Hey! I hear "Showtime" has some available air space!

That Is Next !

-Sarge

I encourage ABC to hold off airing the program until after election day. If ABC feels the program is accurate and worthwhile, they should not be intimidated into not showing it. However, given the strong passions surrounding 9/11 and the danger of the event being used as a political football, they should wait until the silly season ends on election day.

Clinton's lawyers can demand anything they want. But even if everything in the movie was a total fabrication it would still be protected by the 1st amendment.

Free speech is free speech. And nobody is forcing people to watch the movie. And nobody is forcing people to boycott ABC and their advertisers if they do show the movie.

Clinton and the democrtats best bet is to do what they are doing. Do everything they can to discredit the movie and try to urge ABC not to show it. They should appeal to their supporters that if it is shown they should boycott ABC and their advertisers.

The one thing they shouldn't do is file a lawsuit to get the courts to block it.

That would just allow the GOP to paint the Democrats as so intolerant of "free speech" they are willing to use the courts to block a made-for-TV movie they disagree with. That they are so intolerant of other views they would use the courts to censor them.

If that happens, the actual showing of the movie itself would have a negligible impact compared to the political fallout that would occur if the Democrats tried to use the courts to stop its presentation.

Rastaninja -

I understand your point. But what has the Clinton people upset is not that an alternative viewpoint is being aired. It is that facts are being made up out of thin air. There is an aspect where free speech becomes defamation and actionable. I don't know if that is the case here, but our system of free speech does allow the victims of defamation recourse.

Look, if no one had said anything, ABC would still be labelling this as a "docudrama based on the 9/11 Commission Report." That is false, and ABC has now danced around to give it a new description.

A consensus developed after 9/11 which was supported by the Commission Report: there was blame enough to go around on Osama Bin Laden. And the story goes on past Bush 43' past the Clinton Administration, back through Bush 41' and Reagan, on even to Carter, under whose Presidency the US first decided to back Islamic radicals fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

I am glad the Democrats are fighting back on this. I think people have learned the lesson from the 2004 Swiftboating of Kerry. If you don't call people on their lies, and assume that if you ignore them all will be well, you deserve to lose.

Pathetic.

Libs are toast. They just keep on digging their own grave. The fact that they aren't mainstream and yet try to persaude Americans that they are by means of censorship only further distances them from the average american.

Good work DEMS.... Keep it up...Rove couldn't possibly do any better at burying you people than you do at burying yourselves.

it does seem somewhat disengenious for the left on one hand to heap diatribes on bush for wanting to manipulate the media yet go along with this blatant attempt to manipulate the media....kinda funny

To think that ABC, and the Bushloving Reich-wing group that was providing all the funding for this docudrama/fictional account of 9-11, actually had the conjones to plan to distribute it to high schools for the kids to use as a "learning aide" is disgusting.

Cheka -

How is complaining when history is being falsified manipulating the media? When someone uses your name, says it is based on historical fact, and depicts things that never happened?

People sue for defamation all the time, including conservatives.

Oorah -

You could as easily flip that around. Conservatives, the great defenders of freedom of speech on the ABC 9/11 series, succeeded in getting the Reagan movie shunted off to cable land.

Frankly, I don't think showing either the Reagan movie or this ABC 9/11 movie is the end of the world.

But the Clinton people have as much right to complain as anyone else.

How is complaining when history is being falsified manipulating the media? When someone uses your name, says it is based on historical fact, and depicts things that never happened?

People sue for defamation all the time, including conservatives.

Posted by FDR_Democrat at 2006-09-09 03:30 PM |

I've been asking for almost 3 years now when John Kerry will be suing the swift boat vets. I ask again, when will John Kerry sue the swift boat vets? That is what honest people do when their name is raked falsely through the coals.

Kerry doesn't do it because Kerry is a Liar, and if he were to try to do it it would open a can of worms that would ruin him from holding any position in government. There's more skeletons in this guys closet than flies on shit on a hot summers day.

Same for this. Let it air and then let Clinton sue for any harm flasely done to him. My bet is he won't sue because, he too, like his comrade Kerry, is a liar. Not that we don't already know.

You're right Doucheman.

I mean, censorship, or snooping in your average Joe Blow's personal life.

No difference. Right, Asshole?

Posted by itsme at 2006-09-09 03:18 PM | R

Why, thems fightin words. Don't make me reach through this computer at you dumplin. lmao.... ya weakling, you're a hoot and heaps better than cable when I'm in the mood for a break and ready to be entertained. Don't blow a gasket, you're probably one of the 290 million americans without health insurance.

Bill Clit-on- Maybe not the worst president but certainly the most morally bankrupt.Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. all the lies in Farenheit 9/11 from the lunatic left , now you pussies dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot. This film is to close to the truth thats why all the fuss.

"now you pussies dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot."

"The Reagans" miniseries might have been pulled because of disagreements over its script..

Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, scoffed at the notion that CBS was stifling free speech.

"There is no such thing as creative license to invent falsehoods about people," Bozell said. "I don't care who you are. You don't have that right."

"This film is to close to the truth thats why all the fuss. Posted by controlledpairs"

No. You obviously aren't up to speed on this.

It's offensive because it's so far off the mark.

Here's an explanation you might be able to follow: This film is to "truth" as Rush Limbaugh is to "news."

You may live in the past ,I could give a shit about Reagans miniseries. we are talking about the here and now. Thank GOD you PUSSIES on this vile site do not represent most of America.All clit-ons dirty laundry is starting to come out, thats to bad ,ha,ha,ha,ha,. clit-ons lawyers? No thats funny.

"You may live in the past"

Which was preceded by:

"...all the lies in Farenheit 9/11"

What was that again about living in the past?

Hans

"Thank GOD you PUSSIES on this vile site..."

Posted by controlledpairs on...

... you guessed it:

This vile site!

Hans

Hans, your hero under fire? Thats to bad . Billarys big mouth has ruined her chances of re-election in November , maybe,thats to bad also huh? Partisan politics instead of actually trying to improve things in these United States, thats realy to bad.

FDR, I agree that if the ABC movie is using actors to portray real people in historical situations then they should make every effort to present them in a manner which can be supported by evidence to some degree.

But the fact remains they are not required by law to make those efforts. Nor should they be.

I hope ABC makes any changes they feel they need to make, It will only make the film that much more truthful and powerful.

