John, out of curiosity, how often, when you dig your heels in like this and insist on eliminating all possibility whatever of other explanations, beyond the point of reasonability at which most people stop, do you find that there actually is one?
If the evidence is enough for you to vote to convict if you were a juror, why do you insist on more as a faceless message board poster?
The real 9/11 story is dramatic enough to make a great movie. ABC’s motivations and mthods in producing this crap are most certainly open to inference by reaonable persons.
OK, I took your statement about “stop me…” as rhetorical, but that’s fine if you weren’t sure. I said the same thing-- I really don’t know much about this guy and the background for the film.
[quoteAs for activist, well, your careful parsing of of words to avoid any hint of exagerration might be worthwhile if it wasn’t your constant device of sidestepping the larger issue.[/quote]
Oh, bullhsit. I haven’t parsed any words. I just asked you why you thought he was an activist. If you don’t think he is, then you shouldn’t have said it. There are enough problems with this film that it shouldn’t be necessary to make stuff up about it. [And U]you are the one who brought up these other issues, so don’t complain when another poster asks about them.
No, the reviewer is inserting his own person thoughts on that into the review, and note where he places the blame for that distraction (emphasis added):
I think it’s entirely relavent to the story that while this terror plot was being hatched, what was the country’s focus on? Monica, and a partisan inspired impeachment effort.
The simple fact is that neither Clinton nor Bush stopped the terror plot. So claiming that either of those guys focused on it enough is clearly false.
The stuff you quoted from the 9/11 report certainly does. Did you read the whole thing?
The parts you quoted were intended to say there was no Wag the Dog type effort by Clinton.
Did you notice that they explained the slogan in really teeny tiny letters at the bottom of the screen?
[sub][sub][sub]-Official 9/11 documentary of the Philadelphia Eagles and Superbowl XV.[/sub][/sub][/sub]
No, not in the context of the discussion she and I were having.
As I said in the Pit thread, it ain’t over yet. Maybe there will be enough of an outcry that ABC will pull it, or try to save face by “delaying” the broadcast and either shelving it or running it on a cable channel. They even have the excuse that Bush wants some air time Monday night that will interfere with the currently scheduled broadcast. If even half the accusations being raised in this thread are true one has to wonder what the executives at ABC were thinking-- you just can’t keep that kind of stuff under wraps these days.
Not necessarily. You’re assuming that there’s some level of focus that would have stopped the plot; that with enough resources it would have been uncovered, and that that amount of resources were avaliable to Clinton or Bush. We can’t know that one way or the other, so it’s not clearly false.
Doesn’t our inability to bring bin Laden to justice in the five years since 9/11 strengthen the argument that the attack was unstoppable? Unless of course anyone wants to argue that the search has been run incompetently.
Hell, the plots would have been foiled if the goddam cockpit doors were locked! We weren’t done in by a cabal of evil geniuses, this was a stupid plan that Tom Clancy would have laughed out of the room!
Secondly, why should we assume that if we got Osama, the plan would not have gone forward?
Again, that’s assuming there’s an amount of resources avaliable which would involve his capture. Having said that, I think there would be; there’s certainly been enough captures of higher-ranking AQ people, and 9/11 changed a lot (I feel so wrong using that as a phrase ;)) with regards to avaliablity of anti-terrorism resources. I’d say more that capturing bin Laden is no longer the top priority, allowing for a considerable difficulty in finding him plus a dash of incompetency, as there is in all things.
I’d say it was an excellent plan; it made use of weak points, and generally is a good example of lateral thinking. Why take the time to smuggle in/create bombs, physically move to the location, and set them to go off, when you can do all of those things in one fell swoop. All that without a chance that a suspicious package could be found before it went off. And, of course, it did work. Pretty good plan, really.
I don’t think it’s unfair to call someone an activist when they are not only conservative personally, but also make it a point of putting what they do artistically in a political context. There is a difference between being an artist who is a conservative and being a conservative artist who sees his art as part of a movement for conservatism to create a conservative pardigm shift in the industry.
Maybe because the FBI comes out looking stupid? Which is directly reflected in his statement **:
“They sent me the script, and I read it and told them they had to be kidding,” Mr. Coleman said. “I wanted my friends at the F.B.I. to still speak to me.” **
