Penn to Play Clarke in Movie

Paul Haggis did not win the oscar for directing “Crash”. Ang Lee won the oscar for directing “Brokeback Mountain”

who produces these stupid movies? People who have money to burn because I can tell you right now ,this one is a dude.

Give me a break. Why wouldn’t Haggis get an actor without the liberal bias of Senn Penn? Actors should act, not think they are politicians with political motivation. Obviously, this film will be nothing more than a hatchet job on the Bush Administration…Hollywood and fantasy at its best. Not Real.

What, two-years before another presidential election? Already the left is lining up their list of propaganda distortions in an attempt to win without an agenda (that is, other than to blame others).

I wonder if someone will make an honest film regarding 9/11 that has the courage to imply the Bush administration.

Maureen said:I can tell you right now ,this one is a dude.
You mean, it’s LIKE totally California?
Just kidding. I know you meant DUD, and I agree. Hollywood must have money to burn.

i GOT TO AGREE WITH BOBO,IF IT GOTS SEAN PENN, IT GOING TO BE A WASTE AND A LIE.

This is an attempt at propaganda, there is no way to make this film with the names included into non-partisan film.

Umm, have any of you criticizing this actually read the book? There seems to be a lot of opinions being formed in this country these days based on things people have HEARD and not what people have read.

Why is it that when an actor or artist or director, for that matter, takes action politically you jump down their throats. What gives you any more right to spout off on your various ideologies, theories, and other blind ambitions. Are actors not permitted in this club? Think things out. The facts are out people. Wake up. Crimes have and continue to occur with our Mr. Bush. You’ve been hoodwinked.

Any film dealing with a political subject starring an avowed liberal like Penn and directed by an avowed liberal like Haggis cannot be taken seriously. It is akin to having Charlton Heston star in a bio film about Bill Clinton that was directed by John Milius. ZERO CREDIBILITY.

A movie starring a hard left socialist like Penn and an even harder leftest like Haggis, you might as well start this movie out as “Once upon a time…”. It will lose whatever truth is in it by all the propaganda surrounding it. I wonder if it will cover the Sudanese offer to bring Osama back to the states?? Probably not…A complete waste of money.

..and Tim Robbins could play Bill Clinton to avoid the appearance of leftie spin. Helen Thomas could play Madeline Albright.

I had no idea ABC’s website audience was so right wing. I guess I’m looking at the 29% who are out of their minds. Bush is the worst president in american history. 9/11 proved that. Accept it

Left – Right OR Stupid and believing the hype…(aka Foxed out) No sir – Mr. Penn is a true patriot – anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot! This man loves his country and wants to save it from the neocons. “If your not outraged – you’re not paying attention!” I do agree with the fact that someone should make a film about the man who knew too much; John O’Neill. Who was forced out because he knew too much about the crooks in charge! Go Penn!

I am really getting tired of people saying FOX news is some conservative news station without an example to back it up. We can however look at Rathergate, X’s over the vice presidents face, airing the presidents rehearsals, and a number of other examples from the “old media” that truly shows where the bias is.

More from terrorism “expert” Clark. For you with short memories, during the early ’80s Clark engineered the most embarrassing operation ever. In order to make Ghadaffi in Libya think there was a U.S. invasion going on, Clark had Navy ships dump inflatable zodiac boats along the coast. No wonder we were seen as a paper tiger.

Absolutely right about Haggis, our error. He was nominated, but did not win. We’re correcting now.

Clarke’s book was fantastic and I imagine the movie will be as well. And talk of Penn being a traitor is nonsense, dammit, the guy was right! It’s hard for you bozos to admit it but Penn was right all along. It was a profoundly tragic mistake to invade Iraq. It’s hard to admit one is wrong but in this case, you are!

Correct! Actors should act, not think they are politicians. You know, like Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson and the others.

Some of these comments are outrageous and need to be answered. My God, don’t these right wing folks understand that actors of Sean Penn’s ability are artists FIRST and activists second? I guess that’s too much for them to understand. Socialist? Really, if that’s the best insult you can come up with, have at it! Mr. Penn follows a long tradition of highly talented and successful performers who have achieved wealth and fame, but I have not forgotten the rest of us. No amount of jealous rage from the dead end right can change that. Boo hoo, my little Republican fools, boo hoo…

Zone, an actor at home typing on a computer is fine. But unfortunately these Hollywood high-school dropouts actually sway public opinion, here and in other countries. If Sean or George want to use the bully pulpit to change history, they should first consider going to college and taking a couple history courses. Sean Penn talking about world affairs is analagous to Madonna running the Federal Reserve.

Yes, Fox news = BAD. CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC = GOOD.
Ha! Fox is right wing…funny there’s more lib’s as REGULARs on Fox than ALL THE OTHER’s combined.
The height of Sean Penn’s career was Fast Times At Ridgemont High…it was all down-hill after that as far as I’m concerned.

What I have learned from life is that “We The People” know very little about what REALLY goes on in the world. Furthermore, power-hungry Machiavellians in media and government, could care less about “We,” our children, our dreams, or our goals… and they will use any and every means available to “construct” our thoughts for us [most especially when that direction comes from Hollywood] so that “We” will blindly back their political goals and agendas. Sean Penn, is a blithering idiot and a profound fool.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the proverbial tree.His parents are big time Marxists!!
btw..did he ever spend any jail time over his domestice abuse of Madonna, his dear wife at the time?
just askin’!!