I know that I am looking forward to watching it. Any movie that gets an entire political party this bent out of shape has to be really compelling.

fdr, I believe all the people portrayed in the film would be considered public figures under the law which would make any "defamation" all but impossible to prove or get a favorable judgement on.

I doubt Bill Clinton would ever file a "defamation of character" lawsuit anyway. He would be laughed out of town. Can you imagine all the jokes the comedians would come up with?

fdr....i still find it amazing that the left who accuses the right of media manipulation is now hellbound to do the same thing,,,,good grief all the leftists did was ensure a good audience.....

It is a sure sign of how pathetic the Republicans are that they constantly feel the need to criticize Clinton. Anybody with a brain, including Republicans, know that GWB will go down as one of the worst presidents in US history. Whereas Clinton will in all liklihood be remembered as a truly great president. And this will be based on policy. Not Rightwing spinmeisters.
So all you sheep-like Republicans, learn to deal with it. Or continue bleating about Clinton. I don't care. I laugh at you.

Clinton will be probally be viewed by history as one of our lessor Presidents. His term in office will be likely be ranked with that of Warren G. Harding -- Competent domestic policy, lackluster foreign policy, marked by scandal and corruption.

The jury is still out on Bush. But it doesn't look good right now. By the time he leaves office he must have a stable Iraq in place and have neutralized the Iranian threat somehow. He staked his presidency on this war. And unless he leaves with a consensus we are winning that war he will be relegated to the same dust heap of failed presidencies that LBJ resides on.

It is most entertaining to see all the liberals get their dander up when Dear Leader is portrayed in a negative light.

Still dancing for Father Bill, no matter what. Such devotion. Such blind worship.

Of course Clinton is upset about this. Anything that portrays him as less than God-like might cut in on his steady supply of trim. And that's all he really cares about.

So keep wailing and dancing for Dear Leader. Otherwise he won't be able to get laid and then laugh at you.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least that all the hype for this film turns out to be a way for the liberal media to get everyone watching so they can edit and show a watered down version with Clinton as the hero and Bashing Bush on the second day airing. We'll see.

If CBS does in fact pull it the libs will go down as the would be censors sane people already know them to be.

Open the 9-11 report to about page 170 or so and begin highlighting dates. lmao.... losers

dirt, I have a feeling with all the hype around this movie it can't possibly be as bad or dishonest as what the Democrats are saying. I bet most people will wonder what all the fuss is about. That's what I thought when i saw the Reagan movie. I didn't find it offensive. If anything, I thought it was cheezy and low-budget. That might be the same for this ABC movie as well.

I am glad ABC though is correcting those things which conflict with the public record. There is enough blame to go around in the lead-up to 9/11. There is no reason to have to make anything up.

Frankly, most of the blame should go to our intelligence agencies who dropped the ball for both Clinton and Bush.

All the relatives come down in the winter months and insist I lug them to Epcot and Disney World...It costs me a mint...

I am writing them all, no more Disney or Epcot on me, I will take them to Silver Springs and Universal if they want...

And you all are aware a bunch of right wingers are responsible for this movie...as an ELECTION device to discredit the Dems who are about to kick some sorry corrupt ass come November....

Anything that portrays him as less than God-like might cut in on his steady supply of trim.


Don't delude yourself Vernon Bubba has as much trim as he wants just as Kissinger..........

Dirtman -

There are various ways to combat falsehoods. Bringing a lawsuit is just one way. But just as ABC is not required by law to broadcast what anyone wants, so the victim of a lie is not required by law to bring suit.

As has been pointed out, sometimes that person has their own reasons for not bringing a court case. In many situations, win or lose, you end up losing reputation merely because the lies get aired even more.

I hope you are not arguing that, just because John Kerry did not sue the Swiftboaters, their claims about his war record must be true. That would be a strange standard indeed. Their lies have been rebutted pretty much across the board anyway. The term "Swiftboating" is now passing into the lexicon of everyday speech as a synonym for smear tactics.

Cheka -

As anyone who has been victimized in their lives by false charges knows, much of the time its a lose-lose situation. It is up to them as to what they want to do. I think the Democrats are right to fight this one, since a core myth propagated by conservatives is that Democrats can't and won't defend this country. So, even though it gives the ABC series more publicity, it at least prevents it from sailing into the public realm with its credibility unchallenged, or being taught to kids in public schools as factual history.


Rastaninja and Vernon -

Clinton was an immoral skirt-chaser. But in the performance of his official duties, history will rank him among the greatest of US Presidents. I would rather have that than someone who beats their chest about their personal relationship with Jesus Christ, then launches this nation into a bloody and needless war in Iraq that, by giving a shot in the arm to Jihadists, has only harmed our national security.

But in the performance of his official duties, history will rank him among the greatest of US Presidents


Posted by FDR_Democrat at 2006-09-09 06:39 PM


The greatest President in the eyes of Islamic Jihad, OBL, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Martyr Brigade....

I am so happy you all have no problem with the leaders of your party taking time out to write letters and do interviews on a production NOBODY has seen. The very same people who were in office during the 90's attacks up to 9-11. They did NOTHING then and I can only hope this movie points out their failures. On both sides of the political aisle. It is about time Berger and Albright take the heat they have avoided the last 5 years.

"I am glad ABC though is correcting those things which conflict with the public record. There is enough blame to go around in the lead-up to 9/11. There is no reason to have to make anything up."

Nice sentiment about Disney ABC correcting the record. Is it true?

Disney ABC said when the movie came out that it was important that it be historically correct. Is it?

Disney ABC planned to put it schools as history. Fortunately, there are more civic minded companies in the world than Disney ABC who declined to use the material as history, but rathermore as a lesson about propaganda in media.

Have they changed the fiction about Osama being verified in a camp with American troops and Northern Alliance ready to go in, the missiles ready to fire.... and Sandy Berger hangs up the phone?

The record, undisputed by Disney ABC, or anyone else, really, showing that that the CIA had existing kill orders from Clinton on Osama, that there were no American troops or NA in the area, and that it wasn't sandy berger, it was Tenent who declined one of many chances to fire off missiles at reports of Osama'a where-abouts that did not meet the required standard of 2 sources, but that was only single sourced.

