Even the Freeprs are staring to question the film's accuracy now

[Quixote1818]

Perhaps this really is backfiring on them. It's forcing the right wing to actually take some time to really look up the facts. Now, if they will just look further than Newsmax we could come out ahead on this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1696560/posts

"Path to 9/11" Questions/Thoughts
Me


Posted on 09/06/2006 12:15:00 PM PDT by agooga


There's a general uproar from the moonbats over the upcoming ABC miniseries-- and what seems to be the main crux of the problem to them is how the film portrays an aborted raid on Bin Laden's camp in Afghanistan.

Bergler, Ben-Veniste et.al say this raid never actually happened-- it is a fabrication.

Others have defended the film by saying that this raid was a composite of various failures.

My questions are these:

-Did this raid (as portrayed in the film) never happen?

-What were the actual opportunities to capture/kill Bin Laden that the Clinton administration squandered?

-Would it be more damning to Clinton to reveal these other squandered opportunities, rather than "paraphrasing" them into a single failure?

-Was it wise to "paraphrase" the failures in the first place, since it opens an avenue to attack the credibility of the film?

[Sparkly]

1. WHY is there even any confusion about this at this point?!?!????

Grrrrr!!!! :mad:

[notadmblnd]

2. clinton was prevented from going after bin laden by

a republican controlled congress. There's other threads here about this today.. Do a search.

[Sparkly]

3. Quixote's not the one confused -- the post is quoting Morans... nt

[notadmblnd]

6. oh, I'm sorry.

nt

[Quixote1818]

5. When Clinton did try to bomb Bin Laden the Republicans screamed

Wag the Dog! They tied Clinton's hands behind his back and wouldn't let him do nearly as much as he wanted to do.

[Renew Deal]

4. The film is ill conceived.

You don't need a docudrama exploitation of 9/11. It's not necessary.

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. It is necessary if you are a republican & Nov 2006 is 2 months away.

I liked this zircon of wisdom:

"If it comes to light that the thing has been edited too much, I'm sure Rush will be forthright about it."

[Sparkly]

8. Oh, GAWD.....

:crazy:

[Quixote1818]

9. I will bet anyone $100 that Bin Laden will show up the night before

the elections with a new video. I am sure the Administration already has the video tape ready. Any bets?

[TheDebbieDee]

12. I'm with you on the video, Quixote..............

Bin Laden is on the BFEE payroll and the videotape is already in the can.

I'm guessing that the tape will be released about 3 weeks before the election.

Who knows - the * admin may even uncover ANOTHER terrorist plot to lend credibility to their claim that only the repukes can protect us from terrorists!

[Mist]

10. Precisely--why bother, when there's been a real-life exploitation going on

for 5 years? What in the hell does Clinton have to do with the fact that 9/11 HAPPENED ON BUSH/CHENEY'S WATCH?

[aquart]

11. No, it's quite deliberately conceived.

And, obviously, considered very necessary to a party that faces losing Congress.

[BanzaiBonnie]

13. If they are not trying to pass ths off as historical fact

Why are they pitching it to high school history teachers across the USA. Because... they're trying to get this revisionist hisory in the schools.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. Doesn't seem to be any doubt in that Freeper's mind

as to what the real agenda of the film is. He just seems to have some concerns about its effectiveness.