Another box office bomb. And Hollywood wonders why movie attendance is down. I guess they think that they can continue to spout their partisan rhetoric and all of us of a different political viewpoint will willingly plunk down our $10 bucks to watch this drivel. Yeah, right!

Sean Penn? Puh-leeeease. You might as well have Babs Streisand produce a movie about the Bushs’. This movie will be absolutely unfair, politically motivated and the idiots that see it will not know the difference. Michael Moore? Ha! This will have less credibility!

Uh, Savant , uh “Jealous rage from the dead end right…?” Jealous of what?
Nice judgemental intolerant divisiveness packaged in stupid generalizations! Do you need some sensitivity training and tolerance school?
Peter, since when was Penn right about Iraq, and just exactly what was he right about? (Minus the cherry picked groupthink mantras that have almost become a mini-religion.)

We need more movies about
the bullcrap that Bush has pulled during his time in the White House. There has been such lies coming out of this administration.
Anyone with a half a brain and just a pinch of common sense can read right through bull. I guess thats why we are up to 71% of Americans have woken up to the truth and the 98% of the rest of the world would’ve told you so.

Another movie about conservatives, by the far left….
Can anybody say BASHFEST???
I’m so sick of hollowood.

Those trying to equate Penn with Reagan, Swartzenegger, or Thompson seem to forget that those three stepped out and actually GOT ELECTED… unlike the Penns, Robbins/Sarandons, and Streisands of the world who would rather just use their “influence” to vomit leftist propaganda over the country. When Sean Penn shows the commitment to actually put his name on a ballot (a serious one, not something like city council) then he will deserve media coverage of his pronouncements. Until then, he should shut up and act, which he is actually very good at.

Bravo! Ten points awarded to all sides of the discussion! Seriously people….
Everybody has his or her own opinion on the issue and a single book/movie will not make an ounce of difference in how one feels about it. Those against the Bush administration will view this film as outstanding work that needed to be made and those with the administration will refuse to see it because it is simply proof of a liberal bias in media. Quit whining about a movie and just go vote. Its a much more efficient way to make your opinion matter.

I have absolutely no objection to famous people taking advantage of their notoriety to voice their opinions to a broader audience than that available to John Q. And if actors such as Ronald Regan, Arnold Schwarzenegger or even Sean Penn decide they want to effect real change in the world through humanitarian projects or politics and in the case of the latter they are duly elected to the office they seek to accomplish that, so be it. It’s only when someone, from the left or right, uses their fame as a bully pulpit to fill the void in their fans heads with propaganda that I object. What most of these Huffington pos[t]ers are doing when they state their opinions as if fact, is tantamount to hit and run lip service or a drive by shooting off of their mouths and should be afforded minimal consideration!

Just a little comment. I am PRO Bush and damn proud of it. Richard Clark has no crediblity with me, so a movie with Sean Penn, on a book written by Clark is nothing short of trash. No dems, Bush is not the worst President in history, he is the one with the most guts. He does not listen to stupid, slanted polls. He works to protect the country. I do not agree with some of his policies, such as the drunken spending, immigration, and his approach with North Korea. Some final food for thought….If he had not taken the measures to remove Saddam, and fight the terrorists where they lurk, would you libs shut your mouths and praise him for not going to war??

I wonder if the opening scene will have Richard Clark floating down a New Orleans street with a shotgun looking for gangs of looting Republicans.
Sean Penn was best as a Puppet in Team America but his performance was a little wooden.
The book was self-serving and at best pulp fiction.
Hey whatever happened to MeatHead running for Gov of Cali, no wait it is Warren’s turn.

good night i havn’t read so much right wing garble in my life, you folks need to wake up and understand what most in this country want…. ACCOUNTABILITY!!! For anyone to think that this individual that is sitting as PRES. has had any would be a joke. My feeling is Sean Penn would do a excelling job protraying Clark, sense the truth is the truth.
WAKE UP TO THE FACTS PEOPLE>

I wholehartedly agree with the comments regarding John O’Neil. If you has never seen the episode of PBS’ Frontline entitled: “The Man Who Knew”, get it and watch it. It is amazing. There are some people in the FBI and the Clinton Administration who should be apologizing for their treatment of him. Unfortunately, it appears that no lessons have been learned from his story.

The realy sad part about this country is that many people would rather see us lose in Iraq, have the US look like idiots, and turn the middle east into chaos, than see Bush succeed.
-I am ashamed of MY democratic party
-I personally dont think our concerns and opinions should matter as much right now BECAUSE WE ARE AT WAR.
-If there were tv cameras on Omaha Beach, how long would the american public have stood behind that war? 1 day? 1 hour?
-Lets all just settle down-Bush will be out of office before we know it.

Sean Penn as Richard Clark,wow,bet The New York Times,CNN,MSNBC,Will have good reviews With all their honest reporting,they could bring back Dan Rather to host the opening.

9-11 was conceived during the 1st Clinton Administration, and set in concrete during the second. We didn’t have a chance !!!!!

