9/11 TV Film Sparks Clinton Administration Outrage

[Nova]

My preoccupation with women hasn't cost this country a thing.

Care to explain what you meant?

I meant preoccupation with Bill's women, of course.

He hasn't been in office for more than 5 years and y'all are still talking about 'em.

That and turning personal peccadillos into a national crisis is pretty much what "preoccupation" means.

 

[Karole28]

I meant preoccupation with Bill's women, of course.

He hasn't been in office for more than 5 years and y'all are still talking about 'em.

That and turning personal peccadillos into a national crisis is pretty much what "preoccupation" means.

Oh of course how could I have missed it?

Y'all will be talking about "em" for years and years to come, every time Bin Laden kills someone, his name will come up again. Quite a legacy, I'm thinking. He blantantly traded his political status for American lives, and it irks me, to say the least.

When a sitting president can lie under oath (perjury?) and still have people defending him, I think we need to rethink our collective morality at least.

 

[Masterj]

This is ridiculous. Who in the hell cares who Clinton fooled around with??? Is it any of our business? That whole process was nothing but a colossal waste of time and taxpayers money. I am sick and tired of all the sanctimonious drivel regarding this non-issue. His fidelity issues are Hillary's problems. NOT ours. There were plenty of other issues that were much more important and relevant than that stupid witchhunt.:furious:

 

[Karole28]

There were plenty of other issues that were much more important and relevant than that stupid witchhunt.:furious:

Thank you for making my point. I'm sure when you post your list of "other issues that were much more important and relevant that that stupid witchhunt" you'll have national security at the top. Correct?

Post your list and let's rank their importance, ok? Thanks.

 

[Dark Knight]

This is ridiculous. Who in the hell cares who Clinton fooled around with??? Is it any of our business? That whole process was nothing but a colossal waste of time and taxpayers money. I am sick and tired of all the sanctimonious drivel regarding this non-issue. His fidelity issues are Hillary's problems. NOT ours. There were plenty of other issues that were much more important and relevant than that stupid witchhunt.:furious:

Until he lied under oath about it, making it felony perjury. That's where he got into trouble. Bush has never agreed, nor been forced, to sit in front of the Senate, under oath, and make his claims.

 

[Nova]

When a sitting president can lie under oath (perjury?) and still have people defending him, I think we need to rethink our collective morality at least.

When we blame a former president rather than one who is in office at the time of a security breach (and who ignored clear warnings of that breach), I think we need to rethink our collective sanity.

(But on a side note, Karole, thank you for recognizing that this is a political argument, not a personal one. I'm not blaming you personally for 9/11. I'm also not defending Bill Clinton. I'm saying half the country went nuts over a couple of pokes that don't even sound like much fun.)

 

[Nova]

Could this be any sadder?

We currently have a president whose policies have killed tens of thousands, endangered the environment and bankrupted the country.

But many of us still want to harp about a few blow jobs. (And, yes, to the horror of 7-year-olds everywhere, a married man lied about getting a .)

 

[Karole28]

When we blame a former president rather than one who is in office at the time of a security breach (and who ignored clear warnings of that breach), I think we need to rethink our collective sanity.

We're blaming a President who could have prevented the second attack on the WTC, he knew who orchestrated the attack and at one point was offered the Maestro. And, essentially I'm not even doing that. I am stating that there is culpability from Clinton's White House to Bush's.

(But on a side note, Karole, thank you for recognizing that this is a political argument, not a personal one. I'm not blaming you personally for 9/11. I'm also not defending Bill Clinton. I'm saying half the country went nuts over a couple of pokes that don't even sound like much fun.)

You're welcome and backatcha. I think what bothers most Americans (what bothered me) was the serious lack in judgement of a sitting President. Not only is a philandering President distasteful (especially on Clinton's level, (a fat intern??? And, with his propensity to make the same stupid mistakes over and over again) It's a blantant security risk, leaving him open to blackmail and worse, and a serious character flaw when combined with the open flaunting of his "untouchable" status, legally.

 

[Karole28]

We currently have a president whose policies have killed tens of thousands, endangered the environment and bankrupted the country.

Lighten up Francis. Unless you have computer access from your cardboard box down by the river, this hysteria is unecessary.

