The Path to 9/11

[Bob_Skurka]

I keep finding myself suprised with the intensity of the attacks on the film from the Clinton team. . .

Clinton is making a big mistake by bringing this issue up and focussing so much attention to what he did and didn't do. Having sandy burger as his source is just silly.

Eddie

Eddie, do you think there could be some relationship to the attacks by the Clinton team against this movie and the possiblity that President Clinton might have been distracted during his administration by scandals like the real estate dealings involving his wife or the sexual scandals like Monica Lewinski, Jennifer Flowers, etc? I'm curious if those things might have been brought out in 9/11 Commission's Report and if the report suggests that he was distracted by something in his personal life. Perhaps the attacks against the documentary are aimed to blunt the criticisms against his character? I dunno, I'm just trying to see why they would be so upset about this documentary.

 

[EddieWalker]

Eddie, do you think there could be some relationship to the attacks by the Clinton team against this movie and the possiblity that President Clinton might have been distracted during his administration by scandals ...

Hey Bob,

I personally don't think any of the scandals had much impact on Clinton's presidency or his desicions. I honestly don't think he cared one way or another.

Just me here, but I think he was more concerned with what the world thought about him and his place in history. He tried the politically correct aproach to dealing with terrorism every time we were attacked. Lots of feel good speaches and tough talk. Unfortunately, the terrorist were paying attention and realized he was a paper tiger.

There mistake was thinking Bush was the same way.

I'm at a complete loss for the level of their attack against this show. If they had said nothing and laughed off anything that put them in a bad light after it showed, nobody would be paying attention. For some unknown reason, they are terrified of what might come out, and now, so am I.

Eddie

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Hey Bob,

I personally don't think any of the scandals had much impact on Clinton's presidency or his desicions.

Eddie, here is why I asked. Have you, or has anyone seen any "massive demonstrations" against the ABC documentary The Path to 9/11?

I ask this quesiton only because I have tend to read international papers and found this in the British paper The Herald. The Sunday Herald states that there have been massive protests??? It also states something I have not seen other places. It says that ABC refused to provide Clinton with a preview but did provide copies to many other politicians???

This is only the first portion of the article. But read the last line that I have included.

Sunday Herald
Sunday Herald - 10 September 2006
BBC caught up in row over 9/11 programme
By Jenifer Johnston

The BBC was last night standing by its decision to broadcast controversial docudrama The Path To 9/11, despite massive protests in the US denouncing the American-produced series as “right-wing propaganda”.

The two-part drama is due to be shown tonight and tomorrow evening on BBC Two.

It depicts events in the US leading up to the terrorist attacks of 2001, but the decision to mix evidence given to the official 9/11 Commission with dramatic embellishments have drawn condemnation for the programme from the Democratic party, former president Bill Clinton, the star of the drama Harvey Keitel and more than 200,000 Democratic supporters.

On Friday, US broadcaster ABC, which has spent around $40 million on the production, reacted to the criticism by saying last-minute edits were under way. And a spokeswoman for the BBC defended the decision to go ahead with the broadcast, by saying: “The BBC are broadcasting the Path To 9/11 as planned. We will be showing the same version as is shown in the US.”

Yesterday advisors for former US president Bill Clinton continued their attacks on the decision to broadcast the programme, which will be shown in two parts tonight and tomorrow both in the UK and the US.

It alleges that he was consumed in the Monica Lewinsky affair and did not concentrate on the the growing terrorist threat to the US.
​

 

[frank_f15]

YOU know what guys? i have been reading this thread and not replying. but now i feel i must. I have heard the terms, liberal, left , right, clinton was to blame . Gw did not handel it right! who really is to blame? The 9/11 attack will be repeated at some point in time and i don't think any admistration can stop it, one time the bad guys will get it right again and then who do we Blame? all politicians have an agenda (as do most of us) most beleive they are right and any other opinion is wrong, but what the heck do i know? just seems a shame to leave such a mess to the young folks. and with that i will say good night and pray that such happening will never darken our shores again or that of any people.

 

[_RaT_]

"Gw did not handel it right!"

I think the list is a bit bigger then that Frank.

 

[SkyPup]

So far I think the show has been pretty good.

 

[_RaT_]

So far I think the show has been pretty good.

I agree, interesting. I wonder what scenes if any were edited. I am waiting for the part that has so many folks up in opposition to this movie. The distraction part is nothing new (wag the dog) so surely that cannot be it. The disclaimers were surely obvious before, during and after the movie.

 

[hilld]

So far I think the show has been pretty good.

I missed the first hour as we were at a friends house for dinner, however, the second hour and a half seemed pretty accurate towards the book (not word for word, but concept by concept if there is such a thing).

From what I understand, the scenes that were removed, were the ones that the former Clinton administration officials insisted never occurred. Who will ever know, but the conclusion tonight might be even more enlightning.

It is interesting to state that during the discussion of the cruise missles launched over Pakistan that Secretary of State Albright insisted that the Pakistani officials had to be notified as it could have started a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. While information was leaked to the Taliban, this information was probably required to prevent other disasters. We would expect such a thing if somebody wanted to shoot missles over our airspace, I would think.

Part 2 tonight will hopefully shed more light on our current situation.

Derek

 

[MikePA]

It is interesting to state that during the discussion of the cruise missles launched over Pakistan that Secretary of State Albright insisted that the Pakistani officials had to be notified as it could have started a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. While information was leaked to the Taliban, this information was probably required to prevent other disasters. We would expect such a thing if somebody wanted to shoot missles over our airspace, I would think.

The issue in the show was not that the Pakistanis were told, the issue was when they were told. Tenet said it took hours for the missile to arrive at the target and asked Albright when the Pakistanis were told, in time to do something about it or after it was too late. Albright did not answer his question.

 

[_RaT_]

The issue in the show was not that the Pakistanis were told, the issue was when they were told. Tenet said it took hours for the missile to arrive at the target and asked Albright when the Pakistanis were told, in time to do something about it or after it was too late. Albright did not answer his question.

Yep, therein lies one of the critical componets to either the death or capture of Bin Laden. I have to wonder about the procedure. Could we simply have notified the president of Pakistan instead of the miltary? Could it have been explained after the missles flew through Pakistani airspace to their ultimate destination which I thought to be Afganistan (correct me if I am wrong) to wipe out Bin Laden? Surely even if was assumed that the missles came from India yet ended up in Afghanistan there would have been tension yes, but a release of nuclear weapons? Maybe it was not worth the risk. Its interesting to discuss and understandable the decisions that needed to be made were difficult at best.