http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/ap_on_re_us/911_film_clinton_officials

By DEEPTI HAJELA, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 7, 2:04 PM ET

NEW YORK - A "terribly wrong" miniseries about events leading to the Sept. 11 attacks blame President Clinton's policies, former Clinton administration officials said in letters demanding that ABC correct it or not air it.

But in a statement released Thursday afternoon in apparent response to the growing uproar, ABC said, "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's parent The Walt Disney Co., to express concern over "The Path to 9/11."

The two-part miniseries, scheduled to be broadcast on Sunday and Monday, is drawn from interviews and documents including the report of the Sept. 11 commission. ABC has described it as a "dramatization" as opposed to a documentary.

"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."

The letter writers said the miniseries contained factual errors, and that their requests to see it had gone unanswered.

"By ABC's own standard, ABC has gotten it terribly wrong," Lindsey and Band said in their letter.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

The letters pointed out examples of scenes they had been told were in the miniseries, but which they said never happened. Albright objected to a scene that she was told showed her insisting on warning the Pakistani government before an airstrike on Afghanistan, and that she was the one who made the warning.
"The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory," she said.

Berger objected to a scene that he was told showed him refusing to authorize an attack on Osama bin Laden despite the request from CIA officials. "The fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license," he wrote.Lindsey and Band objected to advertisements for the miniseries, which they said suggested that Clinton wasn't paying enough attention to the threat of terrorism." <<<<<< :laugh: Which has proven to be true, but the masses seem to not get it.

"While ABC is promoting "The Path to 9/11" as a dramatization of historical fact, in truth it is a fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans," they said. "Given your stated obligation to 'get it right,' we urge you to do so by not airing this drama until the egregious factual errors are corrected, an endeavor we could easily assist you with given the opportunity to view the film."

The five-hour miniseries is set to run without commercial interruption. Director David Cunningham said it was a massive undertaking, with close to 250 speaking parts, more than 300 sets, and a budget of $40 million. Cunningham has said he shot 550 hours of film. The cast includes Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton and Donnie Wahlberg."

************************************************** **************
What I found interesting about this is that I listened to Hannity today, who had the writer of the script on his broadcast. Hannity asked him about the miniseries having to be edited because of political pressure, and he stated for a fact that it was done. Anybody else find that strange?

Also, though the people objecting to this are saying the events in the miniseries never happened, the writer of the script said he got his information from the 9-11 Commission Report and other reliable sources. Hmmm.

So, I see two issues here. I don't want what we watch on TV influenced by political groups who it seems are trying to pull a "cover your ass" maneuver. They were trying to get the thing banned and not even aired. But ABC edited certain parts (which we'll find out about in the wash) and decided to air it anyway.

Second, it's a known fact Clinton was a pussy when it came to handling Osama bin Laden. There's documented evidence we'd already have him if it wasn't for the Clinton administration's errors. So, is this writer lying in his portrayal of the specific events that the Clinton camp found objectionable, or was he spot on?

I'll be interested to see. Just know this. If it wasn't for the Clinton administration's mistakes, not taking Osama's fatwas seriously, the attack on the Cole, etc., we'd have him now and 9-11 might not have happened. It still could have transpired, but it possibly could have been averted, and we'd have public enemy number one rotting in some cell as we speak.

I've followed this a little. Theres a few things that need to be said.

First off, the show is supposed to be a dramatization, not a documentary. So, alot of the events in the story never happened. It was BASED on the 9/11 commission report, but ALOT of creative license was taken. Alot of people are objecting because it shows representations of ACTUAL people doing and saying things that never actually happened.

Second, 'political pressure' my ass. Theres really only 2 ways that the government could get involved in any way.
1) If the show had an excessive amount of vulgar content and aired in daytime
2) If the show claimed to be utter fact, but still misrepresented the people it showed(leading to possible libel charges)
Neither was true. That doesn't mean that politicians can't call up or write to the studio asking that things be changed, but they would have no way of exerting pressure to have them do so. At best they could give at their opinions on the topic. If the show's director/producer took any of those opinions to heart, fine, but calling it 'political pressure' is wrong.

