*But after ABC takes great pains to point out this is a 'docu drama,' spends the extra 22 minutes it has to puts on a NEWS update on the war in Iraq/Afghanistan. They point out the ten times Clinton had a chance to take out Bin Laden and the one time at Tora Bora Bush has and put them on equal footing (HEAR TAPE HERE). Very interesting. Still, I'll give ABC this they did accurately depict the Clintonistas and their response to the Bin Laden threats: They were NO SHOWS.
But look, forget the Senate report. Just watch these (factual) connections and come to your own conclusions.
I'm grateful the movie refers to the murder in 1990 of Rabbi Meir Kahane because it's so clear that the Islamo fascists had started their ops in the US at least that early.
Ramzi Yousef's (the mastermind of the first WTC bombing 1993) is Khalid Sheik Mohammed's (Al Qaeda and mastermind of the second WTC bombing 2001) nephew. Don't forget: the bomb maker for the first WTC bombing was an IRAQI, Abdul Rahmin Yasin. And remember the FBI mistakenly let this guy go THREE TIMES. He escaped back to Iraq and hasn't been caught since.
Then we get to the bombing in 1994 of the Philippines Airlines flight by Ramzi Yousef and we see this as a precurser to Operation Bojinka in 1995 and the attempted bombing of an American Airlines flight in Dec 2001 by Richard Reid (the shoebomber).
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Path to 9/11 Reportedly Has Only 1 Minute Cut Out. ABC Hangs In.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
ABC outed themselves. Their reporters were filming bin Ladin before we knew where he was at (according to the show)...
Looks like the blame for 9/11 lies with ABC. Didn't they think of that before making this which is "not a documentary?"
And you all wanted to blame Clinton..
No, R, we would like Clinton and the Democrats to accept their portion of responisbility and stop politicizing this.
While part one showed Clinton's administration tied down in bureaucratic red tape, allowing them to miss opportunities to deal with this, my guess is part two will show the Bush administration encumbered with the same bureaucratic red tape.
Blame? All along that lies with the terrorists. We have to have leaders that will treat this as it is, war, not as mere crime.
They declared all out war on us and we must reciprocate. It's time to admit everybody screwed up to their own degree. It's time to get behind this fight and defeat these vermin.
If we don't do it now, we are just postponing it for our children and grandchildren to fight.
Partisanship needs to be laid aside, as was done in WW2. Cut and run and finger-pointing divides. White-washing and blaming doesn't stop them, they count on that so we miss their next move.
It's long past time for the country to wake-up and realize we are at war, have been for a long time, and act accordingly. Democrats aren't going to solve it. Republicans aren't going to solve it. Americans, standing together, with whoever joins in will solve it.
Victory is only assured as we all stand together.
"Partisanship needs to be laid aside, as was done in WW2. Cut and run and finger-pointing divides."
If you were really honest about what you say lew, you would have ended with your first sentence above. If you really believed that we need to put politics aside to work together, you would have been outraged when, anyone who wants to debate, question, or work across party lines with oversight in regards to and in question of this administrations polices and actions in this "war on terror," are called "appeasers" and "sympathizers."
Maybe you were outraged, but your "cut and run" slang sure makes me believe otherwise.
...we would like Clinton and the Democrats to accept their portion of responisbility and stop politicizing this.
Another great example of your "do as I say, not as I do" mindset.
Bring on segment two!
And don't forget, as told to you numerous times throughout the program, you are watching a dramatization with fictional events that is not a documentary. You might remind Victoria, who's already claiming this as historical reference. (eyes roll)
What I do enjoy the most about this program, is not the blatant fictional events (and yes I'll give it the benefit that it will do the same with the Bush admin, having not seen that segment yet), but the sneaky dialog regarding hot button administration policies. You know, stuff like the jeep ride after Yousef was captured, when the agent asks him who his financier is.."Is it Saddam? In retaliation for the Gulf war?" .. or when Edam Salem questions the FBI agent in the cafe after the bombing scene, if Americans would rather be safe or have their civil liberties. Good stuff. Good stuff.