Sounds like a blockbuster!!!!!!

What’s with all these movies about 9/11 coming out lately?! We’re still embroiled in a war against Al Qaeda/Taliban and Hollywood wants to keep pumping out movies about that awfully tragic day. It’s too soon I say! The box office receipts for United 93 prove that!

At least when Sean Penn acts he can put together a coherent sentence. Oh wait! That’s in the script. Well at least he can read. They should get Alec Baldwin to take a part in this movie as well. That will boost the credibility factor.

Why are they making this film? Because pop culture becomes history. Credit to Robert Wuhl for that insight.

Well I hope they cover George Tenent, put in by Clinton. They had three chances to kill Bin Laden and Clinton didn’t do it. Clark was also a left over from Clinton, don’t be fooled by this BS. Did they mention the movie is due out before the elections? No agenda here.

When is hollywood going to realize that the American Public does not want their political rants rammed right down our throats? We are bright enough to form our own opinions whether they lean to the left right or right down the middle.

When will the majority of Americans wake up and realize that Hollywood is the genesis of fiction and liberal elitism? God forbid someone make a film about the CIA and SpecOps heroes who cleaned up Afghanistan in 100 days when conventional Soviet forces couldn’t do it in 10 years! Vote against Hollywood with your pocketbooks – boycott $10-a-ticket movies!
And yes – this new Clarke movie better include the 8-year snooze that was the Clinton “Administration.”

I have stopped caring about what movies Hollywood makes. A free market will decide if they survive or not. If anyone gets their political viewpoints and history lessons from the movies, they will be sadly mis-informed. From “All the Presidents Men” to “Three Kings” to anything Oliver Stone directs, from “Tora,Tora,Tora” to “Munich” to “Fahrenheit 9/11″ among countless others, show-business is just that, all for profit and show, and any real research for truth was abandoned before the screenplay was written.
By the way, I’ve “enjoyed” all the movies I’ve mentioned (except for 9/11. Didn’t want to give a Canadian money for President bashing)

good grief people……..why don’t you read the book first before making such ill-informed opinions

Hollywood exists in a bubble….they seem to be in denial about sites like Drudge and other alternative media that consistently expose their Left wing bias. The economy is Boomin, yrt, box office is down because millions of center-right people like me are tired of the condescension and contempt coming from a group of people who have limited intellect and a warped view of America. Just look at Syriana….the only people depicted with honor is Hezbollah, while the US is depicted as ordering assasinations by drone of foreign heads of State. Completely warped view of the world.

Funny but all the negative comments here about “liberal” this and “liberal” that are based on about as much factual information as most of these screeds – none.
Why don’t people wait and see what the movie and Sean Penn are like in it before commenting?

To criticize Haggis for choosing Sean Penn is silly on many levels. When did it become foolish for directors to cast Oscar Winners to play their lead roles? And anyone presuming off the bat, like so many bloggers here, that this is a left-leaning movie needs to read the book it’s based on first. After that, and only after that, will they see that it’s in fact a truth-leaning movie. Perhaps they, like Stephen Colbert, believe that reality has a liberal bias.

HA! This is why I havent been to the movies since the late 90′s. Hollywood continues to put out mindless crap and idiots line up at the theather doors begging them to take their money. Nothing but remakes, cartoon heros, sequels and tv shows turned into films. Hollywood knows how to target their foolish customers.

It’s not surprising that the Freepers are already all over this blog bashing Sean Penn.
The fact is, “Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States” doesn’t mean a thing to them, but God forbid Sean Penn should be in a movie about it.

I love the actors who believe they are smarter than the rest of us.
Let’s not forget that these people prentend to be other people for a living. The rest of us get locked up in the insane asylum for that, these people get big bucks.
I wish they would just shut up. I don’t care what they think.

Since when is Sean Penn fat and bald?

All of the below, as posted above, is untrue… In fact several conspirators from the 1993 WTC attacks remain at large…. and most experts believe Khalid Shakyh Muhammad may have been a major planner in this attack and he most certainly provided funds to his nephew Ramzi Yusif….
Clinton cut U.S. intelligence budget and CIA staffing by up to 20% — see NY Times article yesterday about ultimate “low period” for CIA staffing and funding which came in 1999…..
he DID NOT authorize Covert Action to kill Bin Ladin — this is a lie…. in fact he REFUSED to explicitly authorize such even when it was requested by CIA….
He never caught or killed the Major planners of the 1998 Embassy Bombings…. to include Senior funders, planners and bombmakers…….a few role players in this attack were apprehended but their trials in public, arguably, exposed more about U.S. intel collection against Al-Qa’ida than their convictions were worth
he never caught or pursued al-Qa’ida after the attack on the USS Cole…..
his response to an Al-Qa’ida lead attack on U.S. forces in Somalia in 1993 was to withdraw U.S. troops and not confront the enemy
He pursued no long term strategy to rid Afghanistan of Al-Qa’ida training camps and bases of operation………these camps and bases were used to plan the 9/11 plot……
He never once engaged Pakistan in an attempt to reign in it’s support of Islamic militants……
—Clinton – After the 1st World Trade Center attack… Caught and convicted all those responsible (Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah)
- Doubled Counterterrorism budget of the FBI and overall
- Stopped Al Qaeda cells in 20 countries
-Crime bills had hard antiterrorism legislation
- Stopped terrorist plots to kill the pope and blow up 12 jetliners/ attacks against the UN/FBI building/Israeli embassy in Washington/ Lincoln & Holland Tunnels/George Washington Bridge/ LA & Boston Airports
-First President to seriously address terrorism
-Issued assassination order against Bin Laden after the Embassy bombings

SEAN PENN – He was the guy who went to Baghdad before Bush’s War and reported back that there were no weapons of mass destruction. And he was the guy who went to Tehran and reported that we have nothing to fear from a society that was looking pretty haggard and its population growing restive.
I say, go Sean Penn, give ‘um hell.

