Do you think they protest so much?

Question

ABC is planning a docudrama on the lead-up to 9/11. Do you think former officials of the Clinton administration are complaining because there are untruths or because the truth is not very flattering?

Are the facts that virtually nothing was done during the 90's about the attacks that were carried out against America contributed to the idea that we would do nothing?

Answer 1

I laughed my butt off when Clinton said"ABC should tell the truth!"I thought it was pretty ironic. Since he did not have sextual relations with that woman!

Answer 2

The Clinton's are both masters of revisionism. See Dick Morriss's books about the two books 'written' by Willie and Hill.
Also see Direliction of Duty by the air force officer who carried Bill's 'nuclear football' for several years. See HIgh Crimes and Misdemeanors by Ann Coulter to see why liberals hate her so much. How DARE that d*mned woman run BIll's dirty laundry up the flagpole!! The very nerve!!!

Answer 3

ABC admits those scenes were made up. I think what you're asking is: did these scenes depict an essential truth, despite the fact that the scenes showed people doing and saying things that were the opposite of what they really said and did? Think about your idea here, and you will see that it is not exactly a logical thought.

Clinton's crew was on track go all out against Bin Laden toward the end of his administration. Keep in mind that the threat from Al Qaeda grew as the 90's went on -- during that time, Al Qaeda morphed. In the early 90's Al Qaeda was concerned only with ousting infidels from the Muslim lands of Mecca and Afghanistan, but at the end of the 90's it began to seek terrorist revenge against America.

Actions were taken in the 1990's. WTC bombers were arrested, prosecuted and are in jail. After the embassy bombings in Africa, Clinton ordered an air attack against Al Qaeda. Republicans heavily criticized Clinton for doing this and sought to tie his hands politically. They said Clinton was trying to strike at Al Qaeda as a diversion; that he was trying to start a wag the dog war to distract from the Lewinsky scandal. Republicans said the threat from Al Qaeda was exaggerated.

It took a while to figure out that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombings in Oct 2000. They did not claim credit. An effective strike could have been accomplished in early 2001. During the transition between Clinton and Bush, Clinton's people briefed Bush and his people on Al Qaeda, but they were not interested, and they trashed these plans to strike Al Qaeda.

Bush was not interested in pursuing the terrorists until after 9-11. He and his advisors brushed aside dire warnings of government counterterrorism experts including the CIA department which Clinton had created to track and plan against Al Qaeda. A CIA briefer flew specially to Crawford in early Aug 01 at the start of Bush's 4 week vacation. He fully briefed Bush, but Bush dismissed the threat warning, told the agent to leave, and said that he'd covered his butt. A week or two later the Presidential Daily Brief was titled "Bin Laden Has Plans To Strike Inside The US". Bush's chief of staff flew out to Crawford to deliver this message and brief him. Again, Bush ignored dire warnings, security was not heightened, airports were not put on alert. Bush golfed, cleared brush and did his 2 hours of daily gym work for the rest of his vacation. As you know, he was reading to schoolchildren in Florida during the strike. Bush was president for 8 months before 9-11 occurred. Now, who did you say was asleep at the switch?

Answer 4

i think it is the left whining as usual...but to be fair i think some neo-cons were against the Regan film...but when they complain about the Regan thing...the liberals said the neo-cons were trying to hinder free speech...funny huh...

Answer 5

It's called "legacy repairing".