Have they changed the script to show evidence that the right wing effort to turn a blow job into a forcing a President out of office actually caused Clinton to do anything differently than he might have otherwise done in the search for Osama?

I think not.

Have they cleaned up all of David Horowitz's Hard Werk over the last few years with right-wing money to get this movie made by and for right wingers?

Will America fall for it?

Again?

Stay tuned, fellow Drudgites, for next weeks episode of "S.O.A.P.".

"I am so happy you all have no problem with the leaders of your party taking time out to write letters and do interviews on a production NOBODY has seen."

Yeah, like this:

"The Reagans" miniseries might have been pulled because of disagreements over its script..

Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, scoffed at the notion that CBS was stifling free speech.

"There is no such thing as creative license to invent falsehoods about people," Bozell said. "I don't care who you are. You don't have that right."

fdr, I have to disagree. For the most part, Clinton ignored the threat and swept Islamic terrorism under the rug. Whether that was his fault directly or a failure of the intelligence agencies reporting to him is irrelevant. All that dirt became Bush's problem when he took office. On 9/11, he was forced to lift up the rug and deal with it.

As wars go, the Iraq war is neither very bloody or needless. Spreading democracy throughout the region is and has been US policy for a while. To that extent, the democratic self-rule in Iraq, fragile though it may be, is not "needless".

If Iraq did give "jihadists" a shot in the arm. That has not manifested itself in further attacks on the United States. It would be difficult then to make the case it has "only harmed our national security." How could you possibly know?

I understand the reasons behind the Democratic talking points you are parroting. They are great talking points. As long as democrats can separate the "war on Terror" and "National Security" from the "War in Iraq" then they can have it both ways. The Democrats can hammer Bush on Iraq and call for withdrawl while still making the claim they are tough on terror. It is a powerful rhetorical device and one which might lead the Democrats to victory in november.

But the truth as I see it is the "War in Iraq" and the "War on terror" cannot be separated. Consider Charles Krauthammer's response to John Kerry's comments that "Iraq is not the center of the war on terror" -- "This is absurd. If the United States leaves, the central government in Iraq will collapse, and the beneficiaries will be Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda, the three major terrorist actors in the world today. It would not just be a psychological victory but also a territorial one. Al-Qaeda would gain a base in Mesopotamia; Syria and Iran would share spheres of influence in what's left of the Iraqi state."

So as a political strategy the Democratic talking points you cling to are powerful.

As a realistic assesment of what is actually going on however, they are are woefully, even dangerously misguided.

Corky, have you seen the movie? It sounds like you have?

Iraq is not the center of the war on terror" -- "This is absurd. If the United States leaves, the central government in Iraq will collapse, and the beneficiaries will be Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda, the three major terrorist actors in the world today.

Yeah, and who is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for that - BUSH. Bush has made Iraq the center in the war on terror. It wasn't that way until he lied his way into taking us to war in that country. The only small trace of any al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before Bush bombed it was in northern Iraq which was a no-fly zone that Saddam had no control over. Now al-Qaeda has its own boot camp for new jihadis all over Iraq. You boy Bush messed up big time and you cannot spin your way out of that FACT.

Whomever thinks Clinton ignored Terrorism needs an education STAT. What loons.

Larry

"On 9/11, he was forced to lift up the rug and deal with it."

More like he ignored his Terrorism Chief, then told him to, "find that Iraq did it", and curled up on that rug you mention to read a little "My Pet Goat" and take a nappy.

"the Iraq war is neither very bloody or needless."

Not unless it happens to be your family, which it's not, huh Bub?

"If Iraq did give "jihadists" a shot in the arm"

Who cares, right?

Oops! Sorry. I see that not only is your post addressed to FDR, but you also quote
Charles Krauthammer.

That being the case, your disease is past remission, and there is nothing we can do for you here.

Sorry. Really sorry.

in the performance of his official duties, history will rank him among the greatest of US Presidents.

Posted by FDR_Democrat at 2006-09-09 06:39 PM | Reply

I've always given Clinton credit where it is due.
-NAFTA
-He signed balanced budgets given to him by the Republican Congress
-He signed the Crime Bill from the Republican Congress
-He signed Welfare Reform from the Republican Congress

chris, are you saying that if we leave Iraq now the entire Jihadist movement would disband and there would not further terrorist attacks planned and plotted against the US and the west? That's what you seem to be suggesting when you say our presence is the reason "al-Qaeda has its own boot camp for new jihadis all over Iraq." If that is true, then it follows that leaving Iraq would give the "jihdis" no reason to continue to exist. Is that correct?

Also, I don't understand the relevancy of how Iraq became the center of the war on terror. The fact is, it is now. Who is responsible for that and how it came to be seems irrelvant to me. It is the card we have dealt ourselves. And so we must stay and fight.

Do you disagree with Krauthammer when he says, "If the United States leaves, the central government in Iraq will collapse, and the beneficiaries will be Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda, the three major terrorist actors in the world today?"

If so, explain what you disagree with?

And if you agree with him. Do you really believe that handing Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda a clear victory is in the best interest of America's national security?

Iraq is already Iran west so whats the deal. You want to be held responisble for keeping the troops there to die needlessly ???? Come on wake up You can either advocate the withdrawl of the troops or You can support continuing the troops in Iraq and be just as responsible for their deaths as Dubya!!!!!!

Larry

"I don't understand the relevancy of how Iraq became the center of the war on terror. ...Who is responsible for that and how it came to be seems irrelvant to me."

Of course.

Responsibility for taking Iraq from a contained, no-threat-to-the-USA country, led by a tyrant who was fearful of any threat to his power (read: Iran, Syria, al-Qaeda)...

... and turning it into a potential beneficiary for Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda if we leave...

... at the cost of over 2,600 American dead, over 19.000 American wounded, and the taxpayers out over a half-trillion dollars?

That responsibility? Not in this administration.

Oh, and let's continue to hand the reigns of government to those "responsible for that."

Because, after all, some here don't understand the relevancy.

Hans

"Who is responsible for that and how it came to be seems irrelvant to me."

Defending the indefensible is always difficult.

Best just to claim it is all "irrelevant."

Hans

hans, If Bush is to be held politically responsible for Iraq then so be it. But that still does not deal with the reality of what Iraq means in the war against Islamic-terrorism now. Are you saying that because you have a problem with where the war is being fought and how it began, that we must hand Iraq, Syria, and Iran a clear victory? A victory, Krauthammer further explains is "not just a psychological victory but also a territorial one. Al-Qaeda would gain a base in Mesopotamia; Syria and Iran would share spheres of influence in what's left of the Iraqi state."

