Farenheight 9/11

[~~*DarlingDiva*~~]

Hi Everyone,
Ok I am kind of surprised that this has not been discussed before I went and looked but maybe I missed it.Has anyone seen this movie???I know I know a little late but OH MY GOD!Not only is this movie very informative but it really makes you shake your head in true disgust with some of the goings on that have made us look SO bad.I am going to leave it at that,for now.Last time I brought up a movie that was a documentary I wanted to talk about the movie "Supersize me" and I got shot down in flames VERY quickly.You can say this is another propaganda film BUT everything is documented on paper.Our goverment sure does try to sheild us off from the ugly things they try to keep quiet.Ok,nuff said .Anyone else seen it?If so what are your thoughts about it?

DD

[MadMonk]

http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/

[Shaggy]

Hi Everyone,
Ok I am kind of surprised that this has not been discussed before I went and looked but maybe I missed it.Has anyone seen this movie???I know I know a little late but OH MY GOD!Not only is this movie very informative but it really makes you shake your head in true disgust with some of the goings on that have made us look SO bad.I am going to leave it at that,for now.Last time I brought up a movie that was a documentary I wanted to talk about the movie "Supersize me" and I got shot down in flames VERY quickly.You can say this is another propaganda film BUT everything is documented on paper.Our goverment sure does try to sheild us off from the ugly things they try to keep quiet.Ok,nuff said .Anyone else seen it?If so what are your thoughts about it?

DD

Don't let the movie fool you. It is full of lies, coming from a man who hates the president and wants some publicity. It is just another propaganda film.

[Patrick]

Lies? Have you seen the movie? It basically show REAL clips from the life of the president. There's no way you can alter REAL video clips. Now, I will say that the movie only shows one side of the story, but the clips that are shown are real. The president is a doofus.

[~~*DarlingDiva*~~]

Thank you Patrick!!Man I was getting seriously worried.I wasn't sure if I was gonna get beat down by the republicans or what.But Yes,I have seen it and I feel the same way.Especially the part where it shows him in the classroom when the planes were hitting the twin towers!!!I had to pick my jaw up off the floor countless times.He is a joke in my opinion,I don't think we as a Nation will ever gain the respect of other countries from some of the Crap Bush has made us go through.Anyway but yeah back to that scene and countless others that there is a factual paper trail and videotaped proof I want someone to explain to me how this is all Propaganda.If you guys think that we are allowed to hear all the crap going on in different countries and that our government isn't hiding it away from us because its NOT pretty.I have another movie then that you should all watch its called Wag the Dog.


DD

[Patrick]

Yup, our president wasn't much of a leader right after the attacks. Cheney pretty much kept Bush from losing it. In that classroom, he was at a complete loss. Time kept passing by, and refused to leave the classroom, because he had no clue what to do.

So instead, he decided to hop on Air Force One and fly around the country like a scaredy cat or a chicken. Real leader, huh. He cut and run when the job got tough.

Hillary Clinton, 2008.

[~~*DarlingDiva*~~]

Amen Brother.I feel the same way.Its just sad and dam embarrassing,If I do say so myself.I just wonder how many parents have to lose their children in the war before its all over.Ohhh,and the part where he was trying to get the all the state leaders that supposedly support the war would absolutely NOT sign their children up to go to war.Its such a double standard it makes me sick.Anyway thanks Patrick I don't feel alone anymore lol.


DD

[Shaggy]

Lies? Have you seen the movie? It basically show REAL clips from the life of the president. There's no way you can alter REAL video clips. Now, I will say that the movie only shows one side of the story, but the clips that are shown are real. The president is a doofus.

It is one sided and that is why the movie is a joke. If they were going to make a true movie about the president, they should have included both sides. Once again, it shows how ignorant democrats are and how they can't stand to hear the truth on how great our president is. Heck, if Clinton was in office during 9-11, he would have had to ask Monica to release her grip so that he could hop on Air One and go to Hawaii, so that he would not have to make any decisions. He did make some decisions (excuse me, Billary made the decisions. Bill was too big of a chicken to make a decision on his own),but they were all really bad ones. What a pathetic example for American's. Bill and Billary Clinton, the laughing stock of the world.:tweeted:

[designguy]

True (or untrue) events can be distorted by selective editing or ommision of facts that pertain to the issue. No matter what your opinion of the president is, you cannot look at anything Michael Moore does as "truth" because he has proven himself to be full of **** and a biased ultra-liberal. If you want to debate leadership and presidential elections, start with logic and truthfulness, not spewing hatred, unsubstantiated lies, inuendo, political tricks and propaganda. You can't possibly think Al Gore could have lead this country though 9/11 do you?

