<p>Dingaling, zingaling, you’re insulting a lot of my male relatives with the Ft. Benning Torture School nonsense. Put up or shut up. At least Mini has that much sense. Join him, why don’t you?</p>
<p>Link here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ojai.net/swanson/snlshows.htm[/url]”>http://www.ojai.net/swanson/snlshows.htm</a>
Scroll down to:</p>
<p>“Watch the Cowbell Sketch”</p>
<p>I’m sorry to stick my nose in here, but could you all stick to the topic? It drives me crazy that every thread with a hint of political controversy gets so tangential – this movie was not about Ft. Benning.</p>
<p>For those who saw the program, what part(s) did you think were fictionalized? I only saw parts of it, although I would have liked to see the whole thing. </p>
<p>What I did get from the program is the notion (validated in other outside reading) that the federal intelligence agencies were stovepiped – unable to communicate with each other, due to conflicts in how we viewed terrorism i.e. as a law and order, not a military issue.</p>
<p>Just to throw some fuel on this fire (and I then plan to run away for a while, since I’m not flame proof :)) I read a book called, “Dereliction of Duty” by Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson. He was assigned to the Clinton WH as a military aide, whose responsibility it was to carry the “nuclear football.” He told of a time when Bin Laden was in a known location, and could not get President Clinton to order an attack. (I’m sorry, I don’t remember more details) I only bring it up because it seems to corroborate that idea in the TV movie.</p>
<p>I agree with you to a certain extent, sjmom. The problem I have is that the “Fort Benning Torture School” meme is designed to smear many of the men who are now in the front line and back alleys of this conflict. The “Kirk” character in the film is in all probabability a collectivized rendering of the CIA/Delta/SF guys who were over there (and are over “there”) and they don’t deserve the kind of garbage that gets dumped on them by “useful idiots.” They all went through Fort Benning to get their wings, and that doesn’t make them murderous torturers. Someone needs to stand up for them when this garbage gets slung, and I’m happy to do it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL! CAN’T…STOP…LAUGHING…CAN’T BREATHE! HAHAHAHAHAHA.</p>
<p>Y’all crack me up, you really do. The liberals here just never cease to amaze me. I just love how the liberals here denounce Path to 9/11 as a pure fairy tale, yet Farenheit 9/11 is considered absolute fact without question. The bottom line is that the Clinton Administration knew about Al-Quaida and Usama Bin Ladin long before Bush came to office. They also had several opportunities to annihilate Bin Ladin knowing of his exact location. The bombing of the world trade center, destruction of the “Kohl”, and other rampant terrorist attacks in Africa were all thanks to Al-Quaida and Bin Ladin. President Clinton knew about this terror organization, yet did absolutely nothing about it. </p>
<pre><code> True, Path to 9/11 was not 100% fact, but a good portion of it had interesting and true points. As I said before, right after the show, all of the news media began saying,“Well, Clinton knew of Bin Ladin and had the opportunity to eradicate him, but did nothing about it.” That is something truly amazing for the liberal news media to admit.