Do you really believe that result would be better then staying until the new Iraq democracy is better able to stand up for themselves?

Krauthammer further explains is "not just a psychological victory but also a territorial one. Al-Qaeda would gain a base in Mesopotamia; Syria and Iran would share spheres of influence in what's left of the Iraqi state."


What A Fantasy How Do You Win In Iraq ?

You Moved The Entire 172nd Into Baghdad And It Did Change The Death Count So How Do You Win ?

-Sarge

hans, If Bush is to be held politically responsible for Iraq then so be it. But that still does not deal with the reality of what Iraq means in the war against Islamic-terrorism now. Are you saying that because you have a problem with where the war is being fought and how it began, that we must hand Iraq, Syria, and Iran a clear victory? A victory, Krauthammer further explains is "not just a psychological victory but also a territorial one. Al-Qaeda would gain a base in Mesopotamia; Syria and Iran would share spheres of influence in what's left of the Iraqi state."

Do you really believe that result would be better then staying until the new Iraq democracy is better able to stand up for themselves?

Posted by Rastaninjja at 2006-09-09 08:11 PM | Reply


Bwhahahahahahahah the Iraq War was a distraction from the War on Terror and the war against Islamic Radicals so that piss poor excuse won't fly. Saddam Hussein is/was the antithesis of Islamic Radicals. Thank You very much. Do try yet again.

Larry

Rastaninja -

If you start from the breath-takingly mistaken premise that "Clinton ignored the threat and swept Islamic terrorism under the rug," then I don't know if we have enough common ground to even have a debate.

Just a couple of points. On the issue of the Iraq War "giving Jihadists a shot in the arm" that is not me or even the Democratic Party talking. That is the considered intelligence estimate of not only the CIA, but also our foreign allies intelligence. Before 9/11, as the recent Senate Report confirms, Saddam not only didn't have a relationship with Bin Laden, he considered religious extremists like Bin Laden threats and enemies. Now, thanks to Bush's invasion, Iraq is a training ground and magnet for Islamic terrorism, the same way Afghanistan played such a role in the 1980's.

The idea that Iraq, today, resembles the sort of "democratic experiment" that would justify an invasion is risible. The current government of Iraq is headed by pro-Iranian Shia religious parties with their own militias. The elected leader of Iraq praised Hezbollah, and Iraq is as far away from recognizing Israel's right to exists as it ever was under Saddam. In an example of how you can make a bad situation worse, the threat posed by a Saddam regime that was weakened and pinioned by enemies has been replaced by the likelihood of chaos, a many-sided super-Lebanon that will draw in regional powers, and domination by a nuclear-armed Iran. You don't cure your headache by cutting off your own head.

On the issue of spreading democracy in the Middle East being USA policy for some time now, and the invasion of Iraq just being a follow through of that policy, that is ridiculous. If the overthrow of despotic regimes is standard US policy, it seems we have been slacking off on Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and others, not to mention our backing for the Shah of Iran in years past. The justification that sold it in 2003 was that Saddam had WMD, not that he was just a bad guy. The world is full of bad people, but we are not invading their countries.

As far as Iraq being the central front in the war on terror, there is some justification to that - now. Although it wasn't before 2003, Iraq has now become a battleground with consequences for the US beyond just Iraq.

That is why many Democrats - myself included - oppose withdrawal unless and until it becomes clear we can no longer do any good. Hillary Clinton and others have taken this position - there is a real split in the Democrat Party over this.

Its funny you should think I am parroting Democrat talking points, when in fact I disagree with Kerry on withdrawal. While Krauthammer and his conservative ilk are correct about the current importance of Iraq, they refuse to make the logical connection to Bush-Cheney failed policies that have resulted in the USA being placed into the position of fighting the enemy on a field and terms of their choosing, not ours.

The right wing justifications to sell Bush-Cheney policy change on a monthly basis. They have more to do with discrediting domestic opponents than creating the sort of bipartisan policy we need for the long run.

Hans, if your wife and you are on a drive out in the desert and the car breaks down. Say the engine overheated. And it was your responsibilty to put water in the radiator but you never did. And you wife keeps harping and yelling, "How could you forget the water. You said you were going to check the water." and so on and so forth.

Is all that yelling and screaming going to change the fact that your radiator needs water?

Of course not.

So therefore, how your car came to be in that situation and who is responsible for it is irrelevant. Wouldn't you agree? The only relevant question is "how can I get water, or a tow to get the car going again?

Likewise, all the yelling and screaming about Bush being responsible for the Iraq mess is irrelevant at this point.

We are there now. We are facing very real enemies. Enemies who will achieve a tangible victory if we leave now. The only question should be whether or not handing our enemies this victory would do more harm to America then good.

If you honestly believe leaving Iraq now would do less harm to America then staying the course, so be it. I don't agree but I'm sure you have your reasons for believing that.

But if you are arguing the only reason to leave Iraq is because you don't like that we went there in the first place, that completely ignores the reality of the situation that we are forced to deal with now. And I cannot see how you can make any reasonable argument for leaving if you ignore completely our enemies, and the consequences of a withdrawl.

The right wing justifications to sell Bush-Cheney policy change on a monthly basis. They have more to do with discrediting domestic opponents than creating the sort of bipartisan policy we need for the long run.

Posted by FDR_Democrat at 2006-09-09 08:18 PM | Reply |

I agree FDR but I'd substitute "three times a week" for "monthly", judging by the past week. By Monday he is going to be in "Mission Accomplished" Mode, and its all phoney baloney.

FDR, I actually think the Democratic "talking points" reflect a brilliant political manuever that even Karl Rove could be proud of.

My attitude towards Bush, the CIA, FBI, and the military regarding their actions leading up to the war in Iraq is - let's have an investigation and let the chips fall where they may. If Bush and company are as reckless, dishonest, and incompetant as Democrtats and Liberals say they are then they should be held accountable. I have no problem with that.

But the situation in Iraq, coupled with the other threats in the region has created a situation that all Americans have to deal with at this point. Whether you agree with the reasons for deposing Saddam or not. This is no time for partisanship, and we seem to be in complete agreement when you say "That is why many Democrats - myself included - oppose withdrawal unless and until it becomes clear we can no longer do any good. Hillary Clinton and others have taken this position".