Who’s going to play Bill Frist?
I vote for Tom Bergeron!

There is lots of evidence this administration knew about an attack in advance. See this article
“Former NY Times reporter Judith Miller to assert she was warned of large scale attack before 9/11″

Just remember this when Sean Penn tells everyone else what to do.
Sean Penn was not competent to command a row boat.
Sean Penn had guns on board that row boat to protect himself.
Sean Penn was wearing a bullet proof vest.
The guy is a moron who would take away your right to protect yourself, while spending large amounts to protect him and his own.
Is freedom for rich liberal hypocrites alone?

I guarantee…this will be another bash-Bush movie to demonize America. That is the only thing Hollywood is capable of producing nowdays. What a difference from the Hollywood of the ’40s, when actors and producers actually supported our nation, our president, and our troops. Today’s Hollywood is a disgrace!

Another movie from Hollywood that no one will go to see. Don’t you morons out there get it????? I would not walk across the street to see this movie if someone paid me a huge amount of money. And Hollywood wonders why no one goes to see any movies. DUH

I was always amazed at how people defended Clinton. I have since been even more amazed at the peolple defending Bush. The blind faith in this country is astounding. How long before we get some real leadership in the White House? And how long before we shut down these propaganda machines that spin everything that pretend to be news organizations?

DID YOU HEAR?
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts heard about this movie and already nominated it for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Leading Actor before it was ever made. It doesn’t matter if it is good or bad or if anyone goes to see it. It’s already staging to be their kind of movie! They said that they would mail out the Oscars today if this film could somehow squeeze some gay minorities into the storyline.

Richard Clark worked for the President, George Bush. He wrote a book. Nobody has factually refuted what he wrote. Rather than warble about liberal bias, the right should admit that they elected a dangerously incompetent man to the job, and that assessment has been borne out every minute of his miserably failed presidency. He will be remembered as a failed, corrupt and stupid man.

Sean Penn, what a guy his visits to the middle east and he thinks his BS retoric makes him qualified to know exactly what is wrong here at home. He pretends to know every thing about Bush As far as acting…he and Lou Diamond Phillips are interchangeable as actors both are passe at least Lou keeps to himself. let Lou do it.

Also, lets not forget that the FBI knew of suspected terrorists that were taking flight lessons for commercial airliners, which they didn’t care about leaning to land! Did they do anything, NO!
Yes, the Feds knew a lot.
Hasn’t anyone listened to Richard Clarke? Duh!

The truth hurts, I know. And the truth is going to keep biting the right wing because they elected an incompetent drunk who has failed miserably. So keep blaming liberals, keep watching fox news, but the worst is yet to come for you guys. Maybe you can a prescription that will help.

I have an Idea! Let’s make a movie about all of the liberal actors that have made a fortune playing parts that portray the people or things they are so much against! How many movies did Sear Penn make where his part was either a cop or a military member? What About Alec Baldwin…He mad a fortune from his “CIA, Military, Government” parts…They are precisly why I do not watch the tube…Why should I make them rich for their pea brain political views…

SONY must be running off the rails. Simply on a business level, when has a movie that Penn carried made any money? That other political thing at the U.N. with Nicole Kidman directed by Sidney Lumet? All solid, but BOMBEROO. Can’t really count MYSTIC RIVER…face it, it was a Clint Eastwood movie. Warners didn’t even want to make it with him! A Richard Clarke movie? Seems like we’re getting back to Marshall McLuhan’s chestnut that “the medium is the message”, in this case, the medium ISN’T the movie..it’s the cocktail parties and the premieres and the ET interviews where they can bash “the Administration” and feel all cozy and righteous in their colony. I know…I live and work in this biz.

Good. I hope the libs spin this one out of the ball park and make it all up as they go. History is never ‘objective’ anyway, you have to be totally naive and uneducated to believe that. Besides, the so-called “facts” about Richard Clarke’s misadventure were all confirmed in the 9-11 report, ‘Plan of Attack’ and other mainstream narratives anyway. anybody with access to a computer should know that already.
Which underlines the fact that the movie should be pure agitprop. plain and simple. The right-wing noise machine has a stranglehold on the innocent peasent’s brain waves in this country. For instance, the demogogues at FOX use one of a kind shows like “24″ to obscure reality and justify torture, foster impatience with civil liberties, encourage jingoism, etc. and its hardly distinquishable from their “news,” which exists entirely to
maintain the illusion that Bush 2 is semi-devine. In conclusion, go for it Hollywood: bring on that soothing sensation of left-wing reaction. ahhh.

