<p>Zoosermom:
Pakistan ‘went nuclear’ in 1972. During the Reagan administration he was funded by the CIA in an effort to overthrow the Soviet backed Afghan regime. During this same period, Saddam Hussein was supported by the U.S. in his war against Iran.</p>
<p>“Pakistan ‘went nuclear’ in 1972. During the Reagan administration he was funded by the CIA in an effort to overthrow the Soviet backed Afghan regime. During this same period, Saddam Hussein was supported by the U.S. in his war against Iran.”</p>
<p>Huh? “He” who?</p>
<p>“For those who saw the program, what part(s) did you think were fictionalized?”</p>
<p>Madeleine’s good looks? Then, there was the TV appearance of Bill Clinton about “that woman” and sexual relations. I’m too young to remember the truth, but my good friends on CC have ensured me the taping never happened. :D</p>
<p>The gist of the story is true. We all know it. Some of us just don’t want to admit it.</p>
<p>Zoos-- “he” is OBL.</p>
<p>sjmom2329 - what amazes me about people like you (the 30% who still believe our invasion of Iraq had something to do with 9/11) who refuse to believe the evidence even when our President states it, There were no WMD’s in Iraq, there were no connections between Saddam and Al Queda according to the Bush administration now. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Did Clinton do all he could to stop 9/11? We don’t really know.
If Bush had read the memo’s presented to him in August of 2001 about OBL would that have prevented the attack? We will never know that either but what is known for sure is that the man who took credit for that horrendous attack has not been caught. Is it because of the military and intelligence communities or more likely is it the powers in control who have turned their interests in a different direction. Bush has said before he doesn’t think about OBL. That says it all. We are not in Iraq because of 9/11. That is an excuse to implement a plan that was already inplace from the beginning of a presidency.
There are almost as many american servicemen and women killed in Iraq as there were in the WTC. I hope the sacrifices they have made for us was for a true and honorable reason and not for some greedy political plan. We shouldn’t take for granted their sacrifice by accepting a faulty reasoning. A lot of those men and women signed up to fight the people who attacked us. We owe it them to keep this administration honest.Capture the man who is responsible that is how we can honor the memories of the dead from the WTC. Not to argue if Clinton was distracted by women or if Bush was distracted by his vacation. Bring them justice first. We didn’t belong in Iraq especially before we finshed our fight against those who attacked us. I’m sure that is why 60% of us are questioning why we are there. That is why 68% feel tha President Bush is doing a bad job. The minority chooses to create their own reality. The rest of us read the facts… we believe them…we don’t need to wish them away. We know to solve them you must understand them and face them.</p>
<p>Like Sideways, I have always been amazed that people trot out the magical “3000” number of those killed on 9/11 as justification for the invasion. And then, almost that many Americans have been killed in this war. So we went to war and have lost as many American lives as were taken in 9/11, not to mention the thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqi, who had nothing to do with terrorism, 9/11, WMD. </p>
<p>The loss of blood and treasure is staggering.</p>
<p>sideways, what amazes me is that liberals today still will not accept the fact that Clinton on THREE occasions had the opportunity to take out Bin Ladin for good, and to bomb numerous terrorist camps in Afghanistan. What also amazes me is that we were ATTACKED on our OWN soil in the 90s, yet Clinton did absolutely nothing against terrorism-NOTHING! Then, we were attacked again at the bombing of the “Kohl”. Still, the Clinton Administration did nothing, even with full knowledge of OBL and the Taliban and Al-Quaida.</p>
<pre><code> Then, in 2001, we were attacked at the WTC and the Pentagon. Thankfully, however, we had a president who actually did something regarding justice for the atrocity; very soon afterwards, we bombed the living daylights out of the mountains of Afghanistan.
Liberals grasp desperately to the Iraq and WMD arguement against the conservatives. Fine, no WMDs were present; but please remember that one of the MAIN reasons for invasion was that Bush called Iraq the Axis of evil under the claim of national security. Hmmmm, I suppose Bush made this claim, knowing full and well that Hussein funded numerous terror organizations including the Taliban.
</code></pre>
<p>I didn’t realize we had gone into Afghanistan and achieved our goals.Which was just to bomb some mountains. I must have imagined all the US soldiers dying these past weeks fighting the Taliban (who Bush destroyed right)? Were done. Glad thats fixed.
