Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Durandal
You need to learn how to objectively evaluate someone's argument, while keeping their perspective in mind as a frame of reference for context. Judge what the person says, not who says it. Entirely negating anything someone says who is not in your political party of preference stifles political debate in this country.
|
So you mean to tell me with an honest face, that the fact that the co-executive producer is a Bush assignee, the writer is Rush Limbaugh's friend, and that only the republicans on the commisions committee gave input does not suggest any form of biasedness in the documentarie's point of view?
What I saw was fictitious facts put there to promote the president before the November election. It is shameful of Disney to go that low.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Durandal
Clinton is right that certain specific details were changed. However, I have seen in other documentaries that the Clinton administration did not give the order to kill Bin Laden when they had the chance. In all fairness, there was a good chance of collateral damage. If you combine this with the fact that he was facing impeachment, it would have been political suicide. But then again, I saw these documentaries on the ultra conservative PBS, so they have no merit, right  |
What you saw on PBS is irrelevent in this discussion because they don't have proof to back it up. What we have in front of us is the commision's report, and even that, ABC took the liberty of changing it to support their political agenda. If you read the link I gave you "First of all, the 9/11
Commission Report makes clear that CIA Director George Tenet had been directed by President Clinton and Mr. Berger to get bin Laden (p. 199 & 508-509)."
Interesting how a documentary based on the commisions report got this wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Durandal
They distanced themselves after they faced heavy political pressure and lawsuits.
|
And because it is factually inaccurate to teach it in high schools.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Durandal
Of course they are. It's horrible PR. There were specific details that were changed, but the main idea of the film segments were correct. Warnings did come up on the computers when they checked in, but the operating procedure at the time was to make sure they got on the planes with their checked luggage. The reason being that no sane person would blow up the plane with them inside. The terrorists set off the metal detector alarms, yet were quickly wanded and waived through.
|
From the article:
The warning depicted in the movie actually popped up when Mr. Atta went to board a plane from Maine to Boston,
not in Boston, and the airline wasn't American. Pre-9/11, warnings issued were to ensure that bags of last-minute passengers traveled with them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Durandal
I'm not blaming the Clinton administration or the airlines. I'm not looking for anyone to blame. It is important that we evaluate our past mistakes so that we can learn how to best protect ourselves in the future. The best way to do this is through honest debate. Unfortunately, the political left and right in this country have made this virtually impossible.
|
There is no honesty in an administration whose vice president says one moment that there is connection between Saddam and al-qaeda, and in the debate against Edwards blatently says that he never mentioned that. Or of a vice president whose company gets magically all the contracts in Iraq. Or whose company has a subsidiary in the carrabean that performed trade with Iran (including nuclear centrifuges). Or of a president who has lied to the American people about WMD's to wage his own personal, fictitious war that has cost more American soldier lives than 9/11 and has cost more than 100 thousand Iraqi casualties. Or are these American soldiers less important than the victims of september 11th?
