digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

New ABC Docudrama Blames Clinton For 9/11, Praises Bush

thinkprogress.org — ABC News is devoting 6 hours of prime-time on September 10 and 11 to a "docudrama" written by a staunch conservative that, according to Rush Limbaugh, "really zeros in on the shortcomings of the Clinton administration."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • isolino, on 10/12/2007, -129/+62Finally some truth.
    • scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -46/+27http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031013/corn
    • llbbl, on 10/12/2007, -76/+19I for one welcome our neocon overlords
    • harumph, on 10/12/2007, -52/+109i am very tired of the blame clinton game. the truth is that he foiled numerous terrorist plots and didn't have to trumpet the foiling of lame-o plots like the ***** in florida. he TRIED to take out bin-laden and all the assholes on the right could do was scream "wag the dog". this country has become so full of ***** and, as someone just said, bizzarro. whatever they do not want to be though of as, they ascribe that trait to their political enemies.
    • Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -31/+89I think I heard about this show. It's called "Dumb and Dumber"

      No one person, no one President is to blame for 9/11. It's the culmination of decades of pent-up frustration between the Middle East and the US.
    • jayfarer, on 10/12/2007, -28/+31Truth? I think what you meant to say is, "Finally some ideas that I agree with because if anyone ever reports anything different then I will label it either lies or bias."
    • agooga, on 10/12/2007, -7/+50@chewie:

      "No one person, no one President is to blame for 9/11. It's the culmination of decades of pent-up frustration between the Middle East and the US."

      That's actually a pretty cogent assesment of the situation-- frankly I am suprised to see that around here-- it seems that this Digg forum is otherwise completely and blindly polarized.

      I would submit a couple of thoughts of my own: Clinton's portrayal in the film appears to be fair, in that he did in fact call off the attack on Bin Laden-- facts are facts. But would that have prevented 9/11? Who knows? And the Bush administration is also taken to task for overlooking evidence before the 9/11 attack, based on what I have read in reviews.

      History rarely turns on a single critical event, but a serious of lesser, easier to overlook events.
    • pedro101, on 10/12/2007, -33/+28Clinton had 8 years to catch Bin Laden. Bush has had 6. Finding Bin Laden in one of his many rat holes is not easily accomplished.
    • hehe, on 10/12/2007, -28/+20Truth? One man's truth must be the rest of the world's lie. Seriously, I'm surprised ABC picked this up--it doesn't put much any blame on the people who were in charge when the memo warning them came out and when the actual terrorist attacks occured. Not to say that Clinton is 100% innocent, but he seemed far more on top of things than Mr. Bu** sh**.
    • bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -28/+21This article defends Clinton regarding 9/11.

      http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml
    • NtHammer, on 10/12/2007, -25/+26100% innocent, where the ***** have u been???

      maybeif you watch the show you will learn some facts about the clinton admin.

      im not saying that clinton is all the blame, nor is bush, but no one is 100% innocent.
    • jabberwonk, on 10/12/2007, -21/+41If only you could handle the truth.
      "Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:

      * Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
      * Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
      * Passenger Profiling: $10 million
      * Screener Training: $5.3 million
      * Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
      * Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
      million
      * Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
      * Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
      * Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
      * Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
      * Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
      * Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
      * Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
      * Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
      * Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
      * Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
      * Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
      * Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
      * Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
      * Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
      * Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
      * Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million

      Read the rest of the excellent article here:
      http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml

    • bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -13/+27"I would submit a couple of thoughts of my own: Clinton's portrayal in the film appears to be fair, in that he did in fact call off the attack on Bin Laden-- facts are facts. But would that have prevented 9/11? Who knows?"

      @agooga

      Have you seen the show? It hasn't aired yet. It's impossible to comment on how Clinton is portrayed.

      Clinton did call off a strike on Bin Laden. The one I'm familiar with would have killed innocent women and children as 'collateral damage'. That's hard to morally justify for non-racist people (not that I'm saying you're racist).
    • pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24"It's the culmination of decades of pent-up frustration between the Middle East and the US."

      Well, it's more complicated then that. There's a lot more frustration between Islam and Islam, than between Islam and the West. Bin Laden himself said that 9/11 was an attempt to get Islam to unite against the US retaliation.
    • bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -19/+10ABC should devote equal time to a film like Fahrenheit 9/11, something that argues Bush's culpability.
    • agooga, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15As stated, my comments are based on reviews of the screenings.

      And you DO NOT need to be a racist to endorse an attack on a military target that would endanger non-combatants.
    • agooga, on 10/12/2007, -18/+12As for ABC airing Farhenhiet 9/11 or some such far-left pseudo documentary, I think you have to remember that this show appears to be an attempt at a factual representation of the events leading to the attack-- not a personal screed against any one administration.

      The Bush administration takes some hits on this one too, but folks on the right are amazed that a "liberal" network such as ABC would present a show that is actually critical of Clinton. Clinton generally gets a pass on terrorism, though he, in fact, did little about it during his presidency.

      I do believe that Clinton generally gets softer treatment from the press and from mainstream media. That's why this show (if it actually makes air unedited) is such a shock to the system.
    • uhbeta, on 10/12/2007, -13/+14@bugsy187

      to say that a film that is OBVIOUSLY biased it the other side of the story is well just ignorant.
      http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
    • bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -19/+13"Finally some truth."

      Truth like Bin Laden family members being allowed to fly out of the country after 9/11, when all other planes were grounded? Also, the FBI was denied authority to question them by Bush, not Clinton.
    • bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -14/+13"to say that a film that is OBVIOUSLY biased it the other side of the story is well just ignorant. http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm"

      @uhbeta

      I could defend Fahrenheit 9/11, but Michael Moore has already done it line by line, revealing his sources. EVERYONE is biased, by the way.

      http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16
    • kirashira, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3How about blaming airport security? Or the cowards on the planes who were held hostage by a couple of razer blades?
    • torpedoman2002, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18Ok I'm going to give my view. I know I'm going to be dugg down to triple digits, and be called some very nasty names. Not the first time on digg. So here I go.