PS. Please, please, please put Hillary on the Democratic ticket in 2008, to ensure a Republican victory.

[~~*DarlingDiva*~~]

Well Shaggy,

Isn't that interesting,So democrats are ignorant huh???I think its really pathetic how YOU cannot see that our President is wasting BILLIONS of dollars on a pointless war for one thing.I could go into several other areas that show he is a putz.I wonder since we had to HIGHTAIL it into Iraq so quickly If you had a child that was killed because of this war THAT NEVER NEEDED TO HAPPEN,would you still feel the same?What if it was your only child?Also in a ridiculous and maddening way this IDIOT ass president you think is so wonderful (giggle) dropped the ball SO bad with Hurricane katrina.Before you jump on the back of what you think is your high horse,again I will ask what if you lost some family members in that hurricane would you still feel the same?


DD

[Patrick]

Obviously, you Republicans are in the minority, because Bush's approval ratings sit at around 30%, the lowest of any president, except for maybe Hoover.

[MadMonk]

I love how, because some of us disagree with you , you say we are beating down on you. Why ask for opinions if you can't handle a little criticism of your views?

[Patrick]

True (or untrue) events can be distorted by selective editing or ommision of facts that pertain to the issue. No matter what your opinion of the president is, you cannot look at anything Michael Moore does as "truth" because he has proven himself to be full of **** and a biased ultra-liberal. If you want to debate leadership and presidential elections, start with logic and truthfulness, not spewing hatred, unsubstantiated lies, inuendo, political tricks and propaganda. You can't possibly think Al Gore could have lead this country though 9/11 do you?

PS. Please, please, please put Hillary on the Democratic ticket in 2008, to ensure a Republican victory.

The events I stated above were true facts, not lies. The president cut and run when the heat came on.

Al Gore would've at least not run with fear. And if Al Gore were in office, we wouldn't be having nations back out of Iraq? Why? Because we would've waited for the UN to do it's job before we acted like a bunch of pompous fools and went into a place where we had no business being.

[Patrick]

There's still no absolute reason we're in Iraq, except to steal their oil. No weapons of mass destruction. No terrorists. In fact, the terrorist problem over there is worse now.

[Patrick]

By the way, I notice the Bosnia/Serbia conflict ended peacefully. Too bad we can't say that about Iraq.

[Patrick]

This explains everything:

[Uptowner]

SO WHERE WERE YOU WHEN IT HAPPENED GEORGE?

Bush was at a school in Florida where he was taking part in a photo opportunity, which included reading a story about a pet goat to a class of children. The media around the world told us, from White House statements, that Bush heard of the twin tower attacks when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, spoke in his ear in the classroom as he addressed the children. There was the famous picture of Card leaning over Bush accompanied by headlines like: The Moment Bush Knew.

But Bush told the Florida town meeting a very different story. This is what he said about what happened that morning in answer to a question by someone named Jordan:

"Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."

THIS IS STAGGERING - THERE WAS NO LIVE TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE HITTING THE TOWER - HOW COULD THERE BE?? THE FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST CRASH WAS TAKEN BY ONLOOKERS AND SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS AND DID NOT AIR FOR HOURS AND DAYS AFTER IT HAPPENED. THERE WAS LIVE COVERAGE OF THE SECOND CRASH, OF COURSE, BUT NOT OF THE FIRST - SO HOW ON EARTH CAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CLAIM TO A PUBLIC MEETING TO HAVE SEEN IT LIVE ON A TELEVISION OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM WHERE HE WAS WAITING TO ADDRESS THOSE CHILDREN?? AND WHY HAS NO NEWS ORGANISATION OR "JOURNALIST" PICKED UP THIS FANTASTIC LIE?

