Good Article About Clinton

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Except that things presented in the movie as fact are CONTRADICTED by the 9/11 report. You know what I call that? Lying. More accurate than "99 %" of movies based on true stories? Oh dear. Rupert, I worry for you-- for all your insistence you aren't a typical right-winger, you do seem to have the obsessive hatred for the Clintons that has marked most of them the past six years. It sounds to me like you want to believe the right-wing media that rushed to reassure you that really, this silly "docudrama" wasn't all THAT inaccurate.

If falling for "left-wing propaganda" means demanding the truth, then stick me in with the left-wing loonies, please.

Here's one specific for you from the movie:

<<Nowrasteh's most egregious fictionalizing occurs in Act 4, which depicts a supposed strike on bin Laden's Afghan redoubt that is called off at the last second by Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, who says, "I don't have that authority." Under cover of night, a CIA agent known only as "Kirk" leads a Special Forces team into the remote mountain compound where the al-Qaida chief is hiding. "The package is ready!" cries Kirk over the satellite phone, but Berger aborts the operation because he doesn't want to take responsibility.

That incident simply never occurred. As Clarke himself would have told Nowrasteh, no CIA officer ever tracked bin Laden to his hideout. Neither did Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader who is shown guiding the aborted operation. The handsome, charismatic Massoud, later assassinated by al-Qaida agents, asks Kirk angrily, "Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?" That sort of rhetoric is frequently uttered by actors portraying characters such as Massoud and O'Neill, who are no longer around to dispute the script.

Had Nowrasteh consulted the 9/11 Commission report, not only would he have found no evidence to support his exciting imaginary assault on the bin Laden compound, but he would also have learned that the underlying assumptions were completely wrong. The report states explicitly, as Clarke and other senior officials have affirmed, that Clinton and Berger ordered the CIA and the military to use any force necessary to get bin Laden>>

Genuine I don't know what you are thinking. Its been reported high and low and near and far from too many credible sources that Berger would not allow them to kill Bin laden(and I wonder who was giving him that order?).
Clinton lost it with the fox reporter the other day nad looks very pissed off and unhappy these days. That because hes been exposed.
Berger was trying to take documents with him when he left, now why do you think that was? He just wanted some bathroom reading material?
Please, give me a break will you?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Genuine I don't know what you are thinking. Its been reported high and low and near and far from too many credible sources that Berger would not allow them to kill Bin laden(and I wonder who was giving him that order?).
Clinton lost it with the fox reporter the other day nad looks very pissed off and unhappy these days. That because hes been exposed.
Berger was trying to take documents with him when he left, now why do you think that was? He just wanted some bathroom reading material?
Please, give me a break will you?

Oracle, I stand in honest awe of your razor-sharp mind where racing is concerned, but when it comes to politics, I think you're regurgitating what you're getting off Fox News and not doing any independent thinking of your own. Can you give me any of those "credible sources?" I can claim that "credible sources" say Bush has a hook-shaped penis, but if you asked me to back it up, I'd have some trouble. So, what are those credible sources? If you can come up with sources from "near and far" and "high and low" I will have no trouble admitting I'm wrong and I won't threaten to set you on fire, either. And Fox News doesn't count. Nor does Ann Coulter.

Did you watch the Fox interview? I finally did, today, via Google, and in the entire context of the 15 minutes devoted to Bin Laden, I just didn't see the screaming lunatic that you right-wingers saw. I saw him refuse to get sidetracked by Chris Wallace who was soon backtracking so fast I could see the skid marks (I especially enjoyed watching Wallace gibber when Clinton asked if he asked the Republican guests the same question. Very amusing) and I saw him get pretty aggressive when Wallace tried to change the subject away from the question Wallace asked in the first place. But hey, Wallace asks a very leading questions and then, when the answer isn't going the way he wants, tries to change the subject? Wha?

I find it so funny that right-wingers will watch O'Reilly shout down people and listen to the awful things people like Coulter say but let one Democrat, just one, stand up to bullying and they scream he's being mean and awful.

Anyway, for those who saw only the 10-second blurb Fox showed in promos, here's a link to the 15 minutes of interview. Richard Clarke should send Clinton a gift basket-- he certainly mentions his book often enough.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...inton+fox+news

I look forward to the links to your sources, Oracle. Thanks for the post about the NY bred, by the way-- can't wait to go watch his race.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Oracle, I stand in honest awe of your razor-sharp mind where racing is concerned, but when it comes to politics, I think you're regurgitating what you're getting off Fox News and not doing any independent thinking of your own. Can you give me any of those "credible sources?" I can claim that "credible sources" say Bush has a hook-shaped penis, but if you asked me to back it up, I'd have some trouble. So, what are those credible sources? If you can come up with sources from "near and far" and "high and low" I will have no trouble admitting I'm wrong and I won't threaten to set you on fire, either. And Fox News doesn't count. Nor does Ann Coulter.