      It's about time abc, cbs, or abc ever showed a documentary that puts blame where it goes. I'm talking about both administrations. Where President Bush went wrong is quite clear. It's broadcast ever other day on most of the news network. President Clinton did have his short comings however. He has as much blood on his hands as President Bush, If not more. Eight years of pretending the threat isn't there, ignoring the evidence like the U.S.S. Cole, and the bombings from 35,000 ft. didn't pacify the terrorists. In fact Bin Lauden (sp) him self call us nothing but paper tigers. So I glad that blame for all sides are finally coming out, and I will be watching ABC and this two day documentary.
    • torpedoman2002, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I ment abc, nbc, and cbs. Sorry about that.
    • kufu91, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@kirashira
      If you had read the 9/11 commission report then you'd know that rather then have a bunch of guys and razors yelling at people, you had (if I'm not mistaken) an announcement from the pilot of a bomb threat. had that been the case then the people on the planes were doing the right thing unless they were all members of a bomb squad.
      I apologize in advance for factual error, i just woke up.
    • igotdugout, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1Wow people. If you ask me the Bush administration has done itself quite well to have a fraction of the people who believe every word the media tells them only to spewed media told lies back to the public who knows they're been deceived. There isn't anything better than to have the American people fight against each other.

      Remember guys, Bin Ladin never actually with hard facts found to be behind the 9/11 attack. Chances are, the whole thing really was staged by the government.

      As for me, I'm just waiting for the day that the evidences rolls out and hear the people go, "well I was only going PRO for the war because the media affected my justification, not my fault. I'm innocent." If by then, America is then bombed by the other countries for it's attrocities, don't be surprised because most people in the world judge one's action as an entire race's undertaking.
    • DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@ harumph

      Clinton recognized Osama Bin Laden as a threat back in the 1990s. The CIA had OBL in their sights, knew where he was in real time because they were following him with a Predator drone. Clinton elected not to kill him due to concern for killing innocent civilians (I don't remember the number, but it was well under 100 in the immediate proximity).

      Had Clinton killed OBL when he had the chance in the middle of bumf*ck Afghanistan, far less innocent civilians would have been killed. For now, OBL lives on and serves as inspiration for a new generation of natural born killers and the left continues to insist it's the West's fault.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10>Had Clinton killed OBL when he had the chance in the middle of bumf*ck Afghanistan, far less innocent civilians would have been killed.

      True. Why didn't Clinton predict the future and save us from it?

      Clinton turned this over to the next administration, including the predator drone tracking of Bin Laden (which Bush proceeded to call off) and have no less than 10 (!) meetings during the transition emphasizing the threat of terrorism.

      Stupid Clinton, trusting morons.

    • DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5@ bigdavediode

      Clinton's way of dealing with terrorism was to sweep it under the rug and make people feel good. I would argue that TWA Flight 800 was probably the first act of terrorism against the U.S. attributable to Islamic extremists. I know a couple of people who saw a streak of light go up from the ocean and intersect with the plane. I've heard numerous accounts of people seeing a streak of light coming up from the ocean towards the plane. Yet the official account of TWA 800 is a switch generated a spark which ignited fuel in the tanks of a Boeing 747, one of the most widely used planes in the world with a proven safety record.

      So what makes more sense? 200 people with the same story with regard to what they saw, or a switch on a widely used problem-free aircraft causing a fully fueled (as opposed to empty tanks filled with explosive jet fuel vapor) causing an explosion? Why wasn't every single Boeing 747 grounded? Baby toys get recalled for safety infractions, but no on a 747 safety problem?

      Why do you think pretty much every act of Islamic terrorism subsequent to TWA 800 (if testimony of 200 people outweighs what the gov't told you happened) has consisted of multiple near-simultaneous explosions? I would argue that it's so the act can't be whitewashed.
    • 4wheel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Isn't it funny how liberals stick their fingers in their ears and sing "LA, LA, LA, LA" over and over when a non-partisan story is broadcast? I really love the post from the guy defending Clinton with an article from Truthout. Even liberals should know how "honest" those folks are. How funny!
    • eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yes!
  • watou, on 10/12/2007, -26/+59Yes, truth from the director who has admitted that this is a docudrama not a documentary. Why would the director do that? Who was president when 9/11 happened? Bush. Who was in charge of a counter-terrorism task force before 9/11 but never held a single meeting of it? Cheney. The truth of the matter is that the current administration failed.
    • agooga, on 10/12/2007, -21/+27Please. It's a docudrama for the simple reason that the events are portrayed as a "drama," not in the documentary style, though the events are lifted from the 9/11 commission's report. This is the story of the events as portrayed from that point of view.

      As for Bush being 100% culpable for 9/11-- I wish folks would start looking at history and events from a slightly less myopic perspective. Gee, I wonder who you voted for?

      You can hate Bush for his policies after 9/11, but I can hardly find a reason to pin 9/11 on him, personally.
    • arunforce, on 10/12/2007, -37/+18Yeah, I can't find a reason to pin him on Katrina or the Iraq war either... Must be our fault.
    • agooga, on 10/12/2007, -12/+26Your comment makes no sense.

      First, we were never talking about Katrina or the Iraq war-- thanks for throwing in some irrelevant cheap shots. Second, who are you refering to by "our fault?"
    • arunforce, on 10/12/2007, -15/+11It's called sarcasm to all those who dugg me down.
    • GMD1987, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10@arunforce
      Maybe you should be more obvious if you are gonna be sarcastic or not do it at all.
      @agooga
      "It's a docudrama for the simple reason that the events are portrayed as a "drama," not in the documentary style"
      What should we call Fahrenheit 9/11? A fasleumentary?
    • DeadLikeMe, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Well no matter who is to blame what is important is what is being done about it. And guess what. Nothing much that is positive. Instead of focusing on Afghanistan (which according to recent reports is slowing falling back into the grip of the Taliban) this administration had to go after Saddam. We are worse off the before and it is not the terrorist that are to blame for that.

