Why Does The Clinton Administration Want To Whitewash History With The "Path To 9/11" ABC Movie?

Question

Why does Clinton want to pretend he had no part in the lead up to 9/11? Does he think everyone forgot?

Why was his YES man Berger illegally sneaking confidential documents in his sock?

If Clinton is so secure in his legacy, whats wrong with this movie? Its more factual than F911 ever was.

Why is Clinton trying to pretend he took a hard stance against terorism when more acts of terrorism occurred under his administration than ever did under Bush's?

Why are you afraid of the TRUTH Clinton?

(Also, who will be playing Monica Lewinsky in the movie? )

And before anyone posts about "9/11 occurring on Bush's watch" consider this- the moon landing happened on "Nixon's watch" and that doesn't necessarily mean he caused it.

ABSTRACTED- obviously you failed to learn to properly read and comprehend my question, please see above in regards to your response.

BONKERS- this isn't a discussion, its a lecture on Clinton as weak on terror and a failed man who happened to rule when the introduction of PC's boosted GDP growth expotentially, if you don't like that, too bad.

ASH- I have seen it at one of the private screenings in D.C., and I have to say its pretty accurate, even the fictionalized scenes seem truthful. So I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

And as far as Moore posting links, well come now, you're much to old to be so easily pulled by the nose. Eh, kiddo?

DEP- you need to learn to read, I said I attended a prescreening, not one "for conservatives" or one for "thinktanks," go to your local library and enroll in an adult literacy program. Then try this question again---- and be sure to READ it this time.

DEP- I did remove my contact info, but only because I don't like getting spammed by little kids sending me multiple irrational rantings.

Answer 1

Because it IS Clintons legacy. The dems want everyone to believe that its Bush's fault since it occured on his watch. forgetting the planning, financing and training (and the first WTC bombing) were on Clinton's watch. So did Bush plan 9-11 when he was still governor of texas? you cannot have it both ways. He had bin laden in cross hairs on multiple occasions and opted to not do anything. "what if civilians got hurt when we take him out??" Well, we didn't take him out, and it ended up being OUR civilians who got killed. wake up!

its ironic, he dodged the draft when confronted with vietnam, and he dodged it again when confronted with Islamic Terrorism on his watch.

Answer 2

I seem to recall a lot of griping about a movie made about Reagan which was pulled from the network because of questionable accuracy.

Was it ok to object to that movie but not okay to object to the 911 movie?

Was it ok to object to Fahrenheit 911 but not to this movie? And how do you know it is more factual than Fahrenheit 911 - Moore posted links on his site to substantiate his claims---apparently you have already watched the movie and are prepared to do the same????

If there are demonstrable inaccuracies, they should be pointed out. Either side. Methinks you protest too much, eh kiddo??

---OK so I should take your word for it, someone who clearly agrees with the concept that Clinton's failings led to 9/11, and that is NOT being led by the nose, but if I look at Moore's links, I AM being led by the nose? A few facts go a long way, and I still maintain that demonstrable innacuracies should absolutely be complained about loud and long.

Answer 3

Clinton nor Bush are "responsible" for 9/11... maybe we should stop pointing fingers altogether and start focusing on preventing it from happening again? How about going back to what went out to do, and that was find Osama Bin Laden. The war in Iraq has no viable link to terrorism or Al Qaeda and it has distracted us from our mission and what set out to accomplish in Afghanistan. We cannot leave Iraq, as many in the Bush administration have stated that Iraq may become a terrorist breeding ground... but we now know it wasn't a terrorist breeding ground before, nor were there WMD's. Iraq has made America less safe, but to comment on your question and statements, I would argue that 9/11 did not happen on anyone's "watch" or that any administration is specifically at fault. There are arguments from both sides directed at both sides; there are reasons to believe that there are things BOTH Clinton AND Bush could have done to help prevent 9/11 from happening but hindsight is 20/20 and we should focus more on now rather than what could have been.

Answer 4

there are such a lot of obtrusive solutions, yet i will pass with The Godfather. BQ--grasp and Commander. I do exactly like the books, however the nautical expressions could make the action stressful to carry on with. the movie did a techniques-blowing activity of enhancing the terrific areas of countless books in the sequence and offering you with a actual experience for the tale and characters.

Answer 5

You're assuming the movie is true and objective. ABC is even saying it's a dramatization and that some of it is fiction.

"Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright called one scene involving her "false and defamatory." Former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said the film "flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions." And former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who now heads the William J. Clinton Foundation, said: "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

'ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090601819.html

Answer 6

First off, I think the movie paints a bad picture of Clinton, it "whitewhashes" nothing.

Secondly, Bush did as much to prevent 9/11 as Clinton did. They are BOTH to blame.

Answer 7

Mostly because it makes his administration look weak on National Defense and Terrorism. I think the major mistake the Clinton Administration made was to go after the terrorists in the first Trade Center bombing, and subsequent attacks, from a criminal justice perspective. Sure, it was against the law, but they never realized, or chose not to realize, that war had been declared on the US by these people.

Answer 8

When has Clinton ever taken responsibility for his actions?

Remember, he is immortal now that he was impeached and allowed to finish his term.


And kfaulk - your statement is completely wrong. Clinton was warned about Bin Laden and had the opportunity to bring him in. He refused. Do you get that? He REFUSED to apprehend a terrorist that had already financed attacks against the US.

As for the WMDs... I am sick of people saying there were none. What did Saddam Hussein use to gas thousands of Kurds? Answer that. Go ahead. He wasn't storing them in Iraq. He was certainly using them though. There is undeniable proof. He wasn't spraying them with pepper spray. To ignore their horrible deaths is an injustice.

I am tired of bleeding heart liberals siding with terrorists over our own government. You are all sick.

Answer 9

Um, Even ABC/Disney has said that this movie is NOT factual... it's fiction... it's NOT based on the 9/11 Commission's findings... it's a fictional movie... and profits off of the events of 9/11 with FICTIONAL propaganda ... right before an election...

Wouldn't YOU want it stopped?

Answer 10

It's not all truth, there's plenty of fiction involved in that movie, it's just a movie. I never liked Slick, but I understand how he could be outraged. Do I care that he is outraged? No, but I do find it amusing how outraged he is. Clinton has plenty to hide, if Hildebeast runs in '08 we'll find out a lot more, how can they keep it all out of the mainstream media? I'm very much looking forward to that :)