I believe that a majority of Americans hold this opinion. But in a polarizing election year, these majority voices take a backseat to the extremists in both parties who seek to make the war a purely partisan issue. While this politicization of the war is understandable given that the GOP is fighting to keep control, and the Democrats are on the verge of taking over, it seems to be further dividing this nation at the exact time that our enemies are banding together behind a common ideologically driven set of goals led by Iran.

My car breaking down in the middle of the desert affects no one but me and my wife.

Not 2,600 dead.

Not a half-trillion dollars.

But if you insist on using such an example: The next time my wife and I headed out she would remind me to check the radiator before we left the house.

"If you honestly believe leaving Iraq now would do less harm to America then staying the course"

Please, do tell me: What does "staying the course" mean?

Does it mean continuing to do the same thing over and over again, yet expecting differing results?

Hans

To End All This Bullshit Here And Now

Fact: Less Than 5% Of The Insurgency In Iraq Is Al Queada Terrorist !!!

There Numbers Are Less Than 1,000 Al Queada In Iraq !

-Sarge

"But the situation in Iraq, coupled with the other threats in the region has created a situation that all Americans have to deal with at this point."

Fair enough.

How about this choice (compliments of Danni):

Democratic strategy: replace incompetent people. What a concept.

Republican strategy: keep doing the same thing whether it works or not.

hans, I suspect a tow truck driver will get you, your car and your nagging wife out of the desert before she can divorce you. The broken down car being the immediate and urgent proble, the relationship with your wife being the ongoing but less pressing one.

Which is my point exactly. The car in the desert is Iraq, and it must be dealt as a completely separate issue, from whether or not the nation needs to "divorce" Bush.

"The only question should be ..."

NOT "stay the course" versus "cut and run."

The only question should be which strategy is selected for a successful prosecution of the remainder of our not-so-execellent adventure in Iraq:

1. Democratic strategy: replace incompetent people. What a concept.

2. Republican strategy: keep doing the same thing whether it works or not.

Again, thanks to Danni.

Hans

Hans, I guess we will know the answer to whether or not the America people chooose the Democratic or Republican strategy in november.

"The car in the desert is Iraq, and it must be dealt as a completely separate issue..."

...by a tow truck also running out of water (due to incompetence).

Or a well-maintained towing company truck.

(Again, bad analogy, but it is what I was given to work with.)

Hans

and here we have one of the most outrageous attempts at censureship that we have seen in some time. artists and writers and people of this type should all be totaly pissed that BJ is trying to keep this off the air....from all reports, this shows bush in not much better light than BJ and his crew but it does show who the enemy really is and thats something that dems cant have shown to much prior to november. We would see the danger and then understand that they are unwilling, uncapable or just dont care to do what is needed.......
and sure we raised hell when they tried to show the reagan film but that was more soap opera than this one......

and the matter that they are pitching a hissy fit and they say didnt happen...
DID HAPPEN....at least thats what the officer said....the one who was told NOT to go and get bin laden.....and isnt it just 'peachy' to see BJ and the dems twisting in the wind over something out of hollywood.....maybe even with the clintons......what goes around comes around..........

but if you dont agree with the previous post......who cares?

but what about this.......dem senators sent a THREAT to abc when they talked about it and then mentioned that abc liscences were up for review.....how can liberals let them get away with this./

"and here we have one of the most outrageous attempts at censureship that we have seen in some time"

No. The more outrageous attempts was a successful one... by the rightwingnuts:

"The Reagans" miniseries might have been pulled because of disagreements over its script..

Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, scoffed at the notion that CBS was stifling free speech.

"There is no such thing as creative license to invent falsehoods about people," Bozell said. "I don't care who you are. You don't have that right."

"and here we have one of the most outrageous attempts at censureship that we have seen in some time"

Ummmm...you don't call placing an author for writing a nonflattering book about Bush on the no fly list, outrageous???

How about outing an agent because her husband disagreed with Bush?

Or, how about the woman who lost her job because she had a Kerry bumper sticker on her car in the employee parking lot.

I can find a hundred examples of outrageous censuring by this administration and republicans that overide someone who wants to prevent lies from being aired on tv.

DID HAPPEN....at least thats what the officer said....the one who was told NOT to go and get bin laden.....and isnt it just 'peachy' to see BJ and the dems twisting in the wind over something out of hollywood.....maybe even with the clintons......what goes around comes around..........

It Did Not Happen, The National Security Adviser Did Not Say What The Movie Quotes Period !

-Sarge

Democrats have borrowed a page from the playbooks of Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez. Reacting to the way ABC is portraying the Clinton administration's handling of terrorism prior to 9-11, they are threatening to revoke ABC's broadcast license. The program isn't a news broadcast or even a documentary, but rather a dramatization of a series of events summarized and condensed to fit a five hour schedule.

The program is purported to suggest Clinton's response to terrorism was lacking because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Clinton and his fellow Democrats deny such a distraction, but looking back, it seems like the Clinton White House spent a lot more time and energy going after Ken Starr than Osama bin Laden.

The Democrats' threat to revoke ABC's broadcast license is especially startling considering their silence when CBS News used fake documents to smear President Bush right before the election. The CBS report wasn't a drama or a docu-drama but presented as hard news and was shown to help John Kerry get elected. The Democrats had no problem with CBS News.

Democrats are not shy about pontificating on the sanctity of the Constitution and the First Amendment when it suits their purposes. But, as this case shows, they are perfectly willing to dispense with the First Amendment when required for political expediency. Most Americans don't trust Democrats with national security. The Democrats know this which explains their hysteria over a TV show and the lengths to which they will go to censor its contents.

"Most Americans don't trust Democrats with national security"

Ha!

Most Americans don't trust republicans with anything, anymore.

Hey....where did Rushlover run off to??

Too hot in the kitchen, I suppose.

This is an interesting thread. I see the Dems here advocating ABC be "sued out of existence" for airing the program. I believe I have even seen "slander" and "libel" thrown about. First a short lesson in law. It is almost impossible for a "Public person" to recover for either of those. (Regrettably, Cliton was and remains a very public person) In order to recover the falsehood must be Reckless and with malice. I have heard NOTHING that convinces me that this is the case. Therefore, Cliton has no case...just threats to censor.