R, you leave me no choice but to continue defending the war effort, instead of joining forces and defeating the enemy.
All you and your cohorts are doing is making the fight much harder.
As long as Democrats wish to divide and politicize the country, people like me have no choice but to fight you as well as the terrorists.
Liberals have a history of only wanting to fight to a stalemate or give in. Our enemies won't accept that this time.
It would be much easier to join forces and present a wall of strength against terror. But, since you would rather fight us than the ones that want you dead, so be it.
Once again, you have chosen the wrong side.
At approximately 8:48 a.m. on the morning of September 11, 2001, the first pictures of the burning World Trade Center were broadcast on live television. The news anchors, reporters, and viewers had little idea what had happened in lower Manhattan, but there were some people who did know.
By that time, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon, the White House, the Secret Service, and Canada's Strategic Command all knew that three commercial airplanes had been hijacked. They knew that one plane had been flown deliberately into the World Trade Center's North Tower; a second plane was wildly off course and also heading toward Manhattan; and a third plane had abruptly turned around over Ohio and was flying back toward Washington, DC.
So why, at 9:03 a.m.--fifteen minutes after it was clear the United States was under terrorist attack--did President Bush sit down with a classroom of second-graders and begin a 20-minute pre-planned photo op?
"As long as Democrats wish to divide and politicize the country..."
Again lew, carefully read your words and the words coming from the heart of the administration time and time again, and tell me just who has politicized and caused division.
What you really say is you wish to join forces and fight this fight together, just as long as everyone agrees without question as to how you decide that fight should go.
"...people like me have no choice but to fight you as well as the terrorists."
Just what exactly is it that gives you a reason to have to fight me? Because I ask questions? Because I engage in debate, before blindly accepting what I am told? How did I become the enemy?
disloyal, please explain just what Bush could have accomplished in the 7 minutes to stop what was already in progress.
Incidentally, your time line is a bit off.
R, it isn't that you are the enemy that I have fight you, it is because you and those like you divert the focus from the real enemy and place it on the only man in over 20 years to finally take a stand and fight these terrorists that wish you, and our families dead!
That emboldens those that desire us dead.
As my wife said to me earlier this evening, until we develope the resolve to slit the throats of these terrorists, as they will do us, we won't be victorious. We have absolutely nothing to offer them that they want. We cannot negotiate with evil, we can either destroy it or die by it.
Rehashing 5 year old talking points that have been addressed ad nauseum or advocating cut and run where they have declared the central front in the battles only allows them to grow stronger.
"disloyal, please explain just what Bush could have accomplished in the 7 minutes to stop what was already in progress."
He could of done nothing to stop the events, but he could have acted like a decisive president in a crisis rather than freezing and appearing detached.
lew, I understand your logic in what you say and believe about this war. Unfortunately for me, it parallels the same logic and values in that of the Islamic terrorists that threaten us.
To them, there is no question. No room for debate. If you do not accept their way, you die. America is about question, about debate, about the unity of everyone over the rule of one. Yet, we are told constantly do not question the war, do not debate the war. Do not ask if there are more successful methods to victory. No, that is better suited for labels like "cut and run." It is more fashionable to question a person's patriotism along party lines than to engage in meaningful bipartisan debate and solution. It is easier to call fellow citizens who disagree "appeasers" and "sympathizers."
You fight "liberals," not because they pose a threat to victory against terrorism, but because they pose a threat to your personal values. If you feel liberties and freedoms are reserved for only those who share your same values, then it is you, not I good sir, that has chosen the wrong fight.
If it is our liberties and freedom that make the terrorists hate us, then by God let us not lose our liberties and freedom. But we need not become as the terrorist to win. For if we do, we have already lost.
So what would you do, R? Crawl up to the terrorists and say, "We really, really wish you wouldn't do those things."
Your argument holds just about as much water as my wife's collander.