Global warming has resulted in me enjoying nice 60F weather here in Georgia, I remember as a child being warned about the impending ice age which would surely kill all of us. Tens of thousands have not died as a result of George Bush's conception. And, GWB isn't poisoning any wells.

Believe it or not, I'm not a Bush supporter.

But many of us still want to harp about a few blow jobs. (And, yes, to the horror of 7-year-olds everywhere, a married man lied about getting a .)

See my earlier post. No matter how many times you shriek it, it's not about sex. Tell the truth, weren't you a tiny bit miffed when he wagged that deformed finger at you?

 

[Marthatex]

Alert! Alert! O'Reilly just came on and he does NOT approve of the movie.

Evidently there's gonna be some editing? Did anyone else watch his talking Points? It went too fast for me.

Well, I have read the 9-11 report, and the problems were in this order:

George Tenet -
CIA
FBI - communication with the entity above
Condaleeza Rice - did not know what she was doing as Security Advisor
George Bush, new President, did not want to listen to threats about Al Quada (through Clinton people), no no no
Everyone just generally had their guard down - there were Al Queda operatives IN THE COUNTRY, and people knew it.
Bill Clinton - didin't try hard enough? Not sharp enough CIA

The CIA problems had been weakening for years and years.

So the answer is, as some have said above, there's plenty of blame to spread around.

Did Clinton keep the NORAD planes from going up also? Ha. Remember guys, he wasn't the sitting President as Nova points out.

 

[kgeaux]

Well, I was trying to inject a little objectivity here, but I see that no one's interested in that.

So my boots are made for walkin', and that's just what they'll do. So long, gang! Have fun - actually this subject probably belongs in the PP forum, and actually there is a thread on it there.

So you saying "They are calling it a GOPocumentary HeHe" is acceptable humor while trying to inject a little objectivity, but me saying we called Michael Moore's film a "DEMocumentary" is not? I don't think so, Martha. I think turn around is fair play. Why should you be able to mock Republicans, and that is ok, but if someone mocks Democrats, it's so long gang????

 

[Marthatex]

So you saying "They are calling it a GOPocumentary HeHe" is acceptable humor while trying to inject a little objectivity, but me saying we called Michael Moore's film a "DEMocumentary" is not? I don't think so, Martha. I think turn around is fair play. Why should you be able to mock Republicans, and that is ok, but if someone mocks Democrats, it's so long gang????

Kgeaux, I was trying to put in some humor. That's all. and I don't believe I answered anything back about Michael Moore. I couldn't care less about Michael more and his "mocumentaries" he he.

OK? Geees.. Everything is so damned partisan, pardon me? Everyone just sees red. No one can give the other side a break.

Did you read my other posts right up there? Alert Alert - O'Reilly. I'm trying to be BIpartisan.

Did you read my assessment of the 9-11 commisssion. I read it. I've said it over and over. I read it, I read it.

I agree with IDAHO MOM that there's plenty of blame to spread. Is that OK? Have you read ALL my posts?

Geeesh. Sure I can be tough about what I say, but I don't directly start pickin on people.

Except for one comment I found very offensive and I said so. Bye now.

 

[2luvmy]

Under oath.

If Monica hadn't saved that dress, he'd still be denying it and everyone would still be believing him.

As it is, he was impeached. And rightly so.

Don't even get me started on Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broderick, et al.

What a disgrace.

And as far as playing the blame game (re: bin Laden), I guess since Bill's not to blame, neither is Bush?

3,000 people died because of Bill's preoccupation with women and we're supposed to forget that?

Uhhh... I am pretty sure there are plenty more presidents that were preoccupied with women,but they didn't get called to the carpet....

 

[windovervocalcords]

Oh of course how could I have missed it?

Y'all will be talking about "em" for years and years to come, every time Bin Laden kills someone, his name will come up again. Quite a legacy, I'm thinking. He blantantly traded his political status for American lives, and it irks me, to say the least.

When a sitting president can lie under oath (perjury?) and still have people defending him, I think we need to rethink our collective morality at least.

When a sitting president can ignore the Constitution, break international law, start an unnecessary war and act like he is SO MORAL and divinely inspired to lead the country as if Christ-like, we ought to look at what we consider the collective morality of our country. Especially those who believe him.