And they wonder why nobody’s going to the movies these days, (except Mr. & Mrs. Streisand, and they don’t have to pay to get in!)

As long as Hollywood continues to confuse entertainment with promoting a political agenda, they can expect to see box office revenues continue to fall.
Sean Penn is certainly free to make any movie he wants or say anything he wants, just as we are free to see them or not see them. But he and the Dixie Chicks must realize that their fame is a capricious thing, and the right to free speech should not be confused with the freedom from repercussions from speech.

Sean Penn is actually a thoughtful and intelligent man. His political activism is born of his genuine concern for the people in this world who are being oppressed and otherwise abused. Sean was in a boat after Katrina helping victims. No photo ops, rolling up his sleeves and pulling people out of the water and off of rooftops. Sean was at the funeral of Marla Ruzicka, quietly and respectfully. And Sean travelled to Iraq before the invasion to meet for himself the people we were about to kill, and to ferret out information if possible about the real reasons behind the pending invasion. He chronicled his trip in the San Francisco Chronicle (coincidentally).
And yes, he is a great actor.

I am an independent and it so amazes me that people in the repulican party can be so hard-headed. You beat up Clinton pretty bad for lying about oral sex. How can you not expect the same about lying about WMD.
At least when Clinton lied, nobody died!

Sean Penn is about as qualified to speak about foreign policy as is the character he once played, Jeff Spiccolli. Another leftist alleged actor ( in reality just someone who reads lines)who thinks he’s an expert on everything from nutrition to international affairs. He should just shut up and go away.

I liked Sean Penn in ‘Fast Times..’ but since then has thought way too much of himself. The Hollywood version of the Peter Principle I suppose. Give me a cool film to ‘escape’, and I’m fine!!

I think Sean Penn was dropped on his head as a baby!
Who say’s there is no liberal conspirecy!

The American voter is running the U.S. We elect our friends and neighbors. Our government reflects us. Don’t blame clinton or bush or your local officials. You put them there.

I am not going to even touch on most of what people have said. I will say that the word “psyncophant” can only be found in the urban dictionary(not the real dictionary) and was mispelled by the person who posted a diatribe using the word.
I will just say that even if the movie were to look at the subject matter objectively and include the bad with the good about Clarke, I still would be against the movie being made.
Why?
Because the American public is exhausted with the media blitz and partisan back-biting. The movie will be a flop and Sean Penn will have wasted a little bit more of his time on a project which is, in fact, hurting his cause in the long run.
He would do better to interview real people on camera than taking part in a one-sided narrow melodrama which most Americans have little or no interest in currently watching.

That’s exactly what the right wants. For the American people to get tired of the story and not want to hear it anymore. I agree it’s getting old but there are so many questions that still have not been answered. For example, have any WMD been found yet? ‘Til someone can answer how our country was so wrong about something so very, very important and take responsiblity when so many have died for what could be a total failure, then I will never tire til there are answers.

Hello, the 9/11 commission already said the book was fiction and that Clarke wasn’t a reliable source.
It’s fiction, like X-men, the DiVinci Code or Al Gore’s new movie.

I would rather watch fruit rot than watch Sean Penn. Another Hollywood Movie that I will enjoy not seeing.
Politically motivated movie star idiots are saving me money.

Thanks Sam, well said…..

Forget Clarke. Lets have a movie on the last three thugs[Presidents] in the white house.Bush Sr. Clinton and Bush idiot Jr.All three are Satans children creating terroism to subjugate and create policies that will lead to fascism and one world order.Clarke is nothing in this scenerio. Just a fly in the ointment.

I think you are all wasting your time. Everyone has an information filter called a brain, use it! Left or right, it doesn’t matter. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, it’s what makes this country what it is. If you don’t agree, don’t see it. If you do, spend your 8 bucks!

I wonder if anyone remembers that President Bush was in office barely 9 months when this happened. All you hear from the supposedly non-biased media is “It’s Bushes fault for everything.” What about the eight years previous? Think about it. These terrorists didn’t start planning right after President Bush was sworn in. Come on. Get a clue!!!

It seems almost pointless to post anything anymore. I find so many forums where people just talk like they should be listened to but when they speak its the same impassioned drivel that perpetuates the problems in this country. Lets think for ourselves people and speak our mind rather than speak our side.

BUSH WILL BLOCK THE RELEASE OF THE FILM, CITING “NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES”

Listen up Liberals: Only Republican actors can have an opinion or run for / or hold office (e.g., Reagan); Republicans can’t handle the TRUTH.

Notice how so little of the discussion is about the substance of the book/movie? It’s fiction like Farenheit 9-11! Yeah, that’s our talking point. Dismiss the whole thing outright, label the main character liberal and the work is almost done. Seems to me it’s this approach that allows Bush and co to operate without fear of being held accountable. And the problem, if you don’t Sean Penn’s political views, isn’t with him expressing them, it’s with you reading, listening, viewing them. Or does our wonderful democracy end once one becomes an actor and unless you happen to be the Republican governor of California, Senator from Tennessee or the Republican kind.

Regarding acting, as beautiful actress Ava Gardner once said, “Nobody ever called it an intellectual profession.”