</code></pre>
<p>I just find it interesting that when it comes to historical facts, you disagree if it doesn’t fit your agenda, and this SOA is a perfect example…not matter what I show you will say, no…never happened</p>
<p>And when you hav that mindset you will see what you want no matter what</p>
<p>And btw, we had several chances to get bin laden in afghanistan under Bush’s watch, but remember, he said:</p>
<p>and this is FACT for those who are interested in facts:</p>
<p>“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02</p>
<p>“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)</p>
<p>So no matter what CLinton did, after 9-11 Bush didn’t give a darn about bin laden…in his OWN words no less</p>
<p>
I just said that you gotta give me more cowbell, and so far you haven’t. I gotta have more cowbell, baby.</p>
<p>by Bush</p>
<p>We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them. -George W. Bush, May 29, 2003</p>
<p>to DO is better than to SAY. At least Bush has done something about terrorism; at least he immediately invaded Afghanistan after 9/11; at least he has upped security big time at airports. Bush may have said those quotes; but he also had the compunction to do something about the growing terror threat in the middle east. Your liberal friend Clinton did absolutely NOTHING to prevent terror activities, even when a terror attack took place on our on soil. That is why I largely attribute 9/11 to his administration.</p>
<p>CGM, CONGRATS. As a liberal, you once again brought up WMDs in Iraq as an arguement against Bush. YAY!</p>
<p>I have you know it…but if you can’t remember back to 1996, I can, and do…</p>
<p>guess an inspector generals report, a publication of the manuals, news reports, don’t jog your memory</p>
<p>off to jury duty, I am…</p>
<p>we are talking about the 9-11 movie are we not? and we are in Iraq are we not? and didn’t Bush tie Iraq to terroism, and 9-11, in a twisted sort of way?</p>
<p>just showing that you conseratives that believe all you hear from Bush is not always true, and alot in this movie is not either</p>
<p>btw, what about Afghanistan and bin laden, REL,you blame Clinto, but Bush doesn’t care…ignoring that are you?</p>
<p>btw BUSH and his cronies ignored many many reports, memo’s etc gven to him by the CLinton administration…later I will show that is fact…</p>
<p>I will take the last three posts as a <em>poof</em> way down the canyon.</p>
<p>
I agree with you completely, Driver. I must have missed the Ft. Benning part of the movie – that’s why I didn’t understand why it came up on this thread.
Sorry! ;)</p>
<p>The one thing I got from the parts I DID see, is that the American public was clueless about the risks from the terrorists. I worry that we have become complacent once again.</p>
<p>Oh is that the Bush that began the war in Afghanistan and then left to start a war with no connection to 9/11. Never finished the job because his main target was Iraq all along. Afghanistan the place where now the Taliban (Osama’s friends and protectors) are making a strong comeback. The place where Osama is still hiding out or is it in Pakistan where Bush"s friend has just struck a deal to protect him. It is 5 years later.Why is he still free.</p>
<p>sideways, I always wonder when I read comments like yours, what do you think the Military and Intelligence communities are doing? Do you think they decided it was too much trouble to chase Bin Laden down? Did they deliberately let him go just to ensure job security?</p>
<p>My feeling is that people who work in the interest of national security are really smart people, doing their best under very difficult circumstances. I give them the benefit of the doubt. If it were easy, they’d have caught Bin Laden long ago – actually, they had some opportunities during the Clinton administration, but couldn’t get the go-ahead from the powers that be.</p>
<p>The path to 9/11 was quite long. No one who was in a leadership position since 1979 gets a free pass, in my book. But I will continue to support President Bush because he at least named this thing as “War.” If it’s a war, we know how to fight it. The other side isn’t playing by our rules – they really DO want to kill us. Our own in-fighting just makes it easier for them.</p>
<p>cgm,</p>
<p>Are you naive enough to believe that once OBL is captured or killed that all terrorism will stop?</p>
<p>OBL isn’t the priority-stopping all terrorists and Al Qaeda is the priority. By criticizing Bush for acknowledging this fact you just prove how ignorant you really are.</p>
<p>Bin Laden is in Pakistan and we can’t get him because we can’t risk Islamo-fascists taking over a nuclear-armed nation. We should have captured him before Pakistan went nuclear. God help us all.</p>
<p>“but Bush doesn’t care…ignoring that are you?”</p>
<p>I’m not ignoring anything. You obviously did not read my post clearly. Actions are better than words. At least Bush DID something about terrorism. He bombed the living day lights out of the mountains in Afghanistan. He at least TRIED to do something. Clinton, on the other hand, completely ignored the threat of the Taliban and Bin Ladin, even when we were attacked by the Taliban in the basement of WTC in the 90s and the destruction of the Kohl. </p>
<pre><code> Personally, I don’t care what Bush said, his actions were stronger than words. He took action against terrorism; Clinton did absolutely nothing, KWIM?
</code></pre>