      This administration is lead by a group of total ***** morons or else Bush is secretly on the payroll of OBL.
    • agooga, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3I guess I call F911 a "documentary" in the same way I might refer to a "priest" (who also happens to molest boys).

      Garbage.
    • maltmyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You might want to know that it is a docudrama in the same way that United 93 was a docudrama. We don't have footage of what happened, however, the miniseries is based completely on the findings of the 9/11 commission. The review that I heard from someone that saw the entire show said that both Clinton and Bush are skewered for their failings. It sounds like it is as accurate and apolitical of an historical documentation that we will ever see. It seems to me that a lot of people are pointing out when it lashes out to one side, but conveniently ignoring that it also lashes out to the other side. I know what I will be doing on 9/10 and 9/11 this year, truly understanding the ten years of lead up to 9/11. From the original WTC bombing, to the aftermath of 9/11, many mistakes were made that brought about the opportunity for the attacks to happen.
    • garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5DeadLikeMe, secretly on OBL's payroll? His oil company was bought by Bin Laden in the 80s for far more than what it was worth, that isn't exactly secret :
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4agooga:

      >You can hate Bush for his policies after 9/11, but I can hardly find a reason to pin 9/11 on him, personally.

      How about this? The first Bush administration memo declassified, which was ignored: And this is LONG before the briefing "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States."

      http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
  • BlueRepublic, on 10/12/2007, -27/+55The right-wing will do anything to cling to their fairy tales like Bush is a great leader and everything in Iraq is fine.
    • wspence, on 10/12/2007, -29/+26@blue republic...do you honestly think that ABC is right wing? you need to check your facts.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -14/+15wspence he is talking the docudrama and not the corporate cable network showing it.
      But apparently you wish people to believe this is a liberal movie attacking another liberal.
  • hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -25/+49The Right is doing all they can to re-write the history books. They don't have the integrity to admit that THEY are the ones that have put us in the mess we're in today. They blame everyone else for all the evils in the world and never admit any mistakes they've made. "Smear and Fear" is all the Right has left and this is just another part of that sad mindset. Overwhelming evidence shows that Bush is the worst President in US History and trust me, the historians that write the real history won't forget. Bush Co. is a gigantic failure that has done nothing but damage to the US since they took over...welcome to reality.
    • HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13Right. Cause you know the bastion of conservatism that is ABC is totally in league with Bush and the Republican party leaders.

      /sarcasm
    • zelig, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26The Right is doing all they can to re-write the history books. They don't have the integrity to admit that THEY are the ones that have put us in the mess we're in today.

      So Lockerbie was Bush's fault?
      The bombing of the Cole?
      The bombings of our Embassy?
      The first attempt to destroy the WTC?
      The subway bombings in Spain and the UK?

      I'm wondering if a tin hat like you even lays any blame on the terrorists themselves.
    • Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20How is "the Right" re-writing history? Since when did all of American professordom suddenly become right-wing?
    • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22Let me see... 9/11 took YEARS to plan and execute... Bush in office ... 7 months. Yep, its all Bush's fault. /sarcasm/

      On the other hand, Clinton in office 8 years ... The US suffers 3 major terrorist attacks (WTC '93, US Embassy in Africa & USS Cole) with no effective response, outside of blowjobs in the oval office, and cuban cigars up some sleazy bags cooze. No way to hang this on Clinton.

      If you want to believe that Bush is responsible...you are deluded and foolish. Clinton wasn't even totally to blame. This has been going on for DECADES. Our Foreign policy and paper tiger image set us up for this from clear back in the 60's. Get a clue. Stop repeating BS rhetoric like it was some uber intelligent truth.

      Our foreign policies and a willingness to throw money at any problem we come in contact with has brought this down. It has nothing to do with Rep. vx. Dem. Open your eyes and do something about the Cranial inter-rectitus you are suffering from.
  • Peanutcat, on 10/12/2007, -24/+42I think it's time to quit blaming Clinton for everything that goes wrong with the Bush administration. Bill Clinton isn't president anymore. He hasn't been president for nearly 6 years. It's time for the Bush administration to take the blame for their own mistakes.
    • Noctem, on 10/12/2007, -34/+25Just as soon as the liberals stop whining about how the election they lost in 2000 was "stolen", since it wasn't.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -18/+21lost in 2000 was "stolen", since it wasn't.
      I hope you remember you comments next time there is an ass hair close exelection and a dems brothers is gov of a state where the decisison will be made.
      Not saying it was stolen but give it a break, you guys would be screaming even louder if it happened to you.
    • agooga, on 10/12/2007, -17/+20In fact it did happen in the state of Washington. The gubernatorial election was extremely close, and irregularities were found. Republicans took the democrats to court and lost, fair and square. End of story. I don't here republicans crying and yammering about that one every single day of the week.
    • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20I think it's safe to say that the planning and preparation for 9/11 occurred almost entirely under the Clinton administration, it's not like once Bush was elected that Al Qaeda said "OK, how can we take down the WTC?"
    • wardmi, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11@agooga
      Actually, there was quite a campaign here in Washington for a vote to recall. I remember the bumper stickers quite clearly... it didn't end with the courts decision but that is a nice way to remember it. Lofty, but incorrect.
    • agooga, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Come on-- you don't hear the constant bitching and moaning about Gregoir as you do (still) about Gore's loss 6 years ago. I still routinely see fresh bumper stickers that say "Re-elect Gore" et. al.
    • Iandefor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3"In fact it did happen in the state of Washington. The gubernatorial election was extremely close, and irregularities were found. Republicans took the democrats to court and lost, fair and square. End of story. I don't here republicans crying and yammering about that one every single day of the week."

