2006-09-14 09:28:45 · 25 answers · asked by H C 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Oh , sure, but the Michael Moore movie was all factual?
Don't protect him, he's a looser
2006-09-14 09:35:36 · update #1
Well, it's like this:
1 - Bill can't stand not to be liked.
2 - The program portrayed him in an unflattering light.
3 - This means more people will not like Bill.
4 - This enrages Bill (who is one very self-absorbed BRAT - according to many of those who have worked for him).
Poor Bill.
2006-09-14 09:33:12 · answer #1 · answered by Walter Ridgeley 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I look to keep in mind quite some griping about a movie made about Reagan which develop into pulled from the community because of questionable accuracy. develop into it alright to merchandise to that action picture yet not alright to merchandise to the 911 action picture? develop into it alright to merchandise to Fahrenheit 911 yet now to not this action picture? and how did you recognize it really is extra authentic than Fahrenheit 911 - Moore printed links on his website to verify his claims---apparently you've already watched the action picture and are prepared to do an same???? If there are demonstrable inaccuracies, they might want to be said. both side. Methinks you protest too a lot, eh kiddo?? ---ok so I might want to take your word for it, someone who obviously is of the same opinion with the concept Clinton's failings led to 9/eleven, and that is not being led by employing the nostril, yet when i look at Moore's links, i'm being led by employing the nostril? some info bypass some distance, and that i nonetheless secure that demonstrable innacuracies might want to honestly be complained about loud and lengthy.
2016-11-26 23:21:16 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even though the film was based on real reports and facts, it was a work of fiction. But the movie showed how sanctions, guidelines, and restrictions placed on our investigators, i.e. the FBI, kept them from uncovering and disbanding terrorist cells operating in the U.S. prior to 9/11/01. It also showed how our foreign policy conflicted with taking down terrorists overseas. These were all polices in place during the Clinton Administration. Anyone who watched it could have thought that maybe they were trying to blame the whole thing on Clinton. I'm posting a question now...
2006-09-14 09:37:04 · answer #3 · answered by johnj1017 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
oh HC, your picture so pretty. He pissed because people mad at him too for not stopping Osama when he could of. But hind site is 20/20 (its a cliche for a reason).
I don't know. I didn't watch it or any of the 9/11 stuff. I think it all too late to rag on Clinton and Bush for being arrogant about the safety of the nation. Now we gotta hope the next YAHOO we elect will start realizing the USA is just a vulnerable as any poor 3rd world pitt.
2006-09-14 09:35:12 · answer #4 · answered by Lotus Phoenix 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It hit too close to home and he is desperately trying to save any semblance of a positive Presidential legacy (good luck with that one).
Clinton's team demanded that actual historical footage of his testimony be cut from the movie. Nothing fictional about that.
Bill does not trust the people to be able to decide for themselves. What a shame (what a control freak).
2006-09-14 09:44:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because the truth hurts.... and the old express "Thou protest too much" rings true.
... for the younger crowd, " the one that speaks first and the loudest is the guilty one".
...I say Bill Clinton knew about Bin Laden for 9 years and his threat, and Bush knew for 9 months...yet who gets BLAMED!!?
2006-09-14 09:43:37 · answer #6 · answered by Rada S 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because he did not want the media to tie his tryst with Monica into an irresponsiblility issue and damage his wife's chances for next election.
2006-09-14 09:33:07 · answer #7 · answered by The Global Community 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because clintons learned that if you keep saying it isn't so, then eventually it must be true in spite of all evidence. He was all about his arrogance "because I can" and his legacy that will make his one of our worst presidents in our history.
2006-09-14 09:34:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
He and the libs control the media and can not believe that one network chose to TELL THE TRUTH AS IT IS (the definition of is is IS) and NOT as he would like us to THINK it IS.
Thank you ABC.
2006-09-14 09:33:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Have no clue and no one else will either cause we did not get to see the edited parts .
2006-09-14 09:31:54 · answer #10 · answered by playtoofast 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