The right wing 9/11 is struck down! Media Matters serves history and wins!

To bad they didnt have the courage to stand up against micheal moores pile of rubbish. Oh wait a minute. That big fat lie put them in a good light. What was I thinking?

 

"There is nothing in the 9/11 Commission Report (the purported basis of your film) to support this portrayal and the fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license. In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or US military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al Qaeda."​

Sandy Berger in letter to Robert Iger of ABC in re "The Path to 9/11"
September 5, 2006

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/09/07/berger.iger.pdf


This contraticts this.......

On May 29, “Jeff ” informed “Mike” that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern Division.The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation.“Mike” cabled the field that he had been directed to “stand down on the operation for the time being.”He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties—“collateral damage”—was too high.They were concerned about the tribals’ safety, and had worried that “the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation—and probably recriminations—in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive.”29
Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation.
Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed.He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision. [emphasis added]​

National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States
"The 9/11 Comission Report"
Chapter 4, Page 7

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm



I think the dems are afraid, & trying to censor the movie, something the left usually goes nuts over. They sure are acting like little kids, on this.

 

Posted by ASLANSPAL

Don’t I wish that was true. Unfortunately they are lied to every day. The History curricula are the worst but the science is not much better.

 

Tu quoque!

 

There is no contradiction. Your quotes support Berger's contention.

The dems are afraid of that kind of slander which becomes a meme and rightly so.

 

Can't possibly be true. They loved Moore's trash.

The President just had far too much class and respect for the first amendment to try to quash the likes of Moore and his lies and distortions.

Democrats should give that class thing a try and stop their assault on the first amendment.

 

Harvey Kietel, against the movie, but took da money, didn't he ?

 

Another thing, before I engage Daisy, Dubya intends to do a presidential address, at the same time the movie is slotted for. So ABC has a decision, air the prez, or the movie. Kind of eliminates any Rovian conspiracy now, don't it ?

 

Daisy.......

While ABC probably takes literary liscense with this scene, it doesn't change one undeniable fact, this plan was scrubbed, and at least one person thoght it was Berger.

BTW, is he someone you trust to tell the truth ? Berger, that is ?

Oh, slightly O/T, but I just can't resist this.....

"The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998"

(From same link, chapter 4)

So, which is it, Sandy, I mean to say, did Iraq pose a terror threat, or not ?

 

One more thought, Rush Limbaugh has said several times, this movie makes everyone look bad, but the real bad guys are the terrorists. No need to slander him here.

BTW, A-Pal, nice job disagreeing without personal insults. Keep it up.:thumbs:

 

Tu quoque.

 

Tenet said that Tenet did it, not Berger. What was the basis for Pavitt to think it was Berger? Don't you think that Tenet saying that he alone quashed it lends support to Berger saying that he, Berger, did not?

Tenet backed him up.

You mean an imminent, mushroom cloud for a smoking gun in 45 mins type threat or not?

 

Why would you call me?

 

Daisy, I have heard there was no co-operation between Al Qeda & Iraq at all, that the intelligence saying so was flawed. I think Rice was smart to imagine a worse-case-scenario.

Also, have mercy on me, let me digest the first part.

edited due to sepllnig mistakes

 

A-Pal, you say things to several people here, that can only be taken as insults. Perhaps you could eliminate your "gigs" all together, because after reading what you said to another poster, I feel I spoke too soon.

 

It's more complex than that (as with so many things in this life, sigh). There's the then official government of Iraq, there are individuals who are a part of the governement, there are citizens, there was Saddam himself, there were the Kurds and other insurrectionalists. Al Qaida is a rather loose confederation of terrorists (or freedom-fighters depending on the exact moment in history and whose doing the labeling). After all, the US funded parts of it back in the Soviet-Afghanistan War days and later.

I think it's fair to say that the Iraqi government did not allow al Qaida to operate within Iraqi borders. I believe that the bulk of Iraqi terrorist funding went to Hamas which is not al Qaida. **rambling**

Yes, as a selling point to the scared American people. There was no good evidence for the nuclear scenario.

I should probably use the spellcheck thingie in the corner, but it requires installation...Even after using "Preview Post" a couple of times, I usually wind up re-editting. It wasn't until one particularly rude person pointed out my spelling mistake that I realized that I'd been pronouncing "pejorative" wrong all these years.