And what about that statement about "there's one terrible pilot". What?? A passenger jet crashes into one of the twin towers full of people and all the President of the United States can say is "there's one terrible pilot"!! And then he walks into a classroom to read a story about a pet goat?? God help us. "There's one terrible pilot"? We are not talking a light plane flown by an amateur, but a commerical airliner and even if it had not been a terrorist outrage, it would still have been an enormous tragedy requiring the leadership of the US president. But of course none of this tissue of lies by Bush could have happened because he could not possibly have seen the first crash on live television because there was no live coverage. The fact that Bush KNEW the plane was going to hit the tower is more like it because he, like his masters who orchestrated it, was well aware of what was going to unfold that morning.

AND EVEN AFTER HE CLAIMS THAT HIS CHIEF OF STAFF TOLD HIM OF THE SECOND PLANE, AND THAT "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK", BUSH WENT ON READING THE STORY ABOUT THE PET GOAT!! YOU SIMPLY COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP, COULD YOU?


As Associated Press reported on September 12th: "In Sarasota, Florida, Bush was reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear. The president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the tragedy about a half-hour later. "

"Briefly" remained somber?? He's just been told that the New York twin towers have been struck by commercial airliners. Death and destruction on a massive scale was already obvious and the President was "briefly somber" before continuing to read a children's story? Bush told the town meeting:

"But I knew I needed to act. I knew that if the nation's under attack, the role of the Commander-in-Chief is to respond forcefully to prevent other attacks from happening. And so, I've talked to the Secretary of Defense; one of the first acts I did was to put our military on alert."

BUT HE COULD NOT HAVE TALKED TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENCE UNTIL HE FINISHED THE GOAT STORY AND LEFT THE CLASSROOM AND ONLY THEN DID HE PUT AMERICA ON ALERT. HOW MUCH CRUCIAL TIME WAS LOST THAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED, FOR INSTANCE, THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON, WHICH HAPPENED 40 MINUTES AFTER THE SECOND TOWER WAS HIT?

[MadMonk]

By the way, I notice the Bosnia/Serbia conflict ended peacefully. Too bad we can't say that about Iraq.

Yeah, there was a war that had a concrete impact on our way of life. Ahhhh but, it was initiated during Saint Clinton's reign so everythings all good with that one according to the (ANTI WAR!!!) Dimmocrat's.

[Patrick]

This is interesting: Who do we blame?

The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is bombed. US citizen Timothy McVeigh is convicted of the bombing, but some maintain there is a Middle Eastern connection. For instance, Richard Clarke, counterterrorism “tsar” during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, says the possibility is intriguing and he has been unable to disprove it. [Clarke, 2004, pp 127] The bombing leads to a surge in concern about terrorism. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act becomes law as a result of such concern. However, many anti-terrorism provisions Clinton seeks are not approved by the Republican-controlled Congress. Many politicians agree with the National Rifle Association that proposed restrictions on bomb-making would infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms. [Clarke, 2004, pp 98-99]

[PUGalicious]

This explains everything:

Here are updated numbers: As of the time of this post, the cost of the Iraq invasion and occupation is up to $223.7 billion. Now, 2,123 soldiers have died.

[~~*DarlingDiva*~~]

OMG

Patrick,that is really scary.In a Nation where I grew up and felt safe and secure,it just doesn't exist anymore.I fear for my children and their children over the next few decades.

DD

[Patrick]

Early 2001: Bush Staffers Less Concerned with Terrorism


Clinton and Bush staff overlap for several months while new Bush appointees are appointed and confirmed. Clinton holdovers seem more concerned about al-Qaeda than the new Bush staffers. For instance, according to a colleague, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, had become “totally preoccupied” with fears of a domestic terror attack. [Newsweek, 5/27/02] Brian Sheridan, Clinton's outgoing Deputy Defense Secretary for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, is astonished when his offers during the transition to bring the new military leadership up to speed on terrorism are brushed aside. “I offered to brief anyone, any time on any topic. Never took it up.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/04] Army Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, Deputy National Security Adviser and manager of Clinton's NSC (National Security Council) staff, still remains at the NSC nearly four months after Bush takes office. He later notes that while Clinton's advisers met “nearly weekly” on terrorism by the end of his term, he does not detect the same kind of focus with the new Bush advisers: “That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact. I didn't detect any activity but what [Clinton holdover Richard] Clarke and the CSG [Counterterrorism and Security Group] were doing.” [Washington Post, 1/20/02] Kerrick submits a memo to the new people at the NSC, warning, “We are going to be struck again.” He says, “They never responded. It was not high on their priority list. I was never invited to one meeting. They never asked me to do anything. They were not focusing. They didn't see terrorism as the big megaissue that the Clinton administration saw it as.” Kerrick adds, “They were gambling nothing would happen.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/04] Bush's first Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Henry Shelton, later says terrorism was relegated “to the back burner” until 9/11. [Washington Post, 10/2/02]