On a side note.... Nobody knew that Osama would be capable of doing what he did until after 9/11. I don't fault George Bush for 9/11 happening on his watch. Simply put, its impossible to prevent all bad things from happening. You can create a totalitarian state in the process of trying to do so, and still accomplish nothing. The REAL fault of 9/11 lies with the government's RESPONSE, which has been utterly inept.

I'm sure the idiotic masses will squeel with glee for this movie, though.

a truly sad post.

If the show's director/producer took any of those opinions to heart, fine, but calling it 'political pressure' is wrong..

Do what? You just defined "political pressure," GCD. Surely you know that. They pressured ABC, and ABC edited the program. Sure, they could have told them to "fuck off," but they didn't. Maybe your definition of "political pressure" and mine are polar opposites.

On a side note.... Nobody knew that Osama would be capable of doing what he did until after 9/11. I don't fault George Bush for 9/11 happening on his watch. Simply put, its impossible to prevent all bad things from happening. You can create a totalitarian state in the process of trying to do so, and still accomplish nothing. The REAL fault of 9/11 lies with the government's RESPONSE, which has been utterly inept.

I'm sure the idiotic masses will squeel with glee for this movie, though.

What you're missing, Dan, is Osama had already declared war on the United States in one of his many fatwas, attacked one of our military vessels, the Cole, killing our enlisted men, among other events too numerous to list here.

Yet Clinton, besides firing a cruise missle at a supposed Osama camp, around the time btw of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, didn't do much else. The fact is, as I've stated in my post, we'd have Osama now, or he would be dead, if it wasn't for the Clinton administrations fuck-ups.

Also, I agree with you saying "it's impossible to prevent all bad things from happening." But let me use an analogy.

The cops are aware of a mass murderer in a certain neighborhood, we know where he's at, who's said he wants to kill civilians in the area and kill cops. The cops have several occassions to nab the guy, but for political and other reasons they let him run free.

One day countless people are butchered by this guy, say 100 people or so, where at first he only killed two or three. Wouldn't you hold the police department accountable for knowing this guy was a threat, not doing dick hardly, and then trying to catch him or kill him only when he did something where the numbers were of a huge magnitude? It makes no sense.

That's what happened in the Clinton years, continuing to the Bush years, that when the attack became great enough with enough casualties they jumped into action.

I blame the Clinton administration's lack of action in not getting Osama, hunting him down like the cockroach he is, just as I blame the Bush administration and their weak-handed approach.

But in the end it cost us dearly. When you don't go after a rabid dog that's bit you more than once, it's obvious to assume he just might be inclined to bite you again, which is exactly what happened in this case.

Sad, really, and I'm amazed more people in this country, what you call "idiotic masses," pin it all on Bush. I've come to, as others in here have mentioned, believe most Americans are ignorant fools.

a truly sad post.

You'll have to explain that, Gred. The article, my post, or GCD's? We can't read fucking minds, you American/Canadian. That better? :fingersx:

frankly, i'm not really up for discussing it further. not only would it be totally futile, but i'm still grieving. i'm just not up for it. maybe i ought not to have posted in the first place.

have at it.

But let me use an analogy.
The cops are aware of a mass murderer in a certain neighborhood, we know where he's at, who's said he wants to kill civilians in the area and kill cops. The cops have several occassions to nab the guy, but for political and other reasons they let him run free.
One day countless people are butchered by this guy, say 100 people or so, where at first he only killed two or three. Wouldn't you hold the police department accountable for knowing this guy was a threat, not doing dick hardly, and then trying to catch him or kill him only when he did something where the numbers were of a huge magnitude? It makes no sense.

What are you suggesting?

Do you know how many people in the world learn "Death to america" in school every day? Do you know how many people burn pictures of the american president in effigy? Do you know how many little groups out there have sworn to 'destroy america'??? Maybe we should kill and imprison every single one of them?

Let me ask you one thing. When 9/11 happened... were you suprised? I follow world events pretty damn closely and I was utterly stupified in shock, thinking that it was simply impossible. I don't think I was alone in that regard. If clinton knew that Osama was capable of such an attack, I'm almost positive he would have acted to stop him. The simple truth of the matter is, no one thought he WAS capable.

Its REALLY easy to look back, after the fact, and say "So-and-so is at fault for not realizing". You know what they say about hindsight... Like I said, its almost impossible to prevent disaster's like this from occuring since they ALWAYS come from where their least expected. Its how you react to tragedy that defines you.

