you all should do yourselve a favor and watch this, instead: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
...
Rent it and don't believe 'docu-dramas' where writers are in charge, instead of historians.
as long as that last statement applies to F9-11.
that looks like an interesting show. I really haven't seen what the big to do is about the movie yet though
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
most of what you have seen in this movie besides dialogue between tenet, albright and whoever else is fact...the pharmacutical bombing, the terrorist activity, the lack of action by Clinton and his administration...im not a gullible person i actually look this stuff up and this information is out there for you to check out
i know im pointing blame but how can you or anyone else not get mad watching this movie or researching that our government and the president in charge for 8 years at this time let us down but everyone wants to blame bush...forget the political parties we as people should start asking the right questions against the right people in our government
I've never been a big Clinton supporter, I didn't vote for the guy, but by all accounts the writers and producers of this movie made things up for the sole purpose of making him look worse than he was. It seems to me that if he was as bad as they say, simply presenting a factual account of what took place would be enough. I'm not about to waste my time watching this. If I want to learn more about 9/11, I'll choose more fact-based materials.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
that looks like an interesting show. I really haven't seen what the big to do is about the movie yet though
...
I think it has to do with 'artistic license' to dramatize real events... such as attribute statements to specific individuals. Sort of like my 'docu-drama' on Hitler where he says to prepare for the 'Mother of all battles'... then invades Iraq.
If you are going to tell the story of a historical event... a recent historical event... get the history part right.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The big facts in F911 seem to be right, they fictionalized the character interplay of course, how could they not. But to call the whole thing a pack of lies or fiction just doesn't swim.
A Ryder truck did blow up in the Twin Towers in '93.
US Embassies in Africa did get attacked in '99.
We did notify Pakistan of our immenent strike on Afghan-Al Qaeda.
It's a pretty well-established fact that we had a couple shots at Bin Laden in the 90s.
But then they speculate, was Clinton too distracted by the Lewinski stuff to properly address the situation? Did Pakistan pass a heads-up to Bin Laden? We'll never know that stuff so speculation is fine in a "docu-drama."
Just presenting the factual progression of events (as they also do) is indeed incriminating and embarrassing enough, which is why I think Clinton wanted it pulled.
peace? you think we were at peace throughout the 90's? WTC getting bombed by terrorists, embassy's getting destroyed, marine barricks getting leveled, USS cole being attacked while at port.....we weren't at peace, we just had a commander in chief that wouldn't fight back unless the polls told him to.
hmm...interesting, let's review some statistics shall we?
# of "wars" declared: Clinton 0 Bush at least 2
# of countries invaded and ocupied: Bush 2 (so far) Clinton 0
# of counries successfully rebuilt after said occupation: Bush 0 Clinton n/a
# of military actions for humanitarian purposes for real: Clinton at least 2 Bush n/a
# of military actions for humanitarian purposes in name only: Bush 2 Clinton n/a
Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Carter, Bushie 1 didn't have to take such costly military actions during their terms as President. Case Closed, NEXT!!
As for the "nanny nanny" crack at the end, you bushies are going to talk amongst yourselves and decide whether there is a "pre 9/11 mentality and a post 9/11 mentality". If there is it has to be applied to Clinton as well as Bush.
It's pretty easy to be a leader in a time of economic abnormality, and by abnormality I mean the absurd economic growth that hit the U.S. in the late 90's. I often wonder how Clinton would have reacted to the economic turmoil (or relative turmoil) of the last 5 years. Would he be praised as much???? Something to think about....
I'm not a huge Bush advocator, but you have to always take the economic prosperity of a given era into cosideration of good leaders.
not spending us into a hole is part of "economic prosperity" as you put it.
I'm not expecting Bush to be an out of the box thinker (clearly, he isn't) I'm merely hoping for basic competence (clearly, he isn't)
Comments
as long as that last statement applies to F9-11.
that looks like an interesting show. I really haven't seen what the big to do is about the movie yet though
I think it has to do with 'artistic license' to dramatize real events... such as attribute statements to specific individuals. Sort of like my 'docu-drama' on Hitler where he says to prepare for the 'Mother of all battles'... then invades Iraq.
If you are going to tell the story of a historical event... a recent historical event... get the history part right.
Hail, Hail!!!
A Ryder truck did blow up in the Twin Towers in '93.
US Embassies in Africa did get attacked in '99.
We did notify Pakistan of our immenent strike on Afghan-Al Qaeda.
It's a pretty well-established fact that we had a couple shots at Bin Laden in the 90s.
But then they speculate, was Clinton too distracted by the Lewinski stuff to properly address the situation? Did Pakistan pass a heads-up to Bin Laden? We'll never know that stuff so speculation is fine in a "docu-drama."
Just presenting the factual progression of events (as they also do) is indeed incriminating and embarrassing enough, which is why I think Clinton wanted it pulled.
CBS tied them with a rebroadcast of a neutral 911 documentary, and NBC got almost double of CBS and ABC combined with Football(which I watched
I guess we'll see what happens tonight. Though Bush scheduled an address in the middle of it.
hmm...interesting, let's review some statistics shall we?
# of "wars" declared: Clinton 0 Bush at least 2
# of countries invaded and ocupied: Bush 2 (so far) Clinton 0
# of counries successfully rebuilt after said occupation: Bush 0 Clinton n/a
# of military actions for humanitarian purposes for real: Clinton at least 2 Bush n/a
# of military actions for humanitarian purposes in name only: Bush 2 Clinton n/a
Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Carter, Bushie 1 didn't have to take such costly military actions during their terms as President. Case Closed, NEXT!!
As for the "nanny nanny" crack at the end, you bushies are going to talk amongst yourselves and decide whether there is a "pre 9/11 mentality and a post 9/11 mentality". If there is it has to be applied to Clinton as well as Bush.
not spending us into a hole is part of "economic prosperity" as you put it.
I'm not expecting Bush to be an out of the box thinker (clearly, he isn't) I'm merely hoping for basic competence (clearly, he isn't)
I'll give you that Clinton got a lucky bounce.