I don't care who Clinton had sex with frankly. I thought it was stupid of him. I had less respect for him. I was angry enough to change parties over it. But in the long run. It was a major waste of time the impeachment trials. A nasty bit of partisan goombah. We ought to impeach Bush for something meaningful. Like responsibility for the illegal war he wages.

Bush had my support at 9/11 and quickly blew it.

I can live with Bush blowing it for me, it is not acceptable that he has caused too many others loss of life. His admin has to go. Bush is a far more culpable liar than Clinton when it comes to what is more important to me.

The lives of our soldiers, Iraqi citizens, the security of the world is more important. Bush has blown it.

Bin Laden must be blissed out, he will probably live to !00, thanks to GWB.

 

[Marthatex]

It doesn't matter what sex act he did, or even that he lied; the point is the movie should tell the truth:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/08/abc.movie/index.html

 

[Marthatex]

So you saying "They are calling it a GOPocumentary HeHe" is acceptable humor while trying to inject a little objectivity, but me saying we called Michael Moore's film a "DEMocumentary" is not? I don't think so, Martha. I think turn around is fair play. Why should you be able to mock Republicans, and that is ok, but if someone mocks Democrats, it's so long gang????

Michael Moore's films were not marketed for TV; and if they had been, there would have been "outrage".

And Bowling for Columbine didn't join up with Scholastic to be marketed to the school, did it?

Turn around is fair play, but you can't compare apples to oranges either.

Bottom line: 9-11 movie should tell the TRUTH as much as is possible. This is one of the most important events of the century, maybe THE most. So it should be the truth, no matter what political party you belong to. I haven't even mentioned political parties here, and I don't recall saying anything about Michael Moore. That post was way long ago anyway.

Did you read my summary of the 9-11 Commission Report? I'm trying to be objective in my summary of that also.

I realize we are not on the PP right now.

 

[Marthatex]

Thank you for making my point. I'm sure when you post your list of "other issues that were much more important and relevant that that stupid witchhunt" you'll have national security at the top. Correct?

Post your list and let's rank their importance, ok? Thanks.

Clinton was very aware of national security. His hands were tied, ya know, and I don't mean sex.

(Whitewater, wag the dog, Paula Jones lawsuit, lawsuit after lawsuit) It's amazing he did as well as he did!

He's a very smart man. TRUST ME, I KNOW......

 

[Karole28]

Uhhh... I am pretty sure there are plenty more presidents that were preoccupied with women,but they didn't get called to the carpet....

Kennedy drove his Secret Service agents crazy trying to keep his affairs under wraps, that's true. And, I'm sure almost every other President had affairs as well.

However, Clinton was the only President to ever lie under oath about it after telling us to our "faces" that he'd "never had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". This was after Monica had been urged to lie for him in the Paula Jones trial. The was also after the Supreme Court (unanimously) decided to let Paula Jones take a sitting President to court for sexual harrassment.

Monica also tried to pursuade her "pal" Linda Trip to lie under oath as well. (leading her to record their conversations).

So, once again, I say, it's not about a BJ. It's about perjury and collusion.

And, extremely bad judgment.

 

[Karole28]

Clinton was very aware of national security. His hands were tied, ya know, and I don't mean sex.

(Whitewater, wag the dog, Paula Jones lawsuit, lawsuit after lawsuit) It's amazing he did as well as he did!

He's a very smart man. TRUST ME, I KNOW......

Smart people use bad judgement. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[windovervocalcords]

"...... contains numerous flagrant falsehoods about events in American history. The eyewitnesses to these events state that the script distorts and fabricates evidence into order to mislead viewers about the responsibility of numerous American officials for allegedly ignoring the terrorist threat before 2000.

The claim by the show’s producers, broadcaster, and defenders, that these falsehoods are permissible because the show is merely a dramatization, is disingenuous and dangerous given their assertions that the show is also based on authoritative historical evidence.

Whatever ABC’s motivations might be, broadcasting these falsehoods, connected to the most traumatic historical event of our times, would be a gross disservice to the public. A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the falsification of history, except to expose it. "
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/08/schlesinger_wilentz_and_other_historians_to_abcs_iger_yank_dangerous_film

Thanks Maral for the link....more in the PP thread on same topic