[pcfrisch]

So what did everyone think of this movie (Part 1) of The Path to 9/11? Two observations, CIA Director George Tenet was an idiot who could not make a decision to save his life and the shaky camera deal was very annoying.
I realize some is fiction but there are also some interesting details in the factual events.

[BlueStreak03]

I haven't seen it. I saw a commercial for it last night, but missed the showing of it.

[Monkey Boy]

I'm more intrigued by how hard the Clinton administration fought to take it off the air or have it severely edited. What are they trying to hide? (I already know what they are trying to hide, but you get my point.)

[Trickpony]

one minute was edited from Part 1...I thought it was okay, pissed me off again,
Te left threw in a bunch of thier opinions in there...to try and cover up the Clinton blunder.

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by Monkey Boy

I'm more intrigued by how hard the Clinton administration fought to take it off the air or have it severely edited. What are they trying to hide? (I already know what they are trying to hide, but you get my point.)

Read the actual 9-11 report and you might find out.

[Kyle F]

So now its Clinton's fault it happened. Oh come on... He wasn't even in office then. The Bush administration should have done something to prevent the crashes no matter what was left over from before. Typical of the Bush administration... We cant cover waht we did so we will blame Clinton.

[pcfrisch]

Originally Posted by Kyle F

So now its Clinton's fault it happened. Oh come on... He wasn't even in office then. The Bush administration should have done something to prevent the crashes no matter what was left over from before. Typical of the Bush administration... We cant cover waht we did so we will blame Clinton.

Both share the blame, but this did start during Clinton's administration, remember the basement of the WTC was bombed during his administration. They just continued until the job was finished. Clinton's administration should have taken it more seriously.

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by pcfrisch

Both share the blame, but this did start during Clinton's administration, remember the basement of the WTC was bombed during his administration. They just continued until the job was finished. Clinton's administration should have taken it more seriously.

That was 4 weeks into his administration. The streets weren't even clean from the inauguration party.

Have you read the 9-11 Report? I posted where you can get it for free.

You can't say what Clinton did or didn't do unless you've read the report.

[pcfrisch]

Originally Posted by kscoyote

That was 4 weeks into his administration. The streets weren't even clean from the inauguration party.

Have you read the 9-11 Report? I posted where you can get it for free.

You can't say what Clinton did or didn't do unless you've read the report.

My point being you cannot totally blame either the Clinton or the Bush administration for the towers.

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by pcfrisch

My point being you cannot totally blame either the Clinton or the Bush administration for the towers.

And how many times did the Bush Administration meet or plan on capturing, blocking, or killing terrorists BEFORE 9-11?

-It's in the report.

How many times did Clinton meet, plan, etc.? It's in the report too.

********************************
But Clinton NEVER blamed Bush I for the 1st attack on the WTC.

[JB02GT]

While it is true that hindsight is 20/20 and it is easy to say, after the fact, that this or that administration should have known, so on and so forth, there were definite warning signs during the Clinton administration (didn't Clinton order missile attacks on a couple of Al Queda camps because intel said that bin Laden was hanging out in one of them?) and certainly in the early days of the Bush administration. I clearly remember one such example...

In early 2001, while working at a former job as the Branch Manager of one of the branches of the Knox County Public Library System, I read an article discussing how the Taliban had blown up the Buddhas of Bamiyan, monumental Buddhist statues that had been built sometime in the fifth or sixth century. These were statues that had survived for over a thousand years, through many different regimes - including other Muslim regimes - and the Taliban destroyed them, saying they were graven images, infidel monuments, etc. The article also gave a few other details about the Taliban and their regime. I remember asking my assistant to read the article and then saying to her, "These Taliban leaders are nuts. These are the kind of fundamentalist maniacs that support terrorism. If they have no more respect for historical artifacts or other religions than this, we are going to have trouble out of them, and sooner rather than later. I think we should invade Afghanistan now and remove them from power. If we don't, they are going to make real trouble for us later." The destruction of those statues took place in early 2001 - sometime in March or April, I believe. On Sept. 11, both my assistant and I remembered the statement roughly five or six months before and, I must admit, it kind of gave me goosebumps.

My point is, if I, with absolutely no background or training in intel or world politics, could figure out that the Taliban were going to be real trouble and really soon simply from reading an article about them destroying a couple of statues, surely someone with Top Secret clearance getting real intel from the region on an up-to-date basis should have been able to figure out that something was going on.

[kscoyote]

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialrepo...sr_afghan.html

Special Report

Of Related Interest
November 1998 | Special Report No. 39

The Taliban and Afghanistan: Implications for Regional Security and Options for International Action
Namahashri Tavana, Patrick Cronin, and Jon Alterman


________________________________________

Seems the "Liberals" were on it back then.

[kscoyote]

http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/1998/08/clinton_osama.html

Also from 1998
CLINTON DECLARES HIS WAR ON OSAMA BIN LADEN
Polls Declare Americans are Willing to Let Him Do It
On August 20th President Clinton launched scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles against alleged terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan. Without congressional consultation or approval, the president made his move. Officials in the Administration said that the bombing was necessary since they believed more embassies were going to be hit by terrorist bombs in the near future. None of the evidence for that belief was shared in the public announcement. The terrorist facilities hit were allegedly linked to Osama bin Laden, a Saudi who they suspect of financing major terrorist operations around the world and who is linked, administration officials claim, to the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. While the reasonableness of the U.S. attack may be acknowleged by many governments in regards to the terrorist base in the mountains of its host country, the U.S. action against a pharmaceutical company in Sudan has raised the anger of most nations in the region.

This facility hit by U.S. forces was the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant located in northeast Khartoum in Sudan. When the Shifa Company for Pharmaceutical Industries opened, the country's health minister, Ihsan el Ghabsawi, heralded it as a lifesaver. Two local businessmen put up the funding to build the North Khartoum complex which was valued at $27 million. It was capable of purifying and distilling water, producing drugs that fight tuberculosis, and manufacturing different types of medicines for humans and animals. In his remarks the health minister said this factory would help this struggling Third World country produce seventy percent of the country's needs of drugs. That remark was made before U.S. missiles razed the complex to the ground.

[kscoyote]

And the CONSERVATIVES yelled

"no war for Monica. "


What short memories the conservatives have. I reckon with heads already filled with propaganda, there isn't room for much else.

[countymounty]

Originally Posted by kscoyote

I reckon with heads already filled with propaganda, there isn't room for much else.

Look Whos Talking.......