What is it that our President did… oh invade Afghanistan then leave the mess for NATO and move to something more important than 9/11 and OBL (who Bush never gave a second thought to right) … Saddam and Iraq. I’m sure the people of Iraq appreciate us fighting there so we don’t have to fight here. If our reason for invading Iraq was an axis of evil (oh and the 2 other axis partners Iran and North Korea who actually are a threat and have WMDS lets ignore them to tough a fight not enough oil) than why would the adminstration give all the different reasons that have turned out to be lies. They wouldn’t need any other reason.They were looking for something to stick. Throw enough against the wall… looks like someone bought it REL. Bush hasn’t done anything to find OBL our orginal mission. Oh and Saddam did not fund the Taliban. He did not fund Al Queda. I can only hope that at some point you 30% will get your “FACTS” from somewhere other than Rush (who is an entertainer not a newscaster) or Fox. It’s a big world with a lot of info. Explore it…Embrace it.</p>
<p>Having just finished watching the second episode, I really don’t understand the objections to the program. It was terrible reliving the twin towers attack. What unbelievable murderers they were/are. I’m glad we have someone taking a Mossad approach: find them and kill them. People needed a re-awakening, I think this film was good for that.</p>
<p>
I don’t believe I ever stated that the invasion of Iraq was directly related to 9/11. When I said that at least President Bush called what happened on 9/11"war" I was pointing out the transition from treating terrorism as a legal issue (the Clinton years) to a military issue. I was really referring to Afghanistan, although I do view the current situation in Iraq as part of the global war against terrorism. I’d like to add that even most Democratic politicians do not suggest an immediate and total withdrawal of troops.</p>
<p>In what way was the invasion of Iraq a response to terrorism? How has Bush’s response been more effective than the Reagan/Clinton response?</p>
<p>
How about the fact that there WAS a response.</p>
<p>Just to respond with no achievable goals is more childish than effective. I honestly feel no safer today than I did the day after the Lockerbie bombing. I suppose Reagan/Bush I could have invaded Libya. Why didn’t they after all? There was more of a connection there than between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.</p>
<p>I suppose Reagan/Bush I could have invaded Libya. </p>
<p>Reagan had other problems like…the Soviet Union.</p>
<p>I haven’t read through all the posts, nor did I see the movie…but I’ll comment anyway LOL!
I did see briefly on the beginning of the program that it was based, in part on the book The Cell, by John Miller. I HAVE read that book and I think it provides a very good overview of the build-up to the attacks on the WTC in 2001. It starts from the assassination of Rabbi Kahane in NYC in '90 & moves along from there.</p>
<p>Since he is a reporter by trade much of what he says is from sources & his investigation. So, if the movie is based on that, it may have been hard to dramatize w/ appropriate dialogue of events/scenes.</p>
<p>anyway, FWIW, I think the book is worth reading.</p>
<p>REL - It’s so easy to give glib responses. Is that what makes them true to you. Unfortunately you feel some checkmate move by giving these responses, but they still are just glib statements with no facts.One word punches. </p>
<p>Irishbird - the movie was also suppose to be based on the 9/11 commision report. The chairman had said sunday and on monday the movie did not reflect that report. It was entertainment. ABC has said it took a real event and dramatized it. They said the public knows it’s not fact. The very fact that you assume because some ideas and events came from actual events that the movie on a whole would be factual shows why it was irresponsible for ABC to air it. They make a good story. Its only half truths with shock value added. That’s what makes it entertainment. Otherwise it would have been a news report based on total fact using real people or a factual documentary not a movie where things aren’t checked and double checked. When the actual people who were there say it didn’t happen that way you don’t say it did.</p>
<p>“Entertainment”</p>
<p>Interesting way to describe such a program. Which facts were wrong, since you seem to be so knowledgeable, sw? I don’t want those spin doctors confusing me.</p>
<p>Entertainment - Something that amuses, pleases, or diverts, especially a performance or show.</p>
<p>What facts? It was a movie. Entertainment based on true events. Based! Fictionalized dramatized by ABC’s own account. You must have missed that part at the beginning. Fact the WTC was hit by terrorist representing OBL. Fact we have invaded a country that had nothing to do with that event. What lead up to it. Lousy foreign policy by more than just Clinton’s administration but we’ll leave that out. Because it is entertainment it is more fun to use the easy joke. A president to busy fooling around to care. Maybe not true but certainly more entertaining than the actual truth might be. Like it was with Bush really sitting there for 20 minutes listening to My Pet Goat while the country was under attack. Certainly entertaining makes a good movie. Oh wait that was factual. Sorry bad example. I’m not sure there is any administration who could throw stones at the last one, but republicans have made a living out of it. It as if they have made no mistakes. I think 68% of us disagree.</p>
<p>
Ludicrous, perhaps, but true nonetheless. Here’s the report from the Secretary of Defense:<br>
<a href=“Home | National Security Archive”>Home | National Security Archive;
Here’s an excerpt:
</p>
<p>And another manual: <a href=“Home | National Security Archive”>Home | National Security Archive;
“Coercive techniques” starts on page 43.
And a memo discussing how the training was discontinued by the Carter Administration and reinstated in the 1980s: <a href=“http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/910801%20USSOUTHCOM%20CI%20Training%20(U).pdf[/url]”>Home | National Security Archive;