Please don’t tell me that Hollywood is going to try to glorify Richard Clarke and his mea culpa act at the 9-11 hearings. Richard Clarke is the Michael Brown of national security. While the U.S. endured four separate attacks during the Clinton admin (the first WTC attacks, Kobar towers, U.S. embassies in Africa and the U.S.S. Cole). Clarke’s and Clinton’s response was to do nothing but keep their poll numbers high. This feckless response by Clarke and Clinton set the stage for 9-11.

I wonder if Penn will portray Richard Clarke during the 9/11 Commission hearings, when Clarke actually backs William Cohen’s testimony that the “pharmaceutical” plant in Sudan was actually an Al Qaeda weapons factory, and that it’s managers went to Bagdahd and met with the head scientists of Saddam’s chemical weaponry program (thus sewing together the operation link that Clarke publicly claims “never existed”–Clarke is a liar when he’s not under oath)—it’s in the transcripts, folks; read Cohen’s and then Clarke’s–and I watched the testimony live on TV! Penn probably won’t show that part, this movie will be an agenda piece, as is all contemporary (anti-war) “journalism” that selectively omits material that vindicates the administration.

Richard Clark is one hell of a smart guy. Everyone should read his book… but Sean Penn. Give me a break. I hope Hollywood does not try to pander to the White House as it usually does.

I can hardly believe that they are going to make a movie about Richard Clarke. Like he’s some type of hero or something. We already know that this movie will ring true of some sort of a vast right wing conspiracy if it stars Sean (Maoist) Penn.

H said…[quote]
Give me a break. Why wouldn’t Haggis get an actor without the liberal bias of Senn Penn? Actors should act, not think they are politicians with political motivation. Obviously, this film will be nothing more than a hatchet job on the Bush Administration…Hollywood and fantasy at its best. Not Real.[/quote]
Reagan was the best republican prez in the past 50 years and was an actor. Bush was a spoiled religiously-fanatic daddy’s boy/baseball team owner and became a crappy president…..I will take Penn anyday….at least he has some passion about the world he lives in…and sees it more than just a oil barrel ready to be jiffypopped. To heck with his acting….let’s see him run.

The federal politicians on both sides have more in common with each other than with the ‘regular’ folks. I’d just like to see our government solve some problems instead of spending their time figuring out what the other side is doing wrong.
The majority of you posting are very blind (on both sides). You’ll believe whatever your ‘side+’ feeds you.

oboy – another Hollywood movie by a bunch of elite libs. It’s got “blockbuster” written all over it.

To be considered an actor, you have to be able to act and frankly Sean Penn cannot.
Clarke is disgruntled because he was passed up for the CIA job in the bush admin. The clinton administration (with clark)had at least 3 time to have custody of or take osama bin laden OUT and did nothing.
The bush admin has made policy mistakes with the iraq war but I would rather have that then an administration that does nothing as in what clinton did. I would rather be fighting over in Iraq then have another attack here. Iraq is one the holiest muslim lands that is why al quada is there.
After 911, bush said that any country harboring or giving refuse to fleeing al quada would be dealt with the same as if they had commited, al zarquihi (i know his name is spelled wrong) was injured during US bombing and fled afghanistan. He received medical attention with saddam’s approval.
Before we went into Iraq, Saddam was on tv threating the US with the use of WMD’s. I actually have that on dvd I recorded.
I am neither a republican or democrat (use to be registered democrat) I am also a DISABLED SOLDIER.

The truth seems to be that we cannot trust our elected officials –of either political party — to play it straight with us. If the film conveys that sentiment, that politicians (ALL politicians) spin and are more concerned with their political careers than their mandate to represent us, then the film will be worth seeing, I think.

Clarke’s story can be summed up in one word: Yaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnn. The idea that we should care what that camera-loving whiner thinks is laughable.
And, that other whiner (Spicoli) needs to stop using his acting gig as a platform for everything. He doesn’t understand that we gave him that platform by paying to see his MOVIES, not his political speeches. If you start disrespecting your customers, you shouldn’t expect to stay in business.

Ok…here we go again…another liberal Hollywood Republican-bashing movie that is going to be financed by another liberal elite in Hollywood. When is Hollywood going to learn that no one cares about their political opinion. George Clooney, Sean Pean, Susan Saradon….and the rest of the bunch….their movies are radical left point of views. NO ONE CARES!!! Just Hollywood giving money to these people to make them more rich and have them spew their political-hate rhetoric in public. Paul Haggis….another Hollywood director I will boycott. You know join the list of Penn, Robbins, Sarandon, Streisand, Stone (Oliver and Sharon) and the rest….I WILL NEVER SEE YOUR MOVIES EVER AGAIN….

Hey Mick, nice links. All with strong ties to the left.
I could just counter your links with links from jewishworldreview.com or newsmax.com or townhall.com.
Reagan and Schwarzenegger got out of acting before they got into office. They didn’t give into progogandizing movies. Westerns, sci-fi, military heroism…a far cry from ”Against Bush’…oops we mean ‘Bush is the Enemy’…no, oops again. We meant, ‘Against All Enemies.’
Sean Penn’s best movie was ‘I am Sam.’ He didn’t have to become that character. He got to act like himself – a mentally retarded man.
Penn still lives under the motto: ‘All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I’m fine.’

