 41. Saddam DID instigate the Kuwait mess.

Bush 41 made the right decision to NOT push on to Baghdad as he and his policy advisers were smart enough to predict the fiasco that his stubborn myopic son stepped into. Bush 41 had the background (and experience) to recognize a potential fiasco when he saw one.

Bush 43 doesn't know, well, I'll let you finish the quotation...

Dave NX6D
Sonoma County, CA
As far as I remember, Bush Sr wanted to go in, but congress said no, but it could have been different. I was dissapointed when he didn't go into Bagdad at the time. Would have been no sweat. his so called army were so thirsty that they were surrendering to the news crew and camera men.

[kg4kww]

Quote[/b] ]KA8DKT--Yes, Clinton was told. #And he tried to institute programs to find and stop the terrorists. #But he was stymied by the Republican Congress. #bush ended Catcher's Mitt and all of the other programs that Clinton did manage to get into place, all within six months of taking the Presidency.


Yep Clinton was told but, he was more interested in showing Monica the many uses of a cigar to be concerned with terrorists. Further more the movie stated that Clinton's staff were afraid to take on the terrorists.

Clinton's ambasserdor to Yeman tried to keep the FBI from investigating the Cole bombing, this was in the movie too.

The movie also stated that Clinton during his last 3 months in office did nothing to stop the terrorists.

Wake Up KA8DKT

[KA8DKT]

Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Sep. 18 2006,20:11)]Quote[/b] ]KA8DKT--Yes, Clinton was told. #And he tried to institute programs to find and stop the terrorists. #But he was stymied by the Republican Congress. #bush ended Catcher's Mitt and all of the other programs that Clinton did manage to get into place, all within six months of taking the Presidency.


Yep Clinton was told but, he was more interested in showing Monica the many uses of a cigar to be concerned with terrorists. Further more the movie stated that Clinton's staff were afraid to take on the terrorists.

Clinton's ambasserdor to Yeman tried to keep the FBI from investigating the Cole bombing, this was in the movie too.

The movie also stated that Clinton during his last 3 months in office did nothing to stop the terrorists.

Wake Up KA8DKT
The movie stated...the movie stated...the movie stated. #The movie was a piece of fiction designed to make you think something other than the facts.

Just because the movie stated something does not make that something reality, it just makes it seem like reality. #And you fell for it, hook, line, and sinker, dittohead.

Fact is that Clinton had more programs going to track and root out terrorists than bush has going. #Fact is that bush ended (as in stopped, discontinued, dismantled) all of Clinton's anti-terrorist programs within months of ascending to the Presidency.

If you people would stop obsessing on Clinton's sexual activities, something that EVERY President, with the exception of Truman and Carter, has done in that very office, you might then have some time to check the Federal Register where bush's ending of these programs is recorded, and the Congressional Record for those years where it shows how the Republicans refused to support Clinton's efforts to develop programs to track and stop terrorists. #Saying that Clinton was "...more interested in showing Monica the many uses of a cigar..." is gratuitious and inaccurate. #Besides, that might have taken ten minutes one day...he had plenty of time to use the rest of his day working for his country. #Not taking a vacation like bush has done for more days than many Presidents combined.

You might also then have some time to note that of all the programs that bush ended, he replaced none of them, unless you count attacking Iraq as a program to find terrorists. #That should make you feel a whole lot safer.

In addition, bush just recently reiterated that he will treat those who harbor and support terrorists the same as he will treat the terrorists. #Yet the northern provinces of Pakistan are now openly harboring and supporting terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, yet bush has done nothing. #That should make you feel a whole lot safer, too.

In fact everything bush says about his "war on terror" has proven to be lies. #Worse, lies designed to make you think he is working on this problem, when he is not working on it at all. #Worse yet, he is telling you that others would be "soft" on terrorists. #I fail to see how any administration could be softer on terrorists than bush's. #I'm sure you feel even safer now. #

I'll take a lie about a BJ any day over the lies that the bush administration is telling.

Even worse yet, he is now dragging the country down to the level of those who have no standards or honor in dealing with suspects. #His attitude is that these "suspects" are guilty even before their trial, and to make sure, he won't allow for a fair trial. #What is he afraid of? If he has the evidence, then a fair trial will find them guilty. #If he has no evidence, then they should go free just like any person under our system of laws under our Constitution. #The very same laws and Constitution that men have given their lives for to prevent this kind of prejudice and unfairness. #That bush wants to lower our standards to those of past totalitarian governments should make you feel even safer yet.

Clinton tried very hard to institute programs to track terrorists and prevent their attacks. #He took the first WTC attack as a wakeup call and said so many times when addressing Congressional leaders. #One major program that he did get going was one called Catcher's Mitt. #That program was tracking most of the people that were involved in the 2001 attacks. #It was also one of the programs that Clinton had in place and fuctioning, even in the last three months of his Presidency. #But Catcher's Mitt was one of the first that bush axed when he ascended to the Presidency. #Smooth move, bush. #We had them in our sights, and you took away our sights. #

And, by the way, the ambassador to Yemen did not try to stop the FBI from investigating the USS Cole bombing. #Another lie promogulated by the bush administration.

You know, for all of their fixation on Clinton's one Big Lie, you have to wonder why the bush administration has lied about every aspect of their "war on terror".

Feel safer now? #Think the Republicans are the only ones who can make you safe?