It is even more interesting that those having advocated legal action would not be so happy if Karl Rove took your advice...since it has later been learned that he had NOTHING to do with the outing of Valorie Plame. Perhaps Bush could join the suit against anyone that has insinuated he had something to do with 9-11. Perhaps he could sue Michael Moore into poverty. Then there are all of those who use the term "Bush crime family". Perhaps the Drudge Retort and poor Rogers Cadenhead could have some exposure as a result of the falsities and libelous things that are posted here and disseminated. Is that the America you believe you live in? Or does that only happen when a Democrat is called to answer.

In the interest of historical accuracy, who is playing the brunette whose head Cliton takes his hand off of just long enough to launch missiles into Iraq to blow up terrorist training camps that the dems now say were no longer there? Will it show the horrible fate of the millions of semen that Cliton sent to their deaths? Is the mock up of the blue dress accurate? It was his most historical act in the Oval office, and it should be preserved. Then show the real footage of him denying it and the Hildebeast discussing that vast conspiracy that was after her innocent husband.

Yak yak yak, see words written but noone is is home.

so many things wrong with that post. oh well.

My comment was not about Crassus post but the A_Citizen's.

What Docu-Drama Has Been Made Movie On Rove ?

What TV Network Can He Sue? For Something That Was Never Made About Him?

Who Is Depicting Rove And And Making Statements He Didn't Make?

Do You Have A Link On This Production ?

Moore's Movie Went Through All The Legal Issues Prior To It Being Released, And Has An Open Challenge For Legal Dispute Of It.

Even Bill Bennett Comes Out In Opposition To The Movie A Lead NEOCON And No Friend Of Clinton !!

So Give The Straw-Man A Rest, Before He Catches On Fire.

-Sarge

Yav,

Thank You, I thought I was smoking Crack when I read that Post. Nothing made sense at all.

-Sarge

Hi A_Citizen:

"In order to recover the falsehood must be Reckless and with malice. I have heard NOTHING that convinces me that this is the case."

I am convinced that it would be considered "reckless and with malice".

You have republican figures saying that they want people to see "what really happened"....we have already been told tha parts of this thing are ficticious.

That leads me to believe that it's reckless and with malice to imply that this film is an accurate portral of 911, knowing it will shed a negative light on democrats if some believe it to be "what really happened"

Sarge, you're fine. Crassus' post was what I was actually thinking - he just beat me to the "post" button!

Sarge,

If the movie is so blatently immoral in it's handling of history that Moralty Queen Bill "Studs Diamond" Bennett is offended, it must be pretty damn bad!

Morality

Lisa,

How do you make the connection between republican leaders" saying they want people to see what really happened and ABC? Specifically what falsehoods are being presented with reckless disregard for the truth and with malice? Your last statement gives way to the generalization. The basis of Libel and Slander is a specific statement. In this case, what is it?


Sarge,

I didn't realise that libel and slander only reached the subjects of a docu-drama. Somehow I thought they reached all speech. Under the logic proffered here, Rove could go after any network that held out as news that he had involvement in the outing of Valorie Plame. I suspect Air America, CNN, numerous internet boards (including Moveon.org and this one) could be held to answer.

Slander and libel are not based on "depicting one making statements they did not make" they are predicated on the making and spreading of false statements.

Moore is on firm ground. As I stated earlier...it is almost impossible for a public figure to recover for libel or slander. Therefore, only a fool would think Bush would have a cause of action against Moore. By the same token, Only the same fool would believe Cliton may have a cause of action against ABC.

YAV,

Sarge, you're fine. Crassus' post was what I was actually thinking - he just beat me to the "post" button!

LOL!!!!

These strange rightfundies are getting more and more out there by the day.

I also notice the closer we get to the elections more and more articles are coming out about terrorism, terrorists, and security.

When is the Democratic party going to figure out to leave that mess alone, stop addressing 911 and start addressing our present and future.

Let the republicans live in the past, that is all the capabilities of their mind. Just look at how much they are still focussed on Clinton.

Sad little minded people who fail to focus on the real problem, the American people.

Lisa,

You seem to be genuine so allow me to explain further. To present something as true that "might be" or "could be" and state that "this is what really happened" is not generally reckless. Reckless requires that there be some actual knowledge about the falsity of the statement.

By the same token, people who think the VP was in Tower 7 and orchestrated the whole attack from the ground are wrong, but are not subjecting themselves to civil litigation by saying it. People who think Bush wired the building and that the "attack" was done strictly for political advantage and to give him an excuse to go to war are likewise wrong, but not open to any realistic civil actions. The reason for that is their errors in fact are not "reckless" because they do not know what the truth is. In reality, I would say no one really does...only what they see and they believe what they will.

A_Citizen,

Again Please Post A Link Where Any News Net Work Stated Rove Outed Plame.

Rove Did However Did Confirm And Also Was The Source Of A NY Times Reporter On The Plame Case.

So How Is That Slander, Do You Know The Definition Of Slander And Libel ?

slander /sl ... nd'r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[slan-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
verb (used with object) 4. to utter slander against; defame.
verb (used without object) 5. to utter or circulate slander.

libel /lab'l/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -beled, -beling or (especially British) -belled, -belling.

noun 1. Law. a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b. the act or crime of publishing it.
c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.

2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
verb (used with object) 3. to publish a libel against.
4. to misrepresent damagingly.
5. to institute suit against by a libel, as in an admiralty court.

Now Please Show Me Where A News Network Stated He Was The Sole Source On The Plame Case.

-Sarge

A_Citizen,

Fitzgerald contended that two Bush administration officials, Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told several reporters about Plame's employment at the CIA. Libby was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and grand jury. On June 13, 2006, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, released a statement saying that Fitzgerald had informed him Rove would not be charged with any wrong-doing On July

So That Is The Fact Period; Now Show Me A Major News Network That Has Gone Past This.

-Sarge

Sarge,

1. You keep changing the target. I didn't say "sole source". I said that he "outed" Plame.

2. I again must have missed where slander and libel are limited to news agencies. Do you seriously doubt that I couldn't go to some of the posts on this board and show people saying (which would be libel since it is written) that Rove outed Plame? Unless you were on vacation for about six months you know that is true. Then the act of re-publishing it by "Drudge Retort" is libel on its part.

