let Disney know they can't slander Clinton

This is it: crunch time for getting the slanderous ABC television docudrama "The Path to 9/11" yanked off the air. The network schedule has this slanderous attack on Democrats slated to start on Sunday night, September 10, at 8 o'clock -- and as long as it stays on the schedule, we have work to do. Take a minute right now and tell Disney president Robert Iger to keep this right-wing propaganda off our airwaves:

http://www.democrats.org/pathto911

Here's the good news: the suits at ABC and the Walt Disney Company have started panicking under pressure, thanks to your ferocious response to the outrageous decision to put this irresponsible miniseries on the air. But until Disney quits defending its plan to broadcast conservative propaganda -- fraudulently presented to Americans as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" -- the company should plan to keep taking every bit of heat we dish out.

 

I can remember when I had done something that I souldn't have done, and then started making a big to-do over how it happened and how it wasn't my fault... Well, my dad always said the when you protest too much, it's' a good sign that what is being said is more than likely true.

I for one would appreciate have it shown, so I can see for myself what every one is holllering about. I know we have taken a list and had it signed in class and sent in support. Several other classes and students friends in other colleges have now thaken up the issue and are going to do the same. It's called freedom of speech. Or have you forgotten?

 

Did you support the Reagan movie that the right wing killed, did you want that shown? Probably not since right wingers tend to be hypocrites.

 

The facts are very clear...Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden on MANY occiasions but Madeline HALF-Bright and Sandy "Lets steal files down my pants" Berger blew it...

They know it, the facts prove it and yet the Clinton socialist-move-on-losers can't handle the truth that THEY let public enemy #1 off of the hook.

This is even from the L.A. Times no less, who are no friends of the republicans:

By MANSOOR IJAZ (December 5th, 2001)

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

Check and Check Mate!!

Instead of writing Disney, who would like to watch me b**tch-slap Danr??

 

hey look it is an xray of Midas' brain!!!

 

I've written about this before. YOU CANNOT BASE YOUR ARGUMENTS ON WHAT OTHERS MAY OR MAY NOT BELIEVE!

If you don't like the new documentary coming out, that's your right. It's also your right to try and convince others to agree with your point of view and to get the program off the air. If someone else wants to argue with you, however, that it's a great documentary and that it should be on the air, they have the same right you do. To say otherwise - and it seems to me you are - you'll be exhibiting the very hypocrisy you criticize in the right wing.

 

Midas,

Let me know when I would pay to see that one. Same thing goes for Cloudedass too. I think they will thank you for the slapping instead of the beheading they could get from our enemies!

 

Dumbass, the Reagon movie didnt have anything to do with a President not protecting our country while we were being constantly attacked. The Reagan movie portrayed Reagan as a terrible husband and our past Pres. in demeaning ways in his personal life that were proven to be not true. This movie is based on the constant attacks on our country during Clintons Presidency. This is based on facts that are documented and not made-up accusations regarding Reagans personal life. If you cant see the differences you are truly a DUMBASS!

Are you sure you arent Islamic Coins? Because most of your posts are so Anti-American it is scary! You truly are a danger to this country.

 

Danr,
I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but ad hominems aren't exactly considered to be valid when involved in a discussion.

 

Simply answer this: did you support the showing of the Reagan show?

 

looks like you get the sparkley dumbass award!! you must be the biggest dumbass in the whole world!!

 

In other words you got owned

oh BTW

 

What the hell are you talking about? I wasn't even involved in this discussion, I simply made a completely valid statement which was off topic. How was I "owned"? I'm sorry, but your debate skills are equivalent to that of a 2 year olds.

 

Tickets are going on sale at your local box office now - only $10.00! Hurry before they sell out (which will be EXTREMELY quickly at this rate)!

 

Zane, it appears that Danr's response to your "ad hominem" observation was yet another ad hominem.

And I suppose since I'm making the same obvious observation, Danr will respond to me with an ad hominem.

Let's see what happens...

 

Actually Zane misused the phrase in the first place so I ran with it. My comparison of the Reagan film was legit and hypocracy is a real characteristic of right wingers. Further I did not attack any arguer personally. Zane check you dictionary before fumbling out those out of the ordinary phrases.

 

Let's take a look, shall we?

And Danr's response to zane:

Now let's look at the dictionary definition of "ad hominem":

Upon comparison: Danr has certainly made ad hominem remarks, and zane was correct in characterizing Danr's remarks as such. Further, if you look, almost all of Danr's responses and remarks have been ad hominem in nature. Additionally, Danr's characterization of Zane's comment as "ad hominem" is false.

Analysis: Danr has nothing of value to add to any discussion on any topic in the PRWE forums as shown through said ad hominem statements.

AJM

 

1. Zane has succeeded in bring us off topic.
2. I admitted to using ad hominem remarks after Zane accused me of it (it is called humor which is something intellegent people do, you obviously lack the intellect for it though, pitiful retard that you are).

 

well, they showed the Reagans didn't they? Now its time to see how Clinton and his idiot cronies built the power of bin laden and emboldened him by doing nothing in response to attacks by him and al qeada against outrcountry that led directly to 9/11

 

Actually, Danr, once more you fail to be correct. You never admitted to using any kind of baseless ad hominem remarks after Zane accused you of doing so. Here are your own quotes to prove it:

As any intelligent person here can plainly see from these quotes taken after 9/9/06, 1:24pm (the date and timestamp of Zane's post), though you denied using ad hominem remarks, you never admitted to using them.... retard.

~AJM