      Washington republicans were bitching long after they lost the court decision. Even after Gregoire took office, they kept trying to get a recount and the courts wouldn't let them.

      In my part of the state there are *still* republicans beating that drum.
  • NinjAlt, on 10/12/2007, -26/+37WHAT THE ***** IS WRONG WITH THIS ***** COUNTRY?! Jesus christ. Its like I entered Bizarro World. ***** is falling down around me and these assholes in power dont mind a ***** bit as long as their in office.
    • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9they're
    • pedro101, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16We actually have a ton to be thankful for. This country's not perfect but no country is.
    • DanOfDystopia, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10truthfully america is not doing that badly. in comparison to the rest of the world america still near the top. After 9/11 americans have developed a social self-hate syndrome.
    • ronabop, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4@DanofDystopia

      Where is the US still anywhere near the top?

      Not freedom of the press, not healthcare, not lifespan, not education, not literacy... so where?
    • firebush, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5"in comparison to the rest of the world america still near the top."

      We have been far far above the rest of the world for a very long time. Saying 'we'll, were still number one' is just an excuse for the current admin. 'We've screwed everything up, but hey, at least were still number one!!!1!'

      Our country is in sad shape compared to where we were before these clowns took control. So much money wasted. When was the last time any of you guys heard about improving "EDUCATION" in politics? Not for six whole years. Sad to think about.
    • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"***** is falling down around me and these assholes in power dont mind a ***** bit as long as their in office."

      Where I am, the sky is definitely not falling and life is mellow.

      I think all reasons for the attack on 9/11 and the lead up to it should be explored in great detail

      I don't give a flying feck if your favorite politician is involved or not.
  • 9tailfox, on 10/12/2007, -38/+15About Time, Finally some truth.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -15/+20LOL
      First the admin says it was a problem in communication. NOT IN the libs
      clinton never got a memo saying bin ladin determined to attack in the US
      The attacks happened on bushs watch.
      The counter trrorism officers were pissed cheney wouldnt listen to them
      and then they want to blame saddam.
      and you say.. finally some truth comes out.. hell listen to your own party, they dont even believe that..
      read plan of attack (which was recommended reading from the WH..
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8PowerCow --
      I almost think I almost understood that!
    • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13PowerCow:

      YES, Clinton did get a memo about bin Laden and a possible attack. He waited until Bush was in office, then passed the "hot potato" to him. It is common political "F-you's" like that which occur all too often in our government.
  • wspence, on 10/12/2007, -20/+15@NinjAlt- ok, ***** is really falling down around you? do you live in Iraq or Beirut?

    @Everyone else reading this post. I'm a moderate conservative. I will say that yes, Bush has made some mistakes. Yes, Clinton was a decent President. However, there is one fact that you can't deny. Way before the 9/11 attacks, the Clinton administration could have prevented Bin Laden from masterminding the attacks. While this probably wouldn't have prevented another 9/11 attack, it may have stalled it. Flashback prior to Bush coming into office and the Clinton administration still in power.

    Officials in Dubai contacted the White House to let the Clinton administration know that they had Bin Laden and several family members on board. What did the administration do? Nothing. They couldn't find any precedent to breach "internation law" to apprehend the mastermind behind the USS Cole attack. Keep in mind this is "international law" that know one in the end really abides by if the country's intrest is in mind. While this could be seen as admirable in its time, as the administration was trying to set an example in how to be in accordance with such law, history shows this was a classic goof up by the Clinton administration.

    While yes, the Bush administration could have prevented an attack, they were still settling in the first term. Some cabinet members had not yet even been selected. While this should be no excuse for inaction, ultimately, the Clinton administration had 8 years to do something about it.

    I agree the 8 years we had under Clinton were great. Some of the most prosperous and peacful times in the nations history. However, with this, came poitical correctness and over-sensitive style of government.

    Is there a good median that can be reached? Doubtful. I've lost faith in the political process. However, its the best we can do and we'll just have to wait until '08 to see.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8Keep in mind this is "international law" that know one in the end really abides by if the country's intrest is in mind

      Lol you mean noone = the US and isreal.. as most other countris follow it.
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13wspence --
      I believe the reason Clinton didn't take out BinLaden at that time was because he was hiding out in a Mosque, and Clinton didn't like the social/political/moral implications of bombing a place of worship. When he weighed the options he had at the time, he decided to respect the religion instead of absolutely sparking the religious fallout that would follow.

      If I'm wrong on this fact, someone please correct me. I saw this recently as a matter of history, not objected to by anyone on the right or the left.
    • snoble, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@PowerCow

      Let's see, how about Russia and China. Probably most of the eastern block as well. Even in Canada we've had some issues with some international laws. Really there are a handful of western European states that stay faithful to them.
    • HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@PowerCow: We are not the only ones by a LOOOOOOOONG shot.

      Been paying attention to anywhere in the middle east lately? Lebanon? Iran? Iraq?

      How about Asia? North Korea?
    • maltmyer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@allatti2d

      The reason that we didn't take out Bin Laden was because we were afraid that the attack might also kill some children. We were afraid of the criticism that would come if we also killed some civilians.

      Seems pretty cowardly to me when comparing what he did back to us.
    • youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Hindsight is 20/20.

      When you look at the possible outcomes of such a strike you can't help but wonder if an attack was carried out and innocent people were killed, just who would have been victorious, the US for killing one big bad guy or the other terrorist that would have been left who surely would have exploited the loss of innocent lives in order to gain sympathy for their cause.


      Forward thinking like that requires a lot of debate and a clear understanding of the situation and it's various consequences, something you and this administration seem to lack.

      Not everything is black or white and decision shouldn't be made as if it was.
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3hey that is really cool about clinton being afraid to take out bin laden because of collateral damage.....

