Why did liberals try to block, the showing of, "The Path to 9/11"?

Question

Part 2 will be on tonight on ABC

Answer 1

Because Michael Moore puts out a docudrama and it is fact, a Conservative ( who might not be all that conservative) puts out a docudrama and it is a pack of lies.

The fact is that the 8 years and 8 months prior to 9/11 no one did enough to stop the attack. No one also figured that the Terrorist would use our planes as a missle. Clinton ignored a lot and President Bush failed to take all reports serious enough. Then again Clinton had 8 years and 3 chances to kill Bin Laden, but refused because of what people might think. President Bush had 8 months to detect and stop the attack and ignored some intelligence that the FBI and CIA couldn't speak to each other about due to an law that prohibited them from doing so.

We need to make sure our intelligence agencies can speak to one another and that they have the proper funding along with military funding, (Which Clinton cut to hell to balance the budget) to keep us safe. No long will Oceans protect us

Answer 2

It is more of a matter of timing then of fact, but they are not arguing that point. To air that now, this close to the November Mid-Terms, may persuade some voters to be more supportive of the President. I am a "liberal" -- kind of, sort of, some times -- and I can see the point. What I cannot see is the refusal to the link -- for lack of a better term -- with the events of 9/11 and the Clinton Administration. Those events had to be planned, and the execution began, in the Clinton era. Freed, the former head of the FBI, was a notorious technophobe. He did not have e-mail in his own office, and could not see why the FBI needed to automate. I do that that was part of the problem. Add to that, the FBI was watching the Militias (after the OKC bombing) more then the Islamic fundamentalist. Most people in 1997- 2001 thought the primary threat was internal. I can't say that I blame 'em. They could not grasp that Islam was capable of attacking the US mainland even after the bombing in 1992. The neo-cons made their move, we have Bush because of it, and the Islamic Fundamentalist made their move. That is what we are remembering today.

Answer 3

They don't want the Clinton Administrations failures to become public. That and they don't believe in the first ammendment to the constituiton. Fact or fiction abc can show whatever they want whenever they want. I don't see how it matters one way or the other, hardcore liberals won't believe Clinton ever did anything wrong even if he told them he paid Bin Laden to do it, and they will believe Bush is the antichrist even if God came down from heaven and said Bush did everything right. At the same time hardcore conservatives would belive completely the opposite no matter what. It takes us independents with brains and the desire to know and research the truth to know that Clinton and Bush have both made mistakes, Clinton more than Bush, but who's counting.
And those of you who have a comment about it was not in the 9/11 commission report it is lies, are not being truthful to themselves either. the 9/11 commission was a partisan politics scam. They let Clinton and his people meet with them at their convenience and listened to what they had to say and let them go while Condoleeza Rice couldn't finish a sentence wthout being shouted down.

Answer 4

Because it's a work of fiction that portrays itself as fact.

"Democrats and some experts on terrorism say a key scene in which members of President Bill Clinton's administration refuse to approve a CIA recommendation to kill or capture al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden never happened......

Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, and former security adviser Samuel R. Berger also wrote protest letters...."No such episode ever occurred," Berger wrote, "nor did anything like it."....

Richard Clarke...''There were no CIA operatives about to snatch bin Laden. It's utterly invented."...

the network is planning to distribute the miniseries to thousands of high school students via free downloads. The exposure will leave many young people thinking they are seeing fact rather than fiction....

conservative radio host and former Reagan administration official Bill Bennett acknowledged that "the Clintons had a point" in pressuring ABC to correct the film and admonished ABC for "falsify[ing] the record," adding, "I think they should correct those inaccuracies."....

conservative author and journalist Richard Miniter [said]..."But certainly if I was the producer, I wouldn't have gone with this scene, because there's no factual basis for it. It seems to be drawn from an Internet myth, from a profound misunderstanding of what actually happened.

If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years, there's things they could have said, but the idea that someone had [Osama] bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and the -- Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there's zero factual basis for that."

I'd be pissed too if some cheap 9/11 exploitation movie was essentially blaming me for osama bin laden.Wouldn't you?

Answer 5

I think the bottom line is that now the world knows the truth that both administrations had a hand in our failures and BOTH administrations could have done more. Liberals don't want that brought up now when they think they're in the clear to sweep the november elections!

It's unfortunate that regardless of who's fault it was we can't just move on and try to come up with a solution so we're safer. It's almost as if both parties want to actually see another attack happen on the other guy's watch, so that they can continue to place blame.

Let's just fix it for gods sake and stop fighting about it.

Answer 6

Because it wasn't fawningly sycophantic to the Clinton administration. It had been based on testimony and facts from the 9/11 Commission Report.

But in certain instances, where it was the word of someone with nothing to gain against the Clintonites who had everything to lose, the Dems vociferously protested any negative portrayal of their hero BJ-boy. There were no lies, just conflicting testimony, that the Dems insisted fall their way.

And why should any sane person trust in the truthfulness of Clinton or his admin? They are proven liars.

Answer 7

Because they have always had control of the media and with "Fox News" and "The Path to 9/11" they are realizing that there grip on the gullible side of America is slipping.

Answer 8

Because they feel it may effect the upcoming elections.
Sandy Berger stole and destroyed items from the Natl Archives, that happened, he pleaded out, THIS IS PROOF! Proof of the guilt and knowledge that the Clinton adm. was sleeping and dropped the ball. Thats why!
Libs say, it didn't happen! Yeah, well Sandy Berger kinda flies in your faces, right?

Answer 9

It aided as a distraction from the ACTUALL 9/11 questions. They made a hooplah to avoid their man being called out just like the cons would have.

Answer 10

Although ABC has clearly stated that it is fictional accounting of real events the politicians know that people believe everything they see on TV. Clinton let Bin Laden go, that is fact, but he was not distracted by Monica-gate according to Bill and his defenders.

It was disappointing to see them cave into his demands but they also broadcast one of the more notoriously liberal new outlets, ABC, so it was inevitable they would back off their position and censor it.