What are you suggesting?
Do you know how many people in the world learn "Death to america" in school every day? Do you know how many people burn pictures of the american president in effigy? Do you know how many little groups out there have sworn to 'destroy america'??? Maybe we should kill and imprison every single one of them?.

Are you even aware of the attacks Al-Qaeda had already committed against the United States while Clinton was in office, Dan, after Osama declared in a fatwa he was at war with us? Therein lies the difference. The people you speak of didn't commit acts of terror, while Osama did. I'll provide a link if you need more info. Just ask.

Let me ask you one thing. When 9/11 happened... were you suprised? I follow world events pretty damn closely and I was utterly stupified in shock, thinking that it was simply impossible. I don't think I was alone in that regard. If clinton knew that Osama was capable of such an attack, I'm almost positive he would have acted to stop him. The simple truth of the matter is, no one thought he WAS capable..

Actually, I was getting dressed for work when my mother called, and I turned the TV on to see the second tower fall. I was shocked as hell. I then had a deposition to go to in the old Enron building downtown, and as I was entering the building people were evacuating. We took the deposition anyway, which was all of 30 minutes, and I got the hell out of there.

That's what led to my interest in this subject, why I studied Islam, radical Islam, and why I've dived into the subject of the events leading to it. I didn't know why we were attacked, but I damn sure wanted to learn. So, that's what I did.

Of course I was surprised as an American. But I was even more surprised when I found out about the government's inaction when they knew this group had killed before and could kill again, and even more surprised when I found out the times that missions were scrubbed to get the perpetrator of the 9-11 attacks during Clinton's term. I still am amazed.

As far as my surprise, though, it's irrelevant because it's the government's job to protect us and watch out for these threats. Not mine. They dropped the ball.

Its REALLY easy to look back, after the fact, and say "So-and-so is at fault for not realizing". You know what they say about hindsight... Like I said, its almost impossible to prevent disaster's like this from occuring since they ALWAYS come from where their least expected. Its how you react to tragedy that defines you.

Again, my analogy stands. He had killed Americans before, said he would kill again, and we didn't aggressively pursue him until it was too late. He could have been killed once when hunting with a Prince from the United Arab Emirites, but for political reasons it was scrubbed. There's other incidents, as well.

Why you don't blame the government for sitting on their ass as it relates to Osama is beyond me, but maybe you don't know all the information I've learned after diving into this. No problem. We'll disagree.

I'd add that on the "political pressure" issue, (like you said Americans are "idiots," just as I've said) few realize, as you (not saying you're an idiot btw) that our government made huge mistakes in confronting Al-Qaeda and trying to get Osama.

Clinton's wife might try to become the next president, and people are postulating that one of the reasons the Clinton camp is so pissed about this movie is they don't want anything to hurt her chances. That's why the talk show hosts are calling it "political pressure." Their term. Not mine. I've already said I wonder if the Clinton camp's claims are true.

We'll see.

frankly, i'm not really up for discussing it further. not only would it be totally futile, but i'm still grieving. i'm just not up for it. maybe i ought not to have posted in the first place.

have at it.

That's cool, Gred. I'm sorry you're grieving, as well. I still do to this day, and I didn't lose anybody I even knew. I was just curious about your comment. That's all.

Just to set the record straight on who actually took al-queda seriously:

TIMOTHY J. ROEMER...Was fighting al Qaeda a top priority for the Clinton administration from 1998 to the year 2001? How high a priority was it in that Clinton administration during that time period?

CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.

ROEMER: With respect to the Bush administration, from the time they took office until September 11, 2001, you had much to deal with: Russia, China, G-8, Middle East. How high a priority was fighting al Qaeda in the Bush Administration?

CLARKE: I believe the Bush Administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue. Well, President Bush himself says as much in his interview with Bob Woodward in the book "Bush at War." He said, "I didn't feel a sense of urgency." George Tenet and I tried very hard to create a sense of urgency by seeing to it that intelligence reports on the al Qaeda threat were frequently given to the president and other high-level officials. And there was a process under way to address al Qaeda. But although I continued to say it was an urgent problem, I don't think it was ever treated that way.


