...I thought it was very historically correct, and one thing that cannot be disputed, "Clinton" took his eye off the ball...when he was Not having "se* with that women" ha!
....can we say Michael Moore's warped redision of events .. I say, turn about is fair game!
2006-09-13 10:35:58 · 13 answers · asked by Rada S 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Purhaps I should have said the timeline was correct..which was the main point of the movie.
...Clinton had 9 years with Bin Ladin and Buch had 9 months, yet who gets blamed?
2006-09-13 11:18:30 · update #1
You really thought it was"very historically correct"? Did you know that even ABC said that this was a fictional program? The 9-11 Commission disputed your conclusion that "one thing that cannot be disputed "Clinton" took his eye off the ball". I think they know better than you do.
You are right that Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11" presented a biased view of 9-11. But people watching that film know that Michael Moore had a specific agenda, the bias was well known.
ABC isn't Michael Moore, it does not have a reputation either way. This danger is that people watch this fairy tale and start believing the story line as truth.
2006-09-13 10:51:31 · answer #1 · answered by SFDHSBudget 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A lot of people took their eye off the ball, not just Clinton.
David Cunningham, the film's director, is the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission (YWAM).
Cyrus Nowrasteh, the film's Iranian-American screenwriter, is also an outspoken conservative, who appeared as a featured speaker at the Liberty Film Festival (LFF).
It, like Fahrenheit 911, was pushed as a documentary, when, in fact, neither is anything more than partisan hate-mongering.
I have read the 9/11 Commission Report and Nowrasteh's take on it is far from accurate.
There is plenty of blame to spread around, starting with Reagan right up through our current president.
2006-09-13 17:43:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was very aware of the threat from Bin Laden and Al Quada and was working towards dealing with both.
If he got distracted from the issue, by having to fight off a frivolous attempt at impeachment, then it was the Republican Neo-cons who are to blame by making (literally) a federal case out of a marital infidelity....something that we know from history is not unique to Democratic presidents.
It is the cosy relationship between the Bush cronies and the Saudis for the last 30 years that is the real story.
2006-09-13 17:49:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
historically correct? well I didn't see it and apparently not many other people did either...hahaha... it didn't even break into the top ten for the week in ratings... at least for the first night...
but many discussed how it originally wasn't very historically correct in the beginning, but from what I understand they cut some of it...
I fear that both the movie and Moore's movie are equally warped...
2006-09-13 17:50:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You "thought" it was historically correct, just goes to show you can't trust people's judgment if it's not based on facts. It was a docudrama and according to most people involved quite inaccurate. And yes, your only indisputable point was very much disputed by the 9/11 commission.
2006-09-13 18:00:03 · answer #5 · answered by Kevin 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
RadaS must have slipped one too many of her ugly pills this morning.
Did you listen to the reviews of former Secretary of Defense, William Cohen (a Republican) regarding the flick?
He was LIVID.
Have you researched the creator/writer of the phony program to understand their reasons for forking out $40 million to get the thing aired?
Somehow.. I don't think so.
Michael Moore's documentary (which btw, no one to date has been able to prove anything inaccurate and the money to do so is still on the table) ....
...was not a "made for television" event.
Were you born this stupid or do you have to really try at it?
.
2006-09-13 17:53:55 · answer #6 · answered by HockeyGirl 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Check out this site: http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11timeline60pg
Its a time line of events surrounding 9/11 from the 70's to the present and each entry has references from the main stream media to back it up. No theories, just facts. Excellent reading.
2006-09-13 17:53:46 · answer #7 · answered by Jagatkarta 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Rada, we have been listening to the crap from Rush and Savage for years. Grow up. The only thing I question is the timing, but it is over and done with now.
See section on the FCC in the link below:
2006-09-13 17:39:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Good for you. Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson, the man who for several years followed Clinton around with the Nuke box in case of attack, said yes, Clinton did indeed refuse several times to let the CIA get Laden.
Also, Dick Morris, former aide of Clinton, verified this fact.
The lieberals are doing what they always do, accuse those who tell history correctly of lying.
2006-09-13 17:52:06 · answer #9 · answered by retiredslashescaped1 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
"I believe that once Republicans get on the same page we will find ourselves in disagreement with some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle," said Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, who supports the administration's bill. "But I don't see the need to unnecessarily have intramural fights if we can avoid them."
Just another freaking lemming not thinking for himself, the Congress, or his constituents.
Just follow party lines.....the dems are bad, everything they say.
All hail G. W. Bush.
2006-09-13 17:49:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