The Problem Is That Advertise This As A "Docu-Drama", If They Posed This As A "Drama" No Problem At All.

Anyone Can Come Up With Fiction And Make Up Any Story.

-Sarge

Disney ABC touted the need for historical accuracy of this film before people started mentioning that much of it was a completely false rendering of known historical events.

It only became "fictionalized" after they were caught promoting a Clinton Swift Boating movie made by right-wingers.

A_Citizen,

This is the issue I can have an opinion and you can have an opinion and come up with a conclusion on any subject from current information. Which is a difference between saying it is a fact. Look at the OJ issue you can say he is Guilty all day long but in the Court Of Law He is Not Guilty other than a Civil Suit.

This Is About A Major Network not some guys opinion on a Website. I could be sued all Day long for my opinion of the Bush administration if if was a Valid Legal account, which it is not, it is Opinion not a Docu-Drama posing as Historical Fact in a Drama.

-Sarge

Sarge,

The actor is not material. You look at yourself as being small. You post here. This site has had 16.5 million visits and 34 million page views according to the site meter. People read what is posted. If it is false, but held out as true, how is it worse than a docu-DRAMA?

I give you the following:

"The Constitution is just a God damned piece of paper" - George Bush

There is NO proof he ever said it. Capitol Blue reports it and I have seen it posted here at least a dozen times. I would venture that more people have seen that post than will watch this docu-DRAMA.

But if you think that major networks have some heightened civic duty to someone.

1. should they not keep "secret" things secret? (i.e. spy programs or black prisons)

2. Shouldn't they tell us about the good things that have happened in Iraq? (You have to admit there have been some. It is far from a bed of roses, neither is it exclusively a hammock of thorns.)

3. Perhaps you think there should be some governmental oversight to make sure that we get "the truth"? (I have no idea how that would be determined....)

In all fairness, I am going to bed. Look forward to catching up with you later.

Based on the way ABC's squirming and now putting disclaimers on their "Historical Project" I'd say the ABC Attorney's have been heard.

A Citizen

It's too bad you've retired for the evening, I'd really like for you to elaborate on #2.

A_Citizen,

As I stated the issue is "Opinion" verses "Fact". The Principles have every right to defend themselves against "Untruths", now if Bush Never made the Statement than a An American Legally he can Defend himself in A Court of Law at any point in time. Something he has not done, though member of the Clinton Administration have stated they would, and have a right to with the are depicted Stating something they did not say Broadcast around the world.
So I don't see a valid argument on this point.

-Sarge

2. Shouldn't they tell us about the good things that have happened in Iraq? (You have to admit there have been some. It is far from a bed of roses, neither is it exclusively a hammock of thorns.)

I'm sorry I have seen where they have, Saddam's Sons Killed, Saddam Captured, Election, Constitution, Schools being built, Police Trained, Troops Train, the take over of Iraq Military, so please tell me what good things have not been reported, Hell I've seen Boxing and Soccer, Wresting Teams and All, so please tell me your point? I bet I can tell you more good things that have gone on in Iraq than you have. The issie is the over 3,000 Iraqis Murdered and the sectarian violence supersedes it all.

-Sarge

Before I leave you...and based upon your response to number 1, please allow me to expand your legal knowledge beyond a dictionary and into some case law.

New york Times V. Sullivan, 376 US 254. The US supreme Court discusses the idea of libel against a public official.

You should then read St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 US 727 where the actual knowledge / reckless disregard standard is clarified. Now these cases are from the 1960's so I don't know how they had not made it into your dictionary...but as you say in the military....carry on!

Good night all!

Sarge, both those Libel suits were won in UK courts.

It is much more difficult for public figures to win libel, slander or defamation suits in US courts. It happens but it is rare.

Most public figures don't even try because it would just further publicize the injurious comments and if they lose the case it would reinforce the belief those comments were true to begin with.

Rastannja,

Thanks for pointing that out in my absence. I wonder if Sarge knows that foreign decisions are not binding on US courts. Perhaps he missed that lecture in law school. But then, any law school that uses a dictionary as its basis of law may not be expected to teach those finer points of law.

Will all of you just stop for a minute!?!?

Al Qaida attacked us on 9/11 - not the Clinton administration or the Bush administration! If you want to blame anyone for ALLOWING it to happen, there is plenty of room to point fingers on both sides of the political aisle.

But lets don't lose our focus in all our bickering on WHO attacked us!

Sometimes I believe we are our own worst enemy and Al Qaida is just laughing at our own infighting.

"Al Qaida attacked us on 9/11 "

Nono
It's all a government plot!!

If you seriously believe that, DATA, then I must say I feel sorry for you.

"If you seriously believe that, DATA, then I must say I feel sorry for you."

Oh please.
I guess I forgot to put on the SARCASM light.

"Al Qaida attacked us on 9/11 "

*SARCASM light ON*

Nono
It's all a government plot!!

*SARCASM light OFF*

(Walks away laughing.)


Is that better?

Sorry I didn't recognize your intentions. I'm so attuned to people responding with the comment you made, I immediately suspected you were doing the same.


I usually type "sarc/" or something along that line after my own sarcastic remarks.

Peace!

A_Citizen,

First Libel Suits are and have been settled in The United States, No One has to Possesses a Law Degree to know that.Rastaninjja stated that Libel cases have been won in America, the fact is they are more likely to be settled out of court or libel actions concerning the international media are often brought in British courts because they are considered friendlier to claimants than U.S. courts.

Your comment maybe due to the lack of Reading Comprehension; I Stated:

"So How Is That Slander, Do You Know The Definition Of Slander And Libel ?"

Take Note Of The Word "D-E-F-I-N-I-T-I-O-N" I did not state the Legality Of Slander or Libel, though in the Legal World they are the same, so then again what is your point?

Are you saying in a Court of Law those definitions are not valid ?

No one ever stated UK Court decision are binding in US Courts, Once again so what is your Point ?

-Sarge

Anamerican,

I agree, but I'm not the one who is doing this The Bush Apologist are and are trying to place the "Straw-man" in for a Lead Block by Defending a BS movie claiming to be a "Docu-Drama" which has people making key Negative Decisions they did not make.


-Sarge

Sarge, It has been interesting following this and other threads and watch all the people who are commenting on the content of the movie and yet have never seen it.