This country needs to go out and kick some serious terrorist ass and not even bother taking names. The sooner you liberal appeasers understand that, the sooner we can whip them.
loyal,
Bush being a Harvard MBA grad is a delegater, not a micro manager. His completing of the session at the school did not effect what needed to be done. The federal bureaucrats do not need to be micromanaged on what to do. Did it occur to you that at that time options for Bush to decide on were not ready for presentation to him?
Obviously you are more comfortable with a President that is a micromanager.
Micromanagers do not necessarily make the best leaders. Being President is a nowin position, nobody is really going to like you. If Bush was a micromanager and you were a very smart person that he hired to be Sec of Defense, would you stay if the President stood over your shoulder and told you everything to do? I do not think so.
I cannot believe I have to even point this out that the Government has people to gather evaluate and recommend course of action. The President would have to wait for the recommendations anyway so why not spend the short time with the children instead of looking over someone's shoulder asking are they ready yet over and over.
He could of done nothing to stop the events, but he could have acted like a decisive president in a crisis rather than freezing and appearing detached.
Unfortunately, you have drunk from the kool aid pitcher of Mikey Moore. Of that fateful morning;
"Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, the principal at Emma E. Booker Elementary School, says Bush handled himself properly.
"I don't think anyone could have handled it better," Tose'-Rigell told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune in a story published Wednesday. "What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?""
"The president bit his lip and clenched his jaw," she said. "I didn't know what happened, whether it was something with his wife or children or something with the nation. I remember praying that God would watch over our school and protect our children."
She said the video doesn't convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush's presence had a calming effect and "helped us get through a very difficult day."
"The president bit his lip and clenched his jaw," she said. "I didn't know what happened, whether it was something with his wife or children or something with the nation. I remember praying that God would watch over our school and protect our children."
BTW, she did not vote for Bush.
What you don't realize is that Bush did what should have been done. He remained calm, didn't panic people (especially kids) and took charge as necessary. Certain go into motion automatically and they did that.
No, they weren't good enough, but then again, the attack was unprecedented and even thought here was some very vague prior notice of the terrorists wanting to do something, who expected what happened?
Had he not acted and grounded all aircraft in the country as swiftly as he did, who knows how many more were to be highjacked that day and the next?
Had Kerry, Clinton or Gore been in charge, we would still be searching for who we needed to apologize to.
Still, why is every measure he tries to take afterwards opposed and blocked by the left?
You fight "liberals," not because they pose a threat to victory against terrorism, but because they pose a threat to your personal values.
WRONG!!!!!
I oppose and fight liberals because they are unwittingly (for most) empowering our enemies and giving them all the freedom they desire to kill more of us.
I don't think you will ever get it until they are freely roaming here and setting off their suicide bombs.
How many have to die before we stand up to stop them?
Would someone please go back and research to find out EXACTLY when Bush and the GOPers started their party politics and slamming of anyone NOT Republican? As I recall people wanted to know WHY and HOW the terrorists were able to enter our country and to hijack four American planes and to kill Americans with impunity. As I recall, Bush seemed totally uninterested in forming a panel or commission to seek to know WHY and HOW. As I recall, it was only after 9/11 family members' hue and cry for accountability that the 9/11 Commission was formed. As I recall, it was only after more Americans created a fuss that Bush finally allowed Condi to testify before the 9/11 Commission and finally consented himself to appear before the commission IN PRIVATE and NOT under oath. I can't recall whether all this happened before or after the hoopla over taking us to war in Iraq though.
Nimlo, is that the whitwash panel that had Jaimie Gorelick, the author of the wall between agencies, sitting on the commission instead of explaining why she erected such a wall?
Would that be the commission that a former Secretary of Defense was caught stuffing classified documents down his pants, some of which have not be found as of yet?
Is that the same commission that cited links between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda that the left now slyly tries to claim said there was no link, because they said Saddam had no link to 9/11?
lew,
It was a former National Security Advisor that had difficulty with documents being stuffed down his underwear.
Post a Comment