[ADDED NOTE: President Clinton received from Clarke on a daily basis a morning report on al Qaeda and other terrorist threats, these were reviewed daily. Though Clarke requested a meeting with President Bush in January 2001 to review counterterrorism issues, the meeting was restricted to discussion of cybersecurity. Clarke repeatedly requested in the first months of the Bush Administration that a meeting of the Principals Committee be held to review the al Qaeda threat. They were all denied. The committee would not meet for the first time on this issue until September 4, 2001.]


External Source

ROEMER:...On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of al Qaeda...You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000. Did you get a response to this urgent request for a principals' meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months...the principals met in September.

ROEMER: Were you frustrated by this process?

CLARKE: I was sufficiently frustrated that I asked to be reassigned.

ROEMER: So you're saying that the frustration got to a high enough level that it wasn't your portfolio, it wasn't doing a lot of things at the same time, it was that you weren't getting fast enough action on what you were reporting?

CLARKE: That's right. My view was that this administration, while it listened to me, didn't either believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem. And I thought, if the administration doesn't believe its national coordinator for counterterrorism when he says there's an urgent problem and if it's unprepared to act as though there's an urgent problem, then probably I should get another job.

Now, this is what you said:
Second, it's a known fact Clinton was a pussy when it came to handling Osama bin Laden. There's documented evidence we'd already have him if it wasn't for the Clinton administration's errors. So, is this writer lying in his portrayal of the specific events that the Clinton camp found objectionable, or was he spot on?

I'll be interested to see. Just know this. If it wasn't for the Clinton administration's mistakes, not taking Osama's fatwas seriously, the attack on the Cole, etc., we'd have him now and 9-11 might not have happened. It still could have transpired, but it possibly could have been averted, and we'd have public enemy number one rotting in some cell as we speak.

Now, read both of those as many times as you need to before you realize that both this 'Dramatized documentary' and your response are utter tripe.

The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene ...

... the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan ... Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout ...

ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp ...

In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.
...
Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”

There's page after page of this stuff.

And again, you said:
So, is this writer lying in his portrayal of the specific events that the Clinton camp found objectionable, or was he spot on?
And I say, if you have to ask that question, you are fucking retarded...

Just to set the record straight on who actually took al-queda seriously:

You didn't set shit straight. You put up one man's opinion on the matter. But the evidence says otherwise, and if you'd read it you might know where I'm coming from.

Kind of funny, don't you think, that they took Al-Qaeda so seriously they let Osama go on multiple occassions when he could have been killed or captured? Not to mention this guy had already killed Americans during Clinton's administration, and Osama vowed to do it again. :eyeroll:

Well, we know how that turned out, don't we?

Read everything on this issue, GCD, and if you dodn't come to the conclusion that the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, didn't take a weak stand on Osama pre-911 then you've been smoking too much weed.

There's page after page of this stuff.

And again, you said:

And I say, if you have to ask that question, you are fucking retarded...

You're reading what you want to hear, or show me at least. It's a fact we didn't get Osama when he was hunting falcons with a UAE prince. There's other instances of this, as well.

So, keep believing what you want to; but from where I'm sitting your head's in the sand, and you're buying into "tripe." The evidence is there. You just need to research it to have a more informed opinion.

I'd add, I said I wasn't sure what in the movie was supposedly fabricated or untrue. That's left to be seen.

But there are hard facts out there showing Osama wasn't taken as seriously as he should have been pre-911 by both the Clinton and Bush administration. Look where that got us. :eyeroll:

Something about the falcon hunting incident and Clarke, who you're relying on for your information.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060412-us-obl.htm

Although the Dubai ports controversy may be disappearing, questions linger about the role high-ranking United Arab Emirates officials played in supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida in the years leading up to Sept. 11.

In fact, some U.S. government reports suggest that the United States lost a clear opportunity to kill bin Laden because he was too close to U.A.E. officials traveling in his entourage – officials Clinton security adviser Richard Clarke may have thought were too important to harm.

On Feb. 8, 1999, the Pentagon and the CIA were preparing a military strike on a luxury hunting camp in the desert south of Kandahar, Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden had been sighted. There were problems, however.

Satellite imagery revealed the presence of a military aircraft belonging to the U.A.E., and "policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by," according to the 9/11 Commission report.