      Except for the asperin factory cruise missile attack

      Man Neo Coms, that reality is a mother ain't it......
  • wspence, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7@hawkeye17- Before you go making blanket charges against an administration, actually have some facts that have been dugg up to back up your arguement. Much like my post. It took more time, but I made my point clear.

    @Scoot87- If you're linking a nation article, then its obvious that you're short sighted and have no balanced view. Atleast find something from MSNBC to back up your arguements.

    All of you are communists.
  • goldylocks7621, on 10/12/2007, -33/+27First of all the writer of this documentary calls himself a Libertarian and then we hear Rush Limbaugh say he's a friend. This is a smear on Libertarians. A real Libertarian would have nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh. Secondly there's overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was engineered by the bush administration.

    Some evidence?

    1) Before this day no steel skyscraper had ever completely collapsed because of fire.

    2) All three buildings came down at almost freefall speed right into their own footprints ( which is practically impossible unless they're being demolished). WTC 1&2 were built with a VERY strong central core.

    3) WTC 7 only had 2 small fires and minimal damage, but still, this 47 story tower went down exactly into it's own footprint at very close to freefall speed.

    4) These planes went through some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world, so of course fighter jets had to be told to stand down.

    5) Marvin Bush, George Bush's brother was head of the company in charge of security for the WTC.

    6) George Bush upon hearing that hijacked planes had been crashed into the WTC, continued telling stories to a kindergarten class for 10 more minutes.

    7) Who benefits? George Bush and the Neocons. BIGTIME.

    8) The 9/11 commission report is a whitewash.

    8) A huge amount of other evidence only a few mouse clicks away
    • Jedi_2, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15Republicans usually mask themselves as Libertarians because, there is a stigma with producing a movie that was directed by republicans and attacks a democratic president. We are basically repeating what happened in the 50s when the republicans launched attacks at Franklin Rosevelt and blamed him for insighting World war 2. History does repeat itself, huh.
    • mkoby, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10Yea your "evidence" is speculation at best. Not to mention at least 2 items were used in obviously biased "documentary" by a biased director.

      Secondly, why do liberals in insist that #6 in your list of points is an argument? Are you guys that hard up for a conspiracy? First off, he was reading to a kindergarten class, what's he suppose to do just run off? He'd have to explain to the teachers what's going on and it would cause a panic, yes that's what our leader should do in the middle of a criss, CAUSE A PANIC. Geez folks, come on get a new song and dance.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -13/+14Panic doesnt matter, you get the president the ***** out of there and you get him in the air. PERIOD.
      For ***** sake the guy said "america is under attack"
      you know in my house if i was having a quiet dinner with my family and someone called and said " the islamofasists are in our town, killing people" do you think I would just sit there so not to scare my family?
      He is also the head of the military and was just told we have been attacked and he sits there?
      OMG i really hope the rest of our military leadership doesnt act like that.,
    • Archangel621, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8How does that Kool-Aid taste, goldylocks?
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13Oh, come off it. The attacks weren't staged by the Bush Regime.

      I cut off my political affiliation years ago, but I guess you could call me liberal in some ways (I can't figure out how people think that's a bad word), AND I live in California. I think GWB is a blithering idiot who has no business being in political power. However, I also think that anyone who believes that 9/11 was a Bush/right-wing conspiracy has way too much time on their hands and needs to go back on their meds. That is simply ridiculous. It's not liberal thinking, it's not left-wing thinking, it's not Democrat or Republican or Libertarian-thinking. It's just crazy ignorance.
    • SqueakyMouse, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8Re: #6
      Bush didn't think he was allowed to leave until the school bell went. Besides, the education would do him good.

      I'm not usually a big fan of conspiracy theories, but to be fair they don't make a bad case regarding 9/11. I can't find an explanation of a skyscraper collapsing symmetrically like that from a plane crash (or nearby fire with WT7) which rings true. The motive and opportunity was there, and the air force seemingly wasn't.

      I don't want to believe this stuff though, so if anyone can convince me otherwise, I'd be grateful. The main arguments against seem to be based on what a stupidly huge risk it would be. After all, it requires the cooperation of many more people than the conventional explanation.
    • jacked, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4@goldylocks7621: your ignorance is astounding. This might help you with that.
      http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
    • bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -5/+79/11 certainly did benefit Bush and the NeoCons in terms of increased control. However, no direct material evidence or witness testimony connects them. There was never a leak from Washington about a 9/11 plan and there almost certainly would have been (I'm speculating, of course). In a science lab your circumstantial evidence wouldn't hold up. I'd like to get Bush out of office as most of the world would, but your and my energy are better served by championing other information.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8"Secondly there's overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was engineered by the bush administration.

      Some evidence?

      1) Before this day no steel skyscraper had ever completely collapsed because of fire."

      IF this is true, there is always the first time. Just because some hasn't happened doesn't mean it CAN'T happen.

      "2) All three buildings came down at almost freefall speed right into their own footprints ( which is practically impossible unless they're being demolished). WTC 1&2 were built with a VERY strong central core."

      Are you a structural engineer? If the mechanism whereby the buildings collapsed is that load bearing members were weakened and each floor collapsed due to impact failure, then it is quite possible for the buildings to drop straight down rather than leaning out.

      "3) WTC 7 only had 2 small fires and minimal damage, but still, this 47 story tower went down exactly into it's own footprint at very close to freefall speed."

      Back this up with a scientific report rather than speculation, and I might believe you.

      "4) These planes went through some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world, so of course fighter jets had to be told to stand down."

      This means what? If no one expected that the intention was to hit the WTC, then I doubt anyone worried too much if the places were out of their flight plans. And, if the planes were shot down over NYC, the loss of life would not be restricted to the passengers. There would have been ground casulties, though maybe not as many as 3,000.

      "5) Marvin Bush, George Bush's brother was head of the company in charge of security for the WTC."

