• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

ABC Mini-series - Path to 9/11

thenuge said:
And with signatures like, "Liberalism - The political ideology of people who live in a world filled with sunshine, lollypops, and rainbows."-- I thought it important to disclose that information.
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing the terms liberal and democrat with conservative and republican. I'm a card carrying member of the RNC only because I want to be able to vote in the Republican primaries. I am more aligned with Libertarian ideals and values than I am with any other party, however. Unfortunately, good libertarian candidates are few and far between. I have some (ok, mostly) conservative views on politics and a few liberal views mixed in. I think you are equating democrats to being liberals and republicans to being conservatives. That's not a good assumption to make as either political party can have liberal or conservative views. Unfortunately, most members of the Democratic Party are out there on the left wing.

My biggest gripe with liberals (democratic or republican) is that they have a very difficult time explaining their positions. They don't use logic and often times they can't offer any genuine ideas, only attacks.

Now, are you just f'ckn with me because of the whole "aight" thing from the supplement thread? :spin_125:
Click to expand...
Why, are you worried?
 
Steve Wilkins said:
I think you're confusing the terms liberal and democrat with conservative and republican. I'm a card carrying member of the RNC only because I want to be able to vote in the Republican primaries. I am more aligned with Libertarian ideals and values than I am with any other party, however. Unfortunately, good libertarian candidates are few and far between. I have some (ok, mostly) conservative views on politics and a few liberal views mixed in. I think you are equating democrats to being liberals and republicans to being conservatives. That's not a good assumption to make as either political party can have liberal or conservative views. Unfortunately, most members of the Democratic Party are out there on the left wing.
Click to expand...
I am not confusing the two. I just go ahead and use them synonymously with one another these days because the republicans have been so successful in defining democrats as liberal which equals BAD, and republicans as conservative which equals GOOD. If forget sometimes that people on this forum are smart, much smarter than me. Most people I talk to are idiots or brainwashed so I get lazy making points.

My biggest gripe with liberals (democratic or republican) is that they have a very difficult time explaining their positions. They don't use logic and often times they can't offer any genuine ideas, only attacks.
Click to expand...
Agreed!

Hold on, what about the republicans who compared Max Cleland, a war vet and amputee to UBL! And the republicans who change the debate to gay marriage and equally meaningless topics every election year...

Why, are you worried?
Click to expand...

Should I be?:eek: :D You seemed somewhat annoyed. I am going through a rap phase so, sorry. Maybe it came across wrong if you know what I mean.:(
 
Steve Wilkins said:
History is largely dependent on the person interpreting and writing about historical "facts", as well as that person's political, cultural, and personal biases.

I'll give you an example just for reference. I have four books on my bookshelf that cover U.S. history from the pre-colonization period to "present day" - present day meaning anywhere from the late 80's to early '00's. All four books take a different view on historical events. Some views are only slightly different, while others seem like they're explaining completely different circumstances. That's just the nature of history.

The books are:
A History of the American People, by Paul Johnson
A Patriot's History of the United States, by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen
The Penguin History of the USA, by Hugh Brogan
A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn
Click to expand...


I will agree with the above, to a certain degree. But that doesn't apply to the mini-series in question. It has several scenes that everyone, including the creators, agree never happened. I don't care what you call it, but that is not history by anyone's definition. It is fiction, pure and simple.
 
Flash said:
The above statement shows that you just don't get my point at all. While this mini-series portrays itself as a history of events up to 9/11, it 'dramatizes' several things for effect. That is not history, it is fiction. PERIOD. If you want to portray something as a history then stick to the facts, not what you supposed might have happened or similar to what happened.

If you want to debate the merits of the program or the Clinton administrations' reaction to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, then present some facts, not scenes from a TV movie or discredited innuendo. And if you really want to debate the history of our dealings with terrorist organizations then you might want to go further back, to the Carter administration, and through the Reagan, Bush I and Clinton adminsitrations. If I remember correctly, only one administration ever tried to make a deal with a terror organization and its supporters. It also happened to be the first one that tried to strike back at the state supporters of terrorism. Can you guess the administration? To get a full historical perspective on this country's experience with terrorism you have to look back a lot further than the 90's.

One more historical inaccuracy that was pointed out in a review was the misidentification of the newspaper that was the source of the leak about the US tracking Bin Laden's satellite phone as the Washington Post. Can anyone guess the newspaper that did leak that info?
Click to expand...

Yes, its a TV show, but most of the stuff in it is right on the money. Don't worry, nobody is going to cite "Path to 9/11" in their college thesis as a legit source. It sure beats the Colbert Report or weekend update, where lots of my generation gets their "news."

Re-read (if you haven't already) chapter 4 of the 9/11 report, a document which I assume we can agree is reliable enough. I wasn't able to copy text of it, but on page 114 it talks about who gave the decision to call off a particular raid (the last good chance) to get Bin Laden. One of the big problems was Clinton wouldn't authorize direct assassination, and they had to jump through hoops for extraction. The right decision at that time: maybe/maybe not, but it had consequences. Also, all of Clinton's high level NSC appointees all point fingers now about who canceled the raid. Nobody wanted to be held accountable back then if anything went wrong because they knew Clinton would hang them out to dry. (that last sentence is my own inference based on all the finger pointing they did in their testimony)

That is not leadership.

I have been re-reading the 9/11 report today, and the mini-series so far did a damn good job following that document. I challenge anyone who thinks differently to re-read it after they watch the show. By the way, the UAE prince story is also in chapter 4-- it is not as you say "discredited innuendo."

Lets be reasonable: this al-Qaeda business (but not "terrorism," which is just a tactic) starts with Bush #1 and Saddam, not Carter or Reagan. Saddam invades Kuwait, we are threatened about stability and oil, we liberate Kuwait and station troops in SAUDIA ARABIA. Troops in Saudi --> pisses off UBL, he starts attacking us. That is highly simplified, and i am sure lots of people will disagree, but in a strategic sense that is the timeline. Anything before that may have led us there, but we could have chosen to act differently regarding Kuwait, and bin Laden would probably not have focused on attacking the USA.
 
Flash said:
It is fiction, pure and simple.
Click to expand...
The work as a whole is fiction, based in part on the book The Cell, The 9/11 Comission Report, and other historical events. The movie Jarhead is based on the book of the same name. Does it mean because the book was a work of fiction mean that the author was never in the Gulf War or that the Gulf War never happened? Because the movie, World Trade Center is a work of fiction, does it mean the events portrayed in the movie didn't happen?
 
The Chief said:
Yes! No cajones, with the exception of George Tenet.
Click to expand...

Just FYI-- "cajones" means drawers. The thinks you put your socks in. "Cojones" means balls. What Clinton had none of (and let's get real... Tenet was light years better than Deutsch, but nowhere near Casey as far as DCIs go)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top