[Patrick]

January 3, 2001: Clarke Briefs Rice on al-Qaeda Threat; Keeps Job but Loses Power

Richard Clarke, counterterrorism “tsar” for the Clinton administration, briefs National Security Adviser Rice and her deputy, Steve Hadley, about al-Qaeda. [Washington Post, 1/20/02] Outgoing National Security Adviser Sandy Berger makes an unusual appearance at the start of the meeting, saying to Rice, “I'm coming to this briefing to underscore how important I think this subject is.” He claims that he tells Rice during the transition between administrations, “I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.” Clarke presents his plan to “roll back” al-Qaeda that he had given to the outgoing Clinton administration a couple of weeks earlier. [Time, 8/4/02] He gets the impression that Rice has never heard the term al-Qaeda before. [Guardian, 3/25/04; Clarke, 2004, pp 227-30]

People and organizations involved: Condoleezza Rice, Richard A. Clarke, Bush administration, Stephen Hadley, Sandy Berger, al-Qaeda

[Patrick]

January 21-September 10, 2001: Transportation Secretary Says Bush Administration Does Nothing to Fight Terrorism

In 2003, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta will be asked by the 9/11 Commission, “Did this higher level of [terrorist] chatter [before 9/11] ... result in any action across the government? I take it your answer is no.” He replies, “That�s correct.” [Associated Press, 5/23/03 (C)]

[Patrick]

January 25, 2001: Clarke Presents Plan to Roll Back al-Qaeda, but Response Is Delayed

Richard Clarke. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke submits a proposal to National Security Adviser Rice and “urgently” asks for a Cabinet-level meeting on the al-Qaeda threat. [Clarke, 2004, pp 230-31] He forwards his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 “Delenda Plan” (see August 27, 1998). He lays out a proposed agenda for urgent action:
Approve covert assistance to Ahmed Shah Massoud's Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (D)]
Significantly increase funding for CIA counterterrorism activity. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (D)]
Respond to the USS Cole bombing with an attack on al-Qaeda. (The link between al-Qaeda and that bombing had been assumed for months and is confirmed in the media two days later.) According to the Washington Post, “Clarke argue[s] that the camps [are] can't-miss targets, and they [matter]. The facilities [amount] to conveyor belts for al-Qaeda's human capital, with raw recruits arriving and trained fighters departing either for front lines against the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel coalition, or against American interests somewhere else. The US government had whole libraries of images filmed over Tarnak Qila and its sister camp, Garmabat Ghar, 19 miles farther west. Why watch al-Qaeda train several thousand men a year and then chase them around the world when they left?” No retaliation is taken on these camps until after 9/11. [Washington Post, 1/20/02]
Go forward with new Predator drone reconnaissance missions in the spring and use an armed version when it is ready. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (D)]
Step up the fight against terrorist fundraising. [9/11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (D)]
Be aware that al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the US are not just a potential threat, but are a “major threat in being.” Additionally, more attacks have almost certainly been set in motion. [Washington Post, 1/20/02; PBS Frontline, 10/3/02] Rice's response to Clarke's proposal is that the Cabinet will not address the issue until it has been “framed” at the deputy secretary level. However, this initial deputy meeting is not given high priority and it does not take place until April 2001. [Clarke, 2004, pp 230-31] Henry Shelton, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman until 9/11, says, “The squeaky wheel was Dick Clarke, but he wasn't at the top of their priority list, so the lights went out for a few months. Dick did a pretty good job because he's abrasive as hell, but given the [bureaucratic] level he was at” there was no progress. [Benjamin and Simon, 2002, pp 335-36; Los Angeles Times, 3/30/04] Some counterterrorism officials think the new administration responds slowly simply because Clarke's proposal originally came from the Clinton administration. [Time, 8/4/02] For instance, Thomas Maertenson, on the National Security Council in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, says, “They really believed their campaign rhetoric about the Clinton administration. So anything [that administration] did was bad, and the Bushies were not going to repeat it.” [New York Times, 3/24/04; Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 3/25/04]