      Even if true, so what?!

      "6) George Bush upon hearing that hijacked planes had been crashed into the WTC, continued telling stories to a kindergarten class for 10 more minutes."

      At which point, what could he do to stop it? Nothing. Was it expected that the building would collapse? No, it wasn't. If the President tried to act, he would likely have bolloxed the rescue effort due to his lack of knowledge.

      "7) Who benefits? George Bush and the Neocons. BIGTIME."

      They benefit how? If you believe that there was a grand conspiracy to invade Iraq at the start of presidency; it is incomprehensible that a sitting President would act to kill US citizens to start a war in the Middle East. I think Bush is a bad president, but this lunacy accuses the President of high treason.

      "8) The 9/11 commission report is a whitewash."

      Sure it is. But, the Warren Commission was likely a whitewash, too. Congressional commissions are typically jokes, unfortunately.

      "8) A huge amount of other evidence only a few mouse clicks away"

      Speculation with little critical analysis is only a few mouse clicks away.

      If you wish to dole out blame...

      1) Clinton shares some blame.
      2) Bush Jr. shares some blame.
      3) Bush Sr shares some blame.
      4) Reagan shares some blame.
      5) Carter probably shares some blame.

    • spurtle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6You could probably add Eisenhower to that list as well.
    • phatt-matt, on 10/12/2007, -8/+81) Before this day no steel skyscraper had ever completely collapsed because of fire.

      No building has ever been slammed into by a commercial plane before either.

      2) All three buildings came down at almost freefall speed right into their own footprints ( which is practically impossible unless they're being demolished). WTC 1&2 were built with a VERY strong central core.

      Plane debris and intense fire from the fuel damaged the "VERY strong central core."

      3) WTC 7 only had 2 small fires and minimal damage, but still, this 47 story tower went down exactly into it's own footprint at very close to freefall speed.

      Initial reports claimed minimal damage to WTC 7. More extensive survey found significant damage.

      4) These planes went through some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world, so of course fighter jets had to be told to stand down.

      There were no orders given to stand down any fighter jets.

      5) Marvin Bush, George Bush's brother was head of the company in charge of security for the WTC.

      Marvin Bush heads a venture capital firm, not a security firm.

      6) George Bush upon hearing that hijacked planes had been crashed into the WTC, continued telling stories to a kindergarten class for 10 more minutes.

      He stated he didn't want to create panic. Had he move at one minute would it have changed anything?

      7) Who benefits? George Bush and the Neocons. BIGTIME.

      How? The greatest financial beneficiary to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is Michael Moore and the hundreds of millions he has made off of his movie and book.

      8) The 9/11 commission report is a whitewash.

      Just because it doesn't agree with your tinfoil conspiracy theories.

      8) A huge amount of other evidence only a few mouse clicks away

      9.) You are an idiot.
    • torpedoman2002, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Check out this site.

      http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@phatt-matt

      "The greatest financial beneficiary to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is Michael Moore and the hundreds of millions he has made off of his movie and book."

      Oh. My. God. Please tell me you aren't that stupid.

      I'd really, really like to believe you are a visitor from another planet who has never heard of Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, or any of the dozens of other multinational defense and energy corporations. I'd love to believe that you just don't know how Bush, Cheney, and their buddies have a financial interest in these corporations, and personal ties to their major shareholders.

      Because it almost makes me puke to think I'm sharing a country with an ignoramus such as yourself.
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The unrepentant Marxist are taking over the democrat party

      The Art Bell, Black helicopter, gray Aliens want to anal probe me guys are taking over the Libertarian party.....

      Would someone please get a nice moderate party going so I can quit voting for republicans?
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ok look, what was the first thing that went into your mind when you heard a plane hit the WTC?

      Seems I remember hearing a B-25 Mitchell bomber hitting the Empire state building way long ago

      That was the first thing i thought of..

      And who did you blame when you realized that it was an attck?

      I thought it was some running budies of Tim MacVeighs, (on the other hand, it may well have been)


  • Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -13/+25ABC? This should be on FOX....
  • dangprole, on 10/12/2007, -12/+12Considering the source, ABC should run a disclaimer before the "docudrama".
  • wspence, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10Listen everyone. First of all don't try to discredit me on one typo. I have been up all night working, sue me.

    OK first of all I don't waste my time watching political movies and such. I will more than willingly read a book. If you guys can site one book written by an unbiased individual (good luck) on what you think the reasoning we're in all this mess now then go ahead.

    @ PowerCow -So tell me is America a Zionist Empire? It sounds like you believe that. Well if you do then you're sadly misinformed. Next point, you honestly think that Iran, Syria, or North Korea abide by international law? Get off the Kool-Aid. You need to stop exposing yourself to garbage. America isn't to blame for any of this. Sure some former presidential policies lead to people to taking extremes in the Middle East. But my friend, its all the power of choice.

    Question to everyone out there. Have you even been to the middle east? This is the only way you can understand what's going on right now is to experience the other culture. So until you do that you really have no clue in my opinion.
    • kaen, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8... "Have you even been to the middle east? This is the only way you can understand what's going on right now is to experience the other culture."