Who were these U.S. "policymakers" mentioned in the 9/11 report who thwarted the opportunity to kill one of the world's most wanted men?

The report does not say.

Coincidentally, the Clinton administration National Security Council advisor, Richard Clarke, had just returned to the United States from consultations with Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, chief of staff of the U.A.E. armed forces, regarding a proposed sale of F-16s to the Gulf state as well as counter-terrorism issues, according to the report.

Clarke revealed to the 9/11 Commission that during a one-on-one meeting with Sheikh Mohammad, the sheikh had "vehemently denied rumors that high-level U.A.E. officials were in Afghanistan" hunting with bin Laden.

Clarke said the failure to strike bin Laden was a CIA decision. The proposed air strike was called off four days later "after consultations with [CIA] Director [George] Tenet because the intelligence was dubious," Clarke told the Commission.

But the CIA contested Clarke's assertions, as did former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton. And according to Alan Parrot, an Arabist and falconry expert who became close to Sheikh Mohammad's father, U.A.E. leader Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan, there was never any question that bin Laden was present at the luxury hunting camp in southern Afghanistan along with top U.A.E. officials.

"Osama bin Laden's hunting partner was none other than Sheikh Hamdan bin Zayed, the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, and a full brother of the sheikh who signed the F-16 deal," Parrot told NewsMax.

Sheikh Hamdan stayed in Afghanistan for three full weeks during the 1999 hunt, Parrot said, while supplies were ferried back and forth to the luxury camp by a U.A.E. Ministry of Defense C-130 cargo aircraft.

Falconry camps are a favorite pastime of the Arab world's elites – a place where leaders meet, and business deals are conducted. For bin Laden and his al-Qaida, falconry provided a similar networking opportunity.

"The falcon camps were al-Qaida's board room," Parrot said. "This is where bin Laden went to meet with political leaders and money men" from Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.

Parrot works for the Union for the Conservation of Raptors (www.savethefalcons.org), and has provided legally acquired wild falcons to many top Arab leaders.

Parrot's conservationist group has been working for 20 years to save endangered falcons, preserve their habitat, and expose illegal trafficking. "We stumbled upon bin Laden's activities during our field work in Central Asia, when we saw the world's worst criminals coming into these camps and photographed them."

According to Parrot, bin Laden often stayed for four weeks at a time in the camps, while the Gulf royals hunted in Toyota Land Cruisers and feasted in million-dollar air-conditioned tents the size of palaces. "The falcon camps were more important to al-Qaida than the military training camps," Parrot said.

After the U.S. air strike was called off, bin Laden and the U.A.E. royals continued hunting, apparently oblivious to the potential danger. Then on March 7, 1999, Richard Clarke called Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed again, to "express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden," the 9/11 Commission report states.

It is not clear if Clarke ever mentioned that U.S. intelligence had evidence that U.A.E. officials were in fact with bin Laden in Afghanistan – but after the call the group that included bin Laden and his U.A.E. friends quickly dispersed and the camps were dismantled.

Gary Schroen, the first CIA operations officer to enter Afghanistan after 9/11 to plan the U.S.-led war against al-Qaida, complained bitterly to the Commission that Clarke's actions had scuttled a good opportunity to kill bin Laden before 9/11. Clarke claims the CIA had signed off on the "tip-off" call to U.A.E. armed forces chief Sheikh Mohammad.

However, former CIA official John Mayer III told the Commission it was "almost impossible" for the CIA to have approved Clarke's move.

"When the former bin Laden unit chief found out about Clarke's call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such a clearance," the report states. "Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke's phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted."

Asked by NewsMax to comment on his reported "tip-off" to the U.A.E. sheikh, Clarke said, "I'm not going to get into that. What I said to the 9/11 Commission is what I said to the 9/11 Commission.

If the U.A.E. had been tipped off to a pending U.S. military strike, one motive had been the Clinton administration's desire to save the deal to sell F-16s to the U.A.E.

Had Sheikh Hamdan or other U.A.E. officials been killed during a U.S. air strike on bin Laden, it could have seriously damaged the $6.4 billion F-16 deal, the details of which were still being negotiated with the U.A.E.

The deal to sell 80 jets to the U.A.E., signed in 1998 but stalled for another two years, was described by Lockheed sources as the company's "largest single F-16 sale outside of Israel."

