Speakeasy forum

General discussion


by Mark5019 / September 6, 2006 11:29 PM PDT

WASHINGTON - A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.
Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post

seems bills concerned:)


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: BUBBA GOES BALLISTIC ON ABC
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: BUBBA GOES BALLISTIC ON ABC
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
There goes that liberal media again!
by Josh K / September 6, 2006 11:46 PM PDT
Collapse -
Ha! Like they are not liberal if they go after Clinton....
by EdH / September 7, 2006 12:02 AM PDT

a fraction of the amount they go after Bush!

I sympathize with him up to a point, but his Adminstration DID screw it up back then to a certain extent, which lead up to 9/11. He's lucky it's only ABC and not Michael Moore.

Collapse -
I actually agree....
by Josh K / September 7, 2006 12:15 AM PDT

...that his Administration didn't do enough (I will disagree with those who say Clinton did absolutely nothing though, or make it sound as if he is completely and solely to blame for things that happened long after he left office). 20/20 hindsight I guess. The same can be said about the three previous administrations, not specifically in regard to bin Laden but in regard to the rise of international terror organizations in general.

Where I suppose we will part ways is that I also think the current Administration didn't do enough with the information they were given in the months prior to 9/11.

Collapse -
At least he tried, EdH. Remember all the "wag the dog"

nonsense? I think that essentially paralyzed him from further planned actions against Al Qaeda. According to his former terrorism chief (Richard Clarke, shared by Clinton and Bush for the first year or so) Bush and Co. came into office with their focus already on Iraq, and terrorism low on their agenda. Here's a link:
Ex-counterterror chief apologizes to victims at 9/11 hearing, says Bush didn?t consider terrorism an urgent issue.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Yes, I remember them wagging the dog.
by EdH / September 7, 2006 4:10 AM PDT

Is that what you meant by trying?

Your take is as usual very biased BS.

Richard Clarke? Hahahaha.

Collapse -
by duckman / September 7, 2006 6:08 AM PDT

is that a tacit admission by DK that Clinton's threat assessment of Iraq in 1998 was correct?

Collapse -
How about Clark Kent Ervin?
by Diana Forum moderator / September 7, 2006 11:41 PM PDT

Just reading his book Open Target. He was the inspector general for the State Department and helped make it more efficient under Powell. Of course Powell actually listened to him and followed through with the suggestions. Powell was interested in fixing what was broken, not in building an empire.

When he was appointed to be the inspector general of the new Homeland Security, he ran into career bureaucrats who were more interesting in gaining power and passing the buck than in fixing the problems.


Collapse -
What does it say ...
by Evie / September 7, 2006 5:57 AM PDT

... of a President that *fear* of being accused of "wag the dog" would alter his actions?

Pitifully little Sad

Collapse -
He did 'wag the dog'.
by Kiddpeat / September 7, 2006 8:42 AM PDT

There's not much question about that, and it sure didn't prevent him from trying it again.

Collapse -
that wasn't a dog he wagged and...
by Edward ODaniel / September 7, 2006 9:08 AM PDT

his apparent attempt to present us with a transitional life form (what would you call the offspring of a cigar and a Lewinski?) fizzled too.

Yes Dave he was indeed to busy wagging to pay attemtion to world events and terrorist organizations while concentrating on personal orgasms.

Collapse -
I believe the investigation showed that, on one occasion,
by Kiddpeat / September 7, 2006 11:37 AM PDT

Clinton conversed with a member of Congress about combat activities and plans while Monica serviced him. It just filled you with confidence to know what was going through his mind during war planning.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) But it was just sex KP!
by Evie / September 7, 2006 9:38 PM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Every now and then they can't ignore things
by Evie / September 7, 2006 12:07 AM PDT
Collapse -
Sure they could
by Josh K / September 7, 2006 12:16 AM PDT

This is a miniseries, not breaking news. Nothing forced them to make it and approach it from that angle.

Collapse -
Nothing except the truth could force them into their story
by Kiddpeat / September 7, 2006 8:44 AM PDT
In reply to: Sure they could

line, and Clinton is pulling out all the stops to bury the truth.

Collapse -
Yes, and the Liberal Media over at MSNBC/NewsWeek...
by Edward ODaniel / September 7, 2006 9:10 AM PDT

explains it in easy to understand language.


Was Clinton too distracted to act? Maybe. Is it plausible to suggest that? Certainly to some people, including the filmmakers. And frankly, that should be enough. ?The Path to 9/11? isn?t a documentary; it?s a docu-drama. Part of the idea of fictionalizing historical events is to tell a story, to get at a deeper truth than a documentary could. After all those Oliver Stone movies?not to mention dozens of ?reality? TV shows?viewers know the difference between real history and an entertainment that uses history as its subject. If the Reagans can survive the snarky look at their relationship posited by the mini-series ?The Reagans,? certainly Clinton can survive ?The Path to 9/11,? too. This isn?t a history lesson. It?s a television show.

Collapse -
Some acquaintances of mine
by dirtyrich / September 7, 2006 1:18 AM PDT

who I consider to be completely honest and straightforward, have told me of instances where they, as part of military operations, were in a position to remove Bin Laden during Clinton's administration. The order to cancel their mission was given at the last minute, and came from the White House.
To this day, while I blame Bin Laden, his followers, and his supporters for 9/11, I still hold Clinton partially responsible for it considering the lost opportunity and Bin Laden's threat at the time.

Collapse -
its known
by Mark5019 / September 7, 2006 1:26 AM PDT

and wait if hillary gets in she will pardon bin laden:)

Collapse -
The radio is now reporting that changes are going to
by Kiddpeat / September 7, 2006 1:32 AM PDT

be made. What was that question about liberal media again? Clinton complains, and Wham! They change the story line in a video that's already in the can.

Just imagine what the reaction would be if a conservative, or President Bush, made similar demands.

Collapse -
You don't need to imagine it. It happened.
by Josh K / September 7, 2006 2:06 AM PDT
Collapse -
The difference is that
by duckman / September 7, 2006 2:46 AM PDT

The Reagan story was a pile of unadulterated poo and lies and conjecture.

Collapse -
by Josh K / September 7, 2006 2:57 AM PDT
In reply to: The difference is that

And the Clinton story is based on indisputable documented fact.

Uh huh....

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) More fact than not
by duckman / September 7, 2006 2:58 AM PDT
In reply to: AH......
Collapse -
Every miniseries......
by Josh K / September 7, 2006 3:56 AM PDT

....combines fact with conjecture, since every minute of the subjects' lives are not videotaped. Reagan's son (and others) complained about the conjecture in that miniseries and Clinton is complaining about the conjecture in his.

In both cases there were complaints and in both cases (apparently) the broadcasting network addressed them. KP speculated that if such complaints came from the Right they would be ignored. Well they did and they weren't.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) ask his mistresses
by Mark5019 / September 7, 2006 4:40 AM PDT
In reply to: AH......
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Pretty much. Yep.
by Kiddpeat / September 7, 2006 8:46 AM PDT
In reply to: AH......
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) The part to which they apparently object is.
by Evie / September 7, 2006 9:39 PM PDT
In reply to: AH......
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Didn't they air that on Showtime?
by EdH / September 7, 2006 4:29 AM PDT
Collapse -
Showtime is a non-commercial pay channel
by Josh K / September 7, 2006 5:08 AM PDT

I don't know what their ratings typically are, but I don't think that movie did all that well. It got pretty bad reviews from what I remember -- James Brolin in particular -- not based on politics, just that it wasn't a good program.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Right, but it's not like it never aired.
by EdH / September 7, 2006 5:11 AM PDT
Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?