… and by the way, since when did being an actor, or musician, or bagboy, prohibit you from speaking your mind on issues???
I love all the ditto-head lines you spout, like “socialist”… “propaganda”, “Clinton”… “liberal”…
Fall in line, do as the State says… yeah, that sounds like freedumb.

On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role
Bill Clinton denies it now, but he once admitted he passed up an opportunity to extradite Osama bin Laden.
And NewsMax has the former President making the claim on audiotape. [You can listen to the tape yourself -- Click Here http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3
Clinton's comments and his actions relating to American efforts to capture bin Laden have taken on renewed interest because of claims made in a new ABC movie, the "Path to 9/11," that suggests Clinton dropped the ball during his presidency. Clinton has also angrily denied claims the Monica Lewinsky scandal drew his attention away from dealing with national security matters like capturing bin Laden.
During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."
But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York.
9/11 Commissioner former Sen. Bob Kerrey said that Clinton told the Commission during his private interview that reports of his comments to the LIA were based on "a misquote."
During his interview with the 9/11 Commission, Clinton was accompanied by longtime aide and former White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, along with former national security advisor Sandy Berger, who insisted in sworn testimony before Congress in Sept. 2002 that there was never any offer from Sudanese officials to turn over bin Laden to the U.S.
But other evidence suggests the Clinton administration did not take advantage of offers to get bin Laden -- and that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was exploding during this time period.
At least two offers from the government of Sudan to arrest Osama bin Laden and turn him over to the U.S. were rebuffed by the Clinton administration in February and March of 1996, a period of time when the former president's attention was distracted by his intensifying relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
One of the offers took place during a secret meeting in Washington, the same day Clinton was meeting with Lewinsky in the White House just miles away.
On Feb. 6, 1996, then-U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan Tim Carney met with Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Osman Mohammed Taha at Taha's home in the capital city of Khartoum. The meeting took place just a half mile from bin Laden's residence at the time, according to Richard Miniter's book "Losing bin Laden."
During the meeting, Carney reminded the Sudanese official that Washington was increasingly nervous about the presence of bin Laden in Sudan, reports Miniter.
Foreign Minister Taha countered by saying that Sudan was very concerned about its poor relationship with the U.S.
Then came the bombshell offer:
"If you want bin Laden, we will give you bin Laden," Foreign Minister Taha told Ambassador Carney.
Still, with the extraordinarily fortuitous offer on the table, back in Washington President Clinton had other things on his mind.
A timeline of events chronicled in the Starr Report shows that during the period of late January through March 1996, Mr. Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was then at its most intense.
On Feb. 4, 1996, for instance - two days before Ambassador Carney's key meeting with the Sudanese Foreign Minister, the president was focused not on Osama bin Laden, but instead on the 23-year-old White House intern.
Their rendezvous that day included a sexual encounter followed by a leisurely chat between Clinton and Lewinsky, as the two "sat and talked [afterward] for about 45 minutes,” according to the Starr Report.
Later in the afternoon that same day, as Sudanese officials weighed their decision to offer bin Laden to the U.S., Clinton found time to call Lewinsky “[to say] he had enjoyed their time together.” If there were any calls from Clinton to the State Department or Khartoum that day, the records have yet to surface in published reports.
The Feb. 4 encounter with Lewinsky followed a period of intense contact detailed in the Starr report in interviews with the former White House intern, including a sexual encounter on Jan. 6, 1996, several sessions of phone sex during the week of Jan. 14 – 21, and another sexual encounter on Jan. 21.
Sudan’s offer to the U.S. for bin Laden’s extradition remained on the table for at least a month, and was reiterated by Sudanese officials who traveled to Washington as late as March 10, 1996.
On March 3, Sudan’s Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa met secretly with Ambassador Carney, another State Department official and the CIA’s Africa bureau Director of Operations at an Arlington, Va., hotel, according to Miniter’s book.
Erwa was handed a list of issues the U.S. wanted taken care of if relations were to improve. The list included a demand for information on bin Laden’s terrorist network inside Sudan.
Erwa replied that he would have to consult with Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir about the list. When he returned for a March 10, 1996 meeting with the CIA’s Africa bureau chief, “Erwa would be empowered to make an extraordinary offer,” writes Miniter.
On instructions from its president, the government of Sudan agreed to arrest bin Laden and hand him over to U.S law enforcement at a time and place of the Clinton administration’s choosing. “Where should we send him?” Erwa asked the CIA representative.
In his 2002 speech President Clinton has acknowledged being fully briefed on the Sudanese efforts to turn over the 9/11 mastermind, admitting that he made the final decision to turn the offer down.
As chronicled in the Starr report, however, Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky proved to be a growing distraction around this time.
Two weeks before the secret meeting between Erwa, Carney and the CIA bureau chief, the president summoned Lewinsky to the White House to inform her that he “no longer felt right” about their relationship and it would have to be suspended until after the election.
Lewinsky explained, however, that Clinton’s decision to put their relationship on hold did little to change its basic character, telling Starr’s investigators, “There’d continue to be this flirtation when we’d see each other.”
The Starr report noted, “In late February or March [1996], the president telephoned her at home and said he was disappointed that, because she had already left the White House for the evening, they could not get together.”
The call, Lewinsky said, “sort of implied to me that he was interested in starting up again.”