      Are you implying that you /have/ been to the middle east? Then you'll understand why they want an end to the US occupation of Iraq.
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2No he is stating a fact. You are imposing your values and beliefs on someone from a different culture in trying to explain why they do what they do. If you understand Arab culture, you may understand why they hate and fear us. And no you probably have it wrong in your mind right now. You can't believe that they mean what they say, because you do not what they believe, only what you believe, so for some odd reason, they are lying about their motivation for their actions. You don't believe it because your belief system would not allow anyone sane or rational to that. So you try and give them reasons you find acceptable for their conduct. And your way off base.
      Because you don't have to believe that their reasoning is valid and sane.
      Because they do.
  • gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Looks like someone wants back into the ad revenue business this election cycle.
    • GottIstTot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Finally a reply that makes sense. Has anyone considered the fact that syndicated news and media companies are simply in the business of making money? Everything is for ratings. Higher rated shows generate more ad revenue. Ad revenue feeds the bottom line. This is an election year. Election ad pay good money...
      Connect the dots...Oh my god, it makes a dollar sign...
  • scottmoss, on 10/12/2007, -14/+17Finally...Bush was only in office 7 months and 20 days when this happened. Clinton had 8 years of trying to combat this. It's not Bush's fault. It's what you do next that counts.... Keep that in mind and don't digg down let people read it for themselves. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents for a listing of terrorist attacks....
    • dkleehammer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15I like how everyone forgets that this was the third time that the terrorists tried to bring down the WTC towers. Bush wasn't in office the first two times.
    • Haapi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10And if you looked at that list really hard, you'd see that the Embassy bombing, the first in the list that mentions al-Qaeda, was in 1998. So Clinton had two-three years to concentrate on bin Laden, not eight. Not that there wasn't a lot of other ***** going down in the 90's.
    • GottIstTot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7You know, Clinton may have been president but the majority of elected official in Congress were Republican. What were they concerned with at the time; blowjobs. So perhaps, call me crazy, but maybe they deserve most of the blame for being flaming idiots when it comes to national priorities.
  • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7LOL! This got the Socio-communists up in arms.
  • maranatha, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Ahh. It must be backwards day. Or should I say it must not be backwards day.
  • pcheaven2k, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS A ***** JOKE!
    • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9OK. YOU'RE A ***** JOKE!

      Do you feel better now?
  • Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6Holy mother-***** *****.
  • trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15If we're going to play the blame game, lets blame Ragan. He's the that first started training and provided weapons to the afgan militants.
    While we're at it, lets blame USSR for attacking afganistan and pissing off the hornet nest known as the muslum jihad.

    If we're going to blame people, lets at least look at the freaking cause of all this BS.
    • wspence, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12@trghpy- This is exactly what I was getting at in my first post. There are a lot of people to blame However, the thing is Bush had the least amount of time in office prior to the attacks. So the only real reason to pin the attacks as being a failure of Bush's is political. If you don't like his policies then just say it. Don't try to make him look like he's asleep at the wheel.

      Even if we do play the blame game as you suggest, ultimately people make their own choices.
  • maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7what a crock
  • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18I find it hilarious that some people think that this movie is a waste of time and yet somehow "Fahrenheit 9/11" was 100% factual and worhty of watching.
    • bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -15/+11Do some fact checking on Fahrenheit 9/11. Everything I've looked at holds up.
    • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Like the interview with a soldier that he cut up to make it look like the soldier opposed the war. FYI, that soldier is now suing Moore for libel.
  • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -14/+10"docudrama" :)) :)) :)) in other words, fiction.
  • alexdagrate, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11BOO!

    What's with all the "Libertarians" on digg? Every libertarian I ever met was just an economic conservative who was into guns or smoking pot or both.
    • MasterLJ, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"What's with all the "Libertarians" on digg? Every libertarian I ever met was just an economic conservative who was into guns or smoking pot or both."

      Lol. That's what we are for the most part.

      It's also a product of the times. If you are a registered Republican who happens to be pro-Choice or pro-Gay Marriage, you are ostracized. And if you are a Democrat who is for smaller government and less taxation, you are also ostracized.

      That leaves us no choice but to go to Libertarianism to escape partisan *****.
  • gedawid, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6...and next we'll be told the Monica Lewinski incident started the reality TV phenomena.

    Actually, that could be more believable.
  • MasterLJ, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11People often forget that Clinton launched his own campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq (from the air). He obviously didn't clean up the mess entirely, and his motives were always suspect since the bombing of the terrorist camps came in what was an apparent response to the Lewinski scandal.

    To place 100% blame on Clinton is folly. To idemnify him of any responsibility, is lunacy.
  • nicstevens42, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5All I have to say is this "Snakes on a ***** plane"
  • wspence, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9allatti2d - He actually he had him on a tarmac in Dubai. I'll have to find the name of the book. I'll post it later. If that was another case, and that was the decision he made, then I can respect that.
  • wspence, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3alexdagrate - Actually I don't consider myself a liberatarion. I'm for state rights. Pro-Economy. Anti-Neocon
  • sakirkl, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9The media and Congress are more to blame than Clinton ever was. He tried to combat terrorism, but was pretty much not taken seriously at all.

    "The two great myths that have settled across the nation, beyond the Hussein-9/11 connection, are that Clinton did not do enough during his tenure to stop the spread of radical terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, and that the attacks themselves could not have been anticipated or stopped. Blumenthal's insider perspective on these matters bursts the myths entirely, and reveals a level of complicity regarding the attacks within the journalistic realm and the conservative political ranks that is infuriating and disturbing.

    Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

    Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

    In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery. "

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Jeez, I would love that article so much if it came from an unbiased historian source instead of a web site that looks very anti-bush! Are those facts listed anywhere else?

      Don't get me wrong -- I pretty much AM anti-bush, pissed off about the Iraq war and all that, but when having an intelligent debate, I think it's important to use sources that both sides would consider absolutely credible. Not that it would make a huge difference in the way people think/feel, but it helps a little to try to keep emotional fuel out of it (something I'm guilty of doing myself).
  • wspence, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9kaen - You should see nothern Iraq. It's not Baghdad. There actually civil people who thank us daily.
  • wspence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9busy187 - No collateral damage is a pipe dream. I'm not justifying 1 innocent soul lost. Just in warfare there's no way that won't happen at some point.
  • growler1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11"Clinton is responsible for 9-11" is the same tired tripe that we've been hearing since it happened. God bless the families of those who lost someone in that attack. I bet victims' families are pretty sick of hearing their loved ones' sacrifice as a party platform.

