Good Article About Clinton

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Except that things presented in the movie as fact are CONTRADICTED by the 9/11 report. You know what I call that? Lying. More accurate than "99 %" of movies based on true stories? Oh dear. Rupert, I worry for you-- for all your insistence you aren't a typical right-winger, you do seem to have the obsessive hatred for the Clintons that has marked most of them the past six years. It sounds to me like you want to believe the right-wing media that rushed to reassure you that really, this silly "docudrama" wasn't all THAT inaccurate.

If falling for "left-wing propaganda" means demanding the truth, then stick me in with the left-wing loonies, please.

Here's one specific for you from the movie:

<<Nowrasteh's most egregious fictionalizing occurs in Act 4, which depicts a supposed strike on bin Laden's Afghan redoubt that is called off at the last second by Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, who says, "I don't have that authority." Under cover of night, a CIA agent known only as "Kirk" leads a Special Forces team into the remote mountain compound where the al-Qaida chief is hiding. "The package is ready!" cries Kirk over the satellite phone, but Berger aborts the operation because he doesn't want to take responsibility.

That incident simply never occurred. As Clarke himself would have told Nowrasteh, no CIA officer ever tracked bin Laden to his hideout. Neither did Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader who is shown guiding the aborted operation. The handsome, charismatic Massoud, later assassinated by al-Qaida agents, asks Kirk angrily, "Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?" That sort of rhetoric is frequently uttered by actors portraying characters such as Massoud and O'Neill, who are no longer around to dispute the script.

Had Nowrasteh consulted the 9/11 Commission report, not only would he have found no evidence to support his exciting imaginary assault on the bin Laden compound, but he would also have learned that the underlying assumptions were completely wrong. The report states explicitly, as Clarke and other senior officials have affirmed, that Clinton and Berger ordered the CIA and the military to use any force necessary to get bin Laden>>

Sandy Berger would not allow them to kill Bin Laden. That is well-documented. The specific scene in the movie may not have happened exactly that way, but it is well documented that Berger stopped them from killing Bin Laden. Why do you think Berger was stealing documents and stuffing them into his socks?

Right-wing media? What are you smoking? The media has always been dominated by people who identify themselves as liberal democrats.