On March 10, 1996, as Sudanese Defense Minister Erwa was making his extraordinary offer for bin Laden’s arrest to the CIA’s Africa bureau chief, Clinton met with Lewinsky in the White House.
The Starr report:
“On March 10, 1996, Ms. Lewinsky took a visiting friend, Natalie Ungvari, to the White House. They bumped into the president, who said when Ms. Lewinsky introduced them, ‘You must be her friend from California.’ Ms. Ungvari was ‘shocked’ that the president knew where she was from.”
Though there was no physical contact that day, three weeks later, on March 31, 1996, Clinton resumed his sexual relationship with Lewinsky.
It was around this time, the president later admitted, that he was involved in delicate negotiations to try to persuade Riyadh to take bin Laden, after refusing to accept his extradition to the U.S.
“I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have,” Clinton admitted in the 2002 speech. “But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.”
On April 7, 1996, Monica Lewinsky was transferred to the Pentagon. Around the same time, the administration’s hunt for bin Laden finally seemed to begin in earnest. Just weeks after Clinton spurned Sudan’s bin Laden offer, for instance, the CIA created a separate operational unit dedicated to tracking down bin Laden in Sudan.
But it happened too late to capture the 9/11 mastermind. On May 18, 1996, bin Laden boarded a chartered plane in Khartoum with his wives, children, some 150 al-Qaida jihadists and a cache of arms – and flew off to Jalalabad, Afghanistan.
TRANSCRIPT: Ex-President Clinton’s Remarks on Osama bin Laden Delivered to the Long Island Association’s Annual Luncheon Crest Hollow Country Club, Woodbury, NY Feb. 15, 2002
To hear NewsMax.com’s exclusive audio recording of ex-President Clinton explaining why he turned the Sudanese offer down, Click Here.
Question from LIA President Matthew Crosson:
CROSSON: In hindsight, would you have handled the issue of terrorism, and al-Qaeda specifically, in a different way during your administration?
CLINTON: Well, it’s interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.
I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.
We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.
So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got – uh – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.
And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.
They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.
We then put a lot of sanctions on the Afghan government and – but they inter-married, Mullah Omar and bin Laden. So that essentially the Taliban didn’t care what we did to them.
Now, if you look back – in the hindsight of history, everybody’s got 20/20 vision – the real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaeda network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan.
Here’s the problem. Before September 11 we would have had no support for it – no allied support and no basing rights. So we actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people.
But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat – maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn’t give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop.
And we would have had to make the decision in advance that’s the reverse of what President Bush made – and I agreed with what he did. They basically decided – this may be frustrating to you now that we don’t have bin Laden. But the president had to decide after Sept. 11, which am I going to do first? Just go after bin Laden or get rid of the Taliban?
He decided to get rid of the Taliban. I personally agree with that decision, even though it may or may not have delayed the capture of bin Laden. Why?
Because, first of all the Taliban was the most reactionary government on earth and there was an inherent value in getting rid of them.
Secondly, they supported terrorism and we’d send a good signal to governments that if you support terrorism and they attack us in America, we will hold you responsible.
Thirdly, it enabled our soldiers and Marines and others to operate more safely in-country as they look for bin Laden and the other senior leadership, because if we’d have had to have gone in there to just sort of clean out one area, try to establish a base camp and operate.
So for all those reasons the military recommended against it. There was a high probability that it wouldn’t succeed.
Now I had one other option. I could have bombed or sent more missiles in. As far as we knew he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.
So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him.
Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, “Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children.”
But at the time we didn’t think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it. You need to know that those are the two options I had. And there was less than a 50/50 chance that the intelligence was right that on this particular night he was in Afghanistan.
Now, we did do a lot of things. We tried to get the Pakistanis to go get him. They could have done it and they wouldn’t. They changed governments at the time from Mr. Sharif to President Musharraf. And we tried to get others to do it. We had a standing contract between the CIA and some groups in Afghanistan authorizing them and paying them if they should be successful in arresting and/or killing him.
So I tried hard to – I always thought this guy was a big problem. And apparently the options I had were the options that the President and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people that were involved in the Gulf War thought that they had, too, during the first eight months that they were there – until Sept. 11 changed everything.
But I did the best I could with it and I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did. Obviously, I wish I’d been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden ’cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man. He’s smart, he’s bold and committed.
But I think it’s very important that the Bush administration do what they’re doing to keep the soldiers over there to keep chasing him. But I know – like I said – I know it might be frustrating to you. But it’s still better for bin Laden to worry every day more about whether he’s going to see the sun come up in the morning than whether he’s going to drop a bomb, another bomb somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe or on some other innocent civilians. (END OF TRANSCRIPT)

LET’S GET THIS RIGHT. RICHARD CLARKE IS A BUFFOON, WHO WAS A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WHO COULD NOT DO HIS JOB. NOW HE IS SOME KIND OF NATIONAL HERO. TO TOP IT OFF AN IDIOT PLAYING AN IDIOT, AT LEAST WE GOT THAT RIGHT.