Lockheed describes the jets on its Web site as "the latest and most advanced version" of the F-16. The U.A.E. was "the lead customer" for the upgraded F-16, Lockheed says. But getting the U.A.E. to buy the U.S. jets proved an arduous task that took more than a decade to finalize.

Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed, chief arms purchaser for the Arab sheikhdom, openly courted the French and threatened repeatedly to purchase Dassault Aviation Mirage 2000 jets if the U.S. wouldn't give the U.A.E. access to the very latest radar and avionics package.

"The U.A.E. wanted on-board equipment that was more advanced than what we had sold the Israeli Air Force," a former U.S. official with first-hand knowledge of the negotiations told NewsMax.

"In the end, the Israelis agreed to allow the deal to go through, if the U.A.E. footed the bill for development costs" of key modifications, which are now being shared with Israel.

A Lockheed spokesman in Washington, D.C., Hal Rhoven, told NewsMax he could not comment by phone on "any story relating to the U.A.E."

The commercial contract between Lockheed and the U.A.E. was finalized in March 2000, one year after Richard Clarke's "tip-off" call may have allowed the U.A.E. to dismantle the luxury hunting camp in Afghanistan and hastily fly its officials out of harm's way. Congress cleared the deal just three months later.

The first Block 60 "Desert Falcon" aircraft were delivered in May 2005, and include an APG-80 agile beam radar, an internalized forward-looking infrared targeting system, a new cockpit, internal electronic counter measures, enhanced-performance F110-GE-132 engine, and conformal fuel tanks, according to GlobalSecurity.org.

New evidence continues to emerge that a golden opportunity to kill bin Laden had been missed.

In late February 2006, the Pentagon released several thousand pages of documents relating to the interrogation of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Among them was a time line of the interrogation of Detainee number 063, identified as Mohammad al-Qatani.

"Al-Qatani was Osama bin Laden's falconer," Parrot said. "In the transcript, he states clearly that he received orders and material assistance from persons in the U.A.E. to go to Afghanistan to smuggle falcons."

The FBI has identified al-Qatani as the 20th hijacker, who was turned away by immigration officials in Orlando, Fla., while 9/11 terrorist Mohamed al-Atta was waiting to pick him up in the airport parking lot.

After his failure to link up with the other 9/11 hijackers, al-Qatani returned to Afghanistan and was eventually picked up by U.S. forces while attempting to flee from Tora Bora in November 2001.

Parrot believes al-Qatani was present at the hunting camp near Kandahar at the same time top U.A.E. sheikhs were hunting, and that he helped bring in cars and other supplies from the U.A.E. to bin Laden and the sheikhs at the camp, in exchange for falcons.

The recently released interrogation log, stamped "Secret ORCON," states that al-Qatani "visited a place near Kandahar where people from the Gulf states would meet to hunt falcons ... When asked how he knew about this meeting location of Gulf state personnel, he stated 'Z' from U.A.E. had told him about this meeting place."

The log does not identify "Z," but Parrot believes it could be a reference to the U.A.E. president, Sheikh Zayed, an avid falconer.

Thanks for the positive and negative rep, Gred. Some positive is coming your way. :rolleyes:

Clinton is a narcissistic transparent snake who insists this, and pretty much everything else, is about him.

Well it's not, this is about our living and breathing enemy, THE FUCKING TERRORISTS!
It's not about the Clinton administration or who's to blame for what.

Guess who just happen to be president in the years leading up to it?

Shoulda known some lame distraction would show up before and leading up to the 5th anniversary of 9/11...

Clinton is a narcissistic transparent snake who insists this, and pretty much everything else, is about him.

Well it's not, this is about our living and breathing enemy, THE FUCKING TERRORISTS!
It's not about the Clinton administration or who's to blame for what.

Guess who just happen to be president in the years leading up to it?

Do you mean when we were selling them weapons and training them or when the Republican congress was trying to neuter Clnton's actions against the terrorists?

Do you mean when we were selling them weapons and training them or when the Republican congress was trying to neuter Clnton's actions against the terrorists?


Draw all the parallels you need to, I'm simply saying this isn't about Clinton, at all.

It's about the threat, the real threat. Which is NOT Clinton. If someone wants to link and conclude blame, more power to them, but it's a moot point.