Did you watch the Fox interview? I finally did, today, via Google, and in the entire context of the 15 minutes devoted to Bin Laden, I just didn't see the screaming lunatic that you right-wingers saw. I saw him refuse to get sidetracked by Chris Wallace who was soon backtracking so fast I could see the skid marks (I especially enjoyed watching Wallace gibber when Clinton asked if he asked the Republican guests the same question. Very amusing) and I saw him get pretty aggressive when Wallace tried to change the subject away from the question Wallace asked in the first place. But hey, Wallace asks a very leading questions and then, when the answer isn't going the way he wants, tries to change the subject? Wha?

I find it so funny that right-wingers will watch O'Reilly shout down people and listen to the awful things people like Coulter say but let one Democrat, just one, stand up to bullying and they scream he's being mean and awful.

Anyway, for those who saw only the 10-second blurb Fox showed in promos, here's a link to the 15 minutes of interview. Richard Clarke should send Clinton a gift basket-- he certainly mentions his book often enough.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...inton+fox+news

I look forward to the links to your sources, Oracle. Thanks for the post about the NY bred, by the way-- can't wait to go watch his race.

Why do you think Berger was stealing documents if he had nothing to hide?

It has beeen well-publicized that they had a few chances to kill Bin Laden but did not act on it. I was having a debate with a left-wing friend about this subject a few years ago. I told him that I had heard on the news that Clinton had pinpointed OBL's location and chose not to act. My friend actually knew about it. He said the reason given by Clinton for not acting was because there were several women and children in the area and a strike on the compound would have resulted in many casualties to women and children.

Oracle and I do not need to find articles on what is common knowledge. You can look it up yourself.

[Rupert Pupkin]

By the way, it is not surprising that Clinton wants people to read Clarke's book. Overall, Clarke's book was relatively positive on Clinton.

How is Clarke more credible than James Woolsey, who was the CIA Director under Clinton. You obviously haven't heard Woolsey's description of what took place under Clinton with regard to fighting terrorism.

You need to listen to both sides. You seem to think that everyting one side is true and that everything the other side says is lies and propaganda. That is not the case.

By the way, if a docu-drama is done about the Bush Administration, there will several scenes that make Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc look bad. I'm sure they will complain and say that many of the specific scenes in the movie did not happen. I'm sure that would be true that the specific scenes did not happen, yet the overall story would be accurate. I won't be gullible enough to think that the whole docu-drama is inaccuarte just because they complain that certain things didn't happen.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Oracle, I stand in honest awe of your razor-sharp mind where racing is concerned, but when it comes to politics, I think you're regurgitating what you're getting off Fox News and not doing any independent thinking of your own. Can you give me any of those "credible sources?" I can claim that "credible sources" say Bush has a hook-shaped penis, but if you asked me to back it up, I'd have some trouble. So, what are those credible sources? If you can come up with sources from "near and far" and "high and low" I will have no trouble admitting I'm wrong and I won't threaten to set you on fire, either. And Fox News doesn't count. Nor does Ann Coulter.

Did you watch the Fox interview? I finally did, today, via Google, and in the entire context of the 15 minutes devoted to Bin Laden, I just didn't see the screaming lunatic that you right-wingers saw. I saw him refuse to get sidetracked by Chris Wallace who was soon backtracking so fast I could see the skid marks (I especially enjoyed watching Wallace gibber when Clinton asked if he asked the Republican guests the same question. Very amusing) and I saw him get pretty aggressive when Wallace tried to change the subject away from the question Wallace asked in the first place. But hey, Wallace asks a very leading questions and then, when the answer isn't going the way he wants, tries to change the subject? Wha?

I find it so funny that right-wingers will watch O'Reilly shout down people and listen to the awful things people like Coulter say but let one Democrat, just one, stand up to bullying and they scream he's being mean and awful.

Anyway, for those who saw only the 10-second blurb Fox showed in promos, here's a link to the 15 minutes of interview. Richard Clarke should send Clinton a gift basket-- he certainly mentions his book often enough.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...inton+fox+news

I look forward to the links to your sources, Oracle. Thanks for the post about the NY bred, by the way-- can't wait to go watch his race.

Genuine,
I don't rip off anything. I'm a renegade operator. I'm kinda laughing right now because I made my post earlier not realizing that Rupert had posted the same thing about Berger and the documents.
Now, Genuine, please address that issue if you steadfastly believe that noone knew anything.
WHy would Berger try to take documents like that. I remember thinking at the time that something was weird about that. It was only later that all this came to light and I suspected what everyone else then reported, he wanted those documents to cover their asses.
Now, look, if you want me to post you links about Berger's thefts. I can do that.