What is Digg?184 Comments
- 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. - 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 ***** 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.
- 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. - inactive, 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. - 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 - 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. - 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.
- 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?" - 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). - 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. - Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -13/+25ABC? This should be on FOX....
- 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 ***** in power dont mind a ***** bit as long as their in office.
- 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?"
- 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? - Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20How is "the Right" re-writing history? Since when did all of American professordom suddenly become right-wing?
- pedro101, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16We actually have a ton to be thankful for. This country's not perfect but no country is.
- 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.
- 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 *****. - 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. - 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.
- noggin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10How about blaming Osama bin Laden? Geez.
- 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.
- 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. - 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... - 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.
- ukttec16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Why not try to find solutions to the problem rather than someone or something to blame? That is all we hear these days, "it's this person, or this administration, or this government agency's fault."
If you take all the energy and time that people put into finding someone to blame and put that towards finding a solution...who knows where we might be today. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - schraged, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Sounds good to me... Places a large portion of the blame for 9-11 squarely where it belongs President Clinton who for eight years pursued a foreign policy that pretended that terrorism either didn't exist or wasn't a problem that needed to be dealt with... Just think, had we confronted Bin Laden in Somalia in 1993 rather than Cut N Run we might have been able to avoid the tragedy that was
9-11. It is amazing that many are advocating that same policy in Iraq today. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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, -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.
- inactive, 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.. - wspence, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9kaen - You should see nothern Iraq. It's not Baghdad. There actually civil people who thank us daily.
- inactive, 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.
- gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Looks like someone wants back into the ad revenue business this election cycle.
- 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.
- 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. - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"***** is falling down around me and these ***** 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. - 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.
- 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. - 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.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 180 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is