    Bill Clinton didn't cause 9-11; a bad man named Osama Bin Laden did, with a little help from his evil friends. Saying Clinton could've stopped all of this is like saying Bush Sr. could have prevented Marines' deaths in Iraq today. Sure he could've...and I could win the lottery if I could only know what's impossible to know; i.e. THE FUTURE.

    An aside: I love it when goose-stepping right-wingers use Rush Limbaugh's moniker "Libs" to degrade their opponents.

    Newsflash gentlemen, don't look now but you've got a little Kool-aid in your mustaches. How bout you stop hating and start working with people to FIX THIS MESS YOU'VE MADE.
  • donloper, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8It's funny how we blame our leaders for the 9/11 attacks. Neither Clinton nor Bush hijacked any planes nor planned anything (although I guess some nuts think Bush actually did). Blaming either administration is pointless unless we're learning something from it. But right now learning something from it is less important than killing the terrorists we already know are out there trying to get us. We've already learned enough to prevent the same type of attack as well as several other types. What we need to learn now is how to do a better job of tracking them down.
    • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I would tend to agree with you but when Bush signs executive orders blocking investigations which could have prevented 911 some blame has to be assigned.
  • mingistech, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
  • wspence, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2allatti2d- exactly what i was saying with the nation articles earlier. of course that was probably voted down too.
  • gd007, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3this is all due to monica!
  • mroffroad, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Finally someone puts the truth out there! GO ABC!! Go Sierra CluB!
  • scandar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Also, one *could* blame Clinton for not promoting Euro-islamic cultures and regions found in the Slavic area and confining the definition of Islam to the oil-rich Middle Eastern countries thus causing downtrodden Muslims in Europe (mainly of Pakistani and Afghani descent) to feel isolated and vindictive towards their government. Though, this blame could also be placed on other Western leaders and is really more of an explanation as to why Islamist fundamentalists have become so popular in the UK.
  • d0b33, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1The intelligence organizations are to blame
    Presidents have no control over the government it's a farce...
    They call the shots when they told to do so


  • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5How many more twists and turns will this administration, it's "friends in the media' and the neocon fan-boys / girls pull to shift blame away from a miserable, failed agenda? Unless they have a freaking time machine the "blame the past" game is getting really old. I really don't give a ***** what happened before, I'm worried about what's happening now. We've been through two (three) world wars, the cold war and in the 70's experienced quite a few terrorist attacks on Americans and IN America. Nobody before Bush felt the answer was to start shredding the Constitution.
  • RavenG4, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8I find it funny when it's something blaming Democrats it's called a Docu-Drama. When it's something blaming a Republican it's an automatic true life Documentery. Makes me giggle with laughter from the stupidity out there.

    Actually, if you are into politics and REAL news, meaning not the newspaper and news on television which is all propaganda in it's own right, you too would understand why Clinton really is the person to blame about 90% of 9/11 on. Then again I'll probably get negative feedback on this since most people on Digg only pay attention to the media (we will give you what we want you to know) side of stories and not the full picture of what is actually going on in the world.
    • dezmd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I like how you word it so your point seems like the only logical conclusion, despite having no actual justifications and evidence presented.

      "Actually, if you are into politics and REAL news, meaning not the newspaper and news on television which is all propaganda in it's own right"

      And WHERE exactly do you get your news? National Review? The New American? Drudge Report? I'd like to know.
    • enriquer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7There was legislation from a New York Senator during the first four years of the Clinton administration that they signed into law. It prevents intelligence agencies from having informants which are not squeaky clean.

      As you can imagine valuable informants will never pass an ACLU litmus test. So this legislation effectively blindfolded our intelligence agencies.
  • prthealien, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Great. Goodbye hopes for a Democratic Congress :(.
  • neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6when the truth just wont do, its time to make some ***** up!
  • kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Lest we forget the the WTC was bombed in 1993 under the watch of President Clinton. His response was to find those responsible, try them, and make sure they were convicted.

    But the interesting part is that toward the end of his second term, Clinton knew about Islamic extremists, he tried to get congress to go after the terrorists and the Republican congress accused him of wagging the dog.
  • keitho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5there is plenty of blame to go around, we don't need a politically opportunistic movie to tell us who to vote for. america as a whole ignored decades of terrorism and terrorist acts, not just bin laden but most of africa, yugoslavia, phillipines, and russia. we didn't react with as much force when we retaliated for the bombings of the embassy buildings in africa. we didn't react the same when the USS Cole was bombed. if you want to go back even further, we did nothing after the 1983 bombings of the US Embassy in Beirut.

    terrorism has existed in our word for most digg user's lives, we just didn't give a rats ass until we saw on live tv, 2 planes individually crash into the wtc and proceed to take nearly 3,000.

    i'm no fan of bush, but i don't blame him alone for the existance of terrorism. i don't see him being the one to end it either.
  • SPThom, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Jesus, what's the point in pointing fingers at a man who's been *out of office* for nearly six years already? I wasn't a big fan of Clinton, but why can't we focus our attention towards the man *currently* making bad decisions on behalf our our country?
  • omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Just another example of liberal media bias.
  • noggin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10How about blaming Osama bin Laden? Geez.
  • Soldan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5all the movies and documentaries about 9/11 are lame... I am sure we are all well aware of what happened that day.....

    there is no glory to be had. in showing it over and over..
    • allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Soldan --
      Part of me agrees with you. Part of me hates to see people profit from the tragedy by making movie after movie after movie after movie.

      But another part of me says it needs to be done, to learn and remember. That day has become a huge part of American history, a day when all our lives changed, and should be documented from many different perspectives. Our kids and grandkids and so-on won't know the devastation without books/movies/documentaries etc. Just as things like Vietnam, Kennedy's assassination, and WW2 don't have the same impact on me as those who experienced it; the movies I've seen are the closest I've been.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.