-gary

[W1GUH]

I looks as if in one point at least the movie has had a positive effect. #It's started people talking about that day, and that's a good thing.

One needs no "theory" to see anomolies all over the place as the timeline leading up to the event, the event itself, and what's happened since has played out.

There are three questions that stand out, the answers to which seem very important these days. #These questions and not a matter of politics, they're about facts in the public record that raise the questions. #The three questions are:

First question:
Why did Bush and Cheney resist very vigorously any investigation of the event at all?

# When they finally assented to an investigation, they starved it for resources, allocating a tiny fraction of what was spent to investigate what Bill did in the oval office. #The figure was later raised, but not very much.

# At first, Bush and Cheney refused to testify. #When they finally agreed to testify, they made the non-negotiable conditions that one, They'd only testify together. #Two, that they'd testify in closed session, and Three, that they would not be under oath.

Question Two:

Why was there no investigation or analysis whatsoever of the WTC rubble? #Official investigators were stymied every step of the way when they attempted to analyze the wreckage to find out why the three towers came down.

All of the steel was carted away ASAP to Fresh Kills landfield on Staten Island, and from there was almost immediately sent for recycling, much of it to India and China.

Question Three:

Where were our air defenses that morning?

It the time before 911, scrambling jets to check on errant aircraft was routine and common, with over 100 events every year. #One high profile example of this was the Payne Stewart errant private jet that was followed by military jets.

All of the facts stated above are mainstream knowledge. #They are all documented in public documents and are mainstream accepted facts. #One needs no "theory" to see that these questions should be investigated more vigorously.

Questions like these raise the secondary question:

Was this malice or stupidity?

The answer to that is not known. #What's known is either way, we're in trouble.

73,

Paul

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Sep. 18 2006,18:37)]The movie stated...the movie stated...the movie stated. #The movie was a piece of fiction designed to make you think something other than the facts.
Shhhhhhh! Do not confuse him with facts!

It was ON TV! that makes it God's truth! Sheesh! Do you NEVER watch the Simpsons?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KA8DKT]

GUH-

You've made some valid observations.

However, to question number two here are some well documented answers by an objective authority:

Link 1 (http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/1_1/daily_news/29299-1.html)

Link 2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/)

Link 3 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

I hope you find the reading interesting.

-gary

[nq6v]

In Political Science 101, we used a text called "The Irony of Democracy."

The text shocks most newcomers.
Pick up a copy.

You notice, we set up secret prisons, and will not prevent C.I.A. agents from torture. Also, the average prisoner is held indefently without knowing the charges against him.

This is right-winger heaven.

The character of the persons who support such wish punishment of Muslims more than our and international laws to be observed. The character of the persons who participate are unmentionable.

It must be L.A.P.D. boot-squad, Death Squad, Foothill Division, Rampart Division Heaven. They can carry on, knowing full well that their additudes are the concession of a nation, and meanwhiule, nearly 100 have died in custody, and only a token few soldiers have been punished, and only because they videoed it to continue to experience the thrills long after. reminds me of group photos taken at K.K.K. lynchings, where they are all standing around, smiling, proud of what they have done.

Read what the pol-sci text says about police concensious and their additudes being so important to them, including selp preseveration of the whole of the brotherhood, and it can be appearent who is running those secret prisons, and when the war is over, these people will rejoin socioity and become cops. So they can do the same to us.

[K3XR]

Screen writer speaks out on his movie in the WSJ. #You just gotta love those diverse, tolerant, free speech loving, all inclusive, LIBS.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008958

[KA8DKT]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Sep. 19 2006,06:40)]Screen writer speaks out on his movie in the WSJ. #You just gotta love those diverse, tolerant, free speech loving, all inclusive, LIBS.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008958
Yet he failed to accurately depict Clinton's work against terrorism. He also failed to show how the Republican Congress blocked most of Clinton's anti-terrorist initiatives. You just gotta love those terrorist loving, free speech hating, Constitution hating Republicans.

-gary

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Sep. 19 2006,07:44)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Sep. 19 2006,06:40)]Screen writer speaks out on his movie in the WSJ. You just gotta love those diverse, tolerant, free speech loving, all inclusive, LIBS.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008958
Yet he failed to accurately depict Clinton's work against terrorism. He also failed to show how the Republican Congress blocked most of Clinton's anti-terrorist initiatives. You just gotta love those terrorist loving, free speech hating, Constitution hating Republicans.

-gary
You forgot war-mongering ditto-heads. Please, always make honorable mention of the EIB pill-head.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Sep. 18 2006,20:21)]GUH-

You've made some valid observations.

However, to question number two here are some well documented answers by an objective authority:

Link 1 (http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/1_1/daily_news/29299-1.html)

Link 2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/)

Link 3 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

I hope you find the reading interesting.

-gary

Thanks, Gary...can you point out, or quote from, the parts that explain why most of the steel was immediately recycled, a lot of it overseas? #And why the investigation didn't start until almost a year later?

From the NIST fact sheet:

When did the investigation begin and when will it be completed?
The investigation officially began on Aug. 21, 2002. When the NCST Act was passed in October of that year, the WTC investigation was moved under its authorities. The final report on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 was issued on Oct. 26, 2005. The investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 will be completed early in 2007.



I did not ask the question, "Why and how did the towers come down." #I asked the question, why was there no immediate detailed investigation and why was most of the physical evidence destroyed? #Does the NIST report address those questions?

Paul