if path to 911 was fiction and so is Death of a President how come the Dems dont cry about that movie too?

Question

is this another example of their hypocricy ? F911 was fiction also and the commie libs made michal moore a hero for lying.......Demonrats why cant you be honet and admit that you are two faced hypocrits?

Answer 1

I believe people are trying to take one or two scenes in The Path to 9/11 to badmouth the whole film and call it a total work of fiction, because they really can't answer the factual implications of the film. Clinton was not all that interested in fighting terrorism. They want to deny it.

Same thing as trashing the Swift Boat vets - John Kerry was right, and all 252 of them were wrong? Come on!

Answer 2

Because "Death of a President" was always called "fiction." It was also something that never even happened. If President Bush had actually been assassinated, the story would be different. "Fahrenheit 9/11" was a real documentary that was never said to be fiction. Was it a Liberal documentary? Of course. But it showed statistics, videos, and other evidence to show the ignorance of our government. Both of those films were clear on what they were called.
"Path to 9/11" was supposed to be (according to ABC, the director, and the producers) based on the factual 9/11 Commission's report. Of course it was altered and portrayed the opposite. They tried to call it a "docu-drama" to protect themselves, but it didn't work. Something like that should be told or shown as it is intended by the original "author." In this case, the author is the independent commission that investigated the government's incompetence and short-sightedness leading up to and after 9/11.
To reverse your question: Why did Conservatives get so upset about "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Death of a President" being fake but not about "Path to 9/11" being altered and distorted? It works both ways.

Answer 3

The Death of a President isn't fiction based truth, it is all fiction. A second rate film made in London. It's doubtful American audiences would pay for a theater ticket to see it. The 9/11 fiction and innuendo , based on facts ,was broadcast to millions of people. There is a difference.
As in, you are Shiraz, not Sirhan.
We are honest and not 'honet' and hipocricy isn't a word.

The only thing worse than your logic is your manners.
Your attempt at constructing a meaningful question was pitiful.
I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective...
Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write and spell,
, you will have more success.

Answer 4

Two-faced hypocrites? It takes an educated person to figure out what a two-faced hypocrite is ! And Michael Moore wasn't the Dems' hero. That's your first misconception.

Death of a President? I'm looking forward to seeing it !

Answer 5

That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.

That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there’s no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!

That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.

That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.

That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.

That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.

That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.

The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.

That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.

Answer 6

Death of a President was presented as fiction, and it was. Path to 9/11 was presented as fact, but it was fiction. Nothin' two-faced about that.

Answer 7

Quit, quit, QUIT generalizing. This "Demonrat" does not like nor support the likes of Michael Moore. Your argument sucks so much.

Answer 8

Are you really that dumb? One was presented as a work of fiction, one was presented as a documentary. (later reworded as docudrama)

Answer 9

Because 911 really happened. Get it?
Does your name mean you're a Syrian agent?

Answer 10

Wow the flood of inanity never stops. Thinking (sic) like this is why they tell you not to do drugs