In your above post, you call it a "BS" movie even though you have not seen the movie in it's final form. In fact, noone has sinc ABC has admitted they are still editing the movie to correct much of the problems the democrats take issue with.

If ABC makes those corrections, would you still call it a BS movie? Why?

Sarge, are you even going to watch the movie tonight?

"...you call it a "BS" movie even though you have not seen the movie in it's final form."

Of course, Brent Bozell had not seen "The Reagans" in its final form when he said:

"There is no such thing as creative license to invent falsehoods about people. I don't care who you are. You don't have that right."

hans, well Brent Bozell was wrong to make that statement too. And two wrongs don't make a right.

As I understand it, the Press and other insiders received advance DVD copies of the movie and that is how Bill Clinton and others came to be outraged over parts of it.

Because I have not seen the movie, I feel only able to comment on the issue surrounding the movie, not the movie itself.

And based on ABC's statement that they are still editing the movie, I don't think anyone can comment on the final product. It remains to be seen.

Rastaninja -

If we are in a period of heated partisanship, the bulk of the blame for that rests with how Bush-Cheney and the GOP handled things post 9/11.

After the 9/11 attacks and through the invasion of Afghanistan, Bush had a 90 percent approval, almost as high among Democrats as Republicans.

The Bush-Cheney Administration folks could have stayed to the high road. There was historical precedent for this in wartime, with US Presidents reaching out to bring the opposition to the table in the greater cause of defeating the common enemy.

The GOP didn't take this route. What they did was turn around and use the 9/11 attacks as a wedge issue, starting before the 2002 mid-term congressional elections. The starkest example was the attacks on the patriotism of Senator Max Cleland by his challenger Saxby Chambliss, whose partisans ran ads accusing this disabled and decorated Vietnam veteran of not wanting to defend America.

There is example after example of right wingers taking things beyond disagreement over policy to attempting to say Democrats are dupes or in cahoots with terrorists. And then the rightnuts turn around and wonder why the Democrats are angry and unwilling to link hands and sing Kumbaya with them.

You can't have it both ways. If the GOP is pursuing a take-no-prisoners scorched earth partisan strategy that seeks to discredit not just the arguments, but the opposition party itself, then you can't expect this to foster unity on other issues.

FDR, I disagree. I believe the majority of Democrats have never recognized the legitimacy of the Presidency of George W. Bush and that is the primary reason for the the intense hatred and partisanship that seems only to be getting worse.

The short-lived illusion of bi-partisanship post 9/11 was in response to the fear reverberating throughout the nation and with voters. Americans expected their representatives to present a united front. And Democrats had no choice but to go along with that public sentiment. They did this begrudgingly knowing they had no choice but to pander to the electorate. We know this because throughout the short time that Bush's approval ratings were 90%, the Democrat rank-and-file never stopped hammering home that Bush "stole" the election. The NY Times and other papers, also wasted little time in branding Afghanisan another Vietnam and a quagmire. Already by that time, many democrats were undermining Bush by suggesting and making accusations that 9/11 was a result of dishonest relationships between the US, and US Corporate interests in the Middle East. They suggested a complex conspiracy that connected two presidents (Bush 1 and Bush 2) with vast oil companies and OPEC. We began to hear about, Bush's connections to saudi Arabia and the bin-Laden family. Michael Moore of course tied all these conspiracies together into "Farenheit 9/11" and became the darling of Democrats forevermore. They even sat him as an honored guest next to former President Jimmy Carter at the Democratic national Convention.

From calling him an illegitimate president, and a liar to quagmires in Afghanistan and calling him a Nazi and the world's greatest terrorist, the Democrats have had a constant drumbeat of hatred of Bush going for his entire Presidency. To try and suggest that democrats were more then willing to work with Bush administration in the beginning is just ridiculous. Obviously that is not true. And the few democrats who have, like Joe Lieberman, have gotten nothing but grief for their attempts at bi-partisanship.

That's not to say the Republicans are entirely innocent and never engage in divisive tactics. They do and have.

But the Democrats are far more responsible for the divisive climate right now and I don't think they have ever provided Bush or the GOP any real opportunity to work together with them. I think Democrats have defined themselves as the anti-Bush, anti-GOP party and any real efforts to find common ground and work together with Republicans would be seen as a loss for them, and a victory for the GOP.

CNN Transcript of SANDY BERGER in "The Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer:

BERGER: I don't think we were cautious at all. I think we made it very clear to the CIA that we wanted to get bin Laden. The fact of the matter is, if you try to get bin Laden and you miss and you fail, that strengthens bin Laden. It doesn't strengthen us. It simply embarrasses the United States.

In my opinion, THIS is what the Movie is about. THIS sort of attitude. We had opportunities to get Bin Laden but people like Berger were too afraid that we would miss an "embarass the United States."

Well, good thing we never tried to kill him, otherwise we might have been embarassed... Then again, we could have prevented 9/11 and, probably, the current Iraq war.

I really think that THIS sort of sentiment is the one expressed by the movie, that the administration could have and should have done more. And here we have this telling remarg by Berger.

But for CHRIST'S SAKE can we wait to see the movie first before demanding it be pulled from the air?

The movie is going to be shown. Of course that depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Maybe if Clinton would have zipped up more often, he would have been able to do his job of protecting us.
However, is all depends on what his definition of "protection" is. Maybe he thought protection was only to be used for sex.

"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 because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

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."

Spud likee a good documentary.

The term "docu-drama" has always seemed a bit of a mis-nomer to Spud as they are not proper documentaries nor are they effective as dramas.

They are the "taint" of teeveeland.

But unlike "Behind the Camera- the unathorised story of Different Strokes" this one purports to tell truths about relatively recent and significantly important events.

Seems fairly obvious to Spud that this appalling excuse fer a documentary is really just a too obvious bit of right wing propaganda disguised as news.

Spud aint sure why anybody would be too surprised by the notion by now.

With Fox the right have a 24 hour news cycle dedicated to the proposition why should a cheesy teevee movie raise hackles?

Cos there are still too many folk in the U.S. too stupid to realise wot a load of BUSHIT it is?

Yeah, well there is that to consider...

Maybe they've unfrozen Uncle Walt nazi-luffing brain over there at MouseCo and he's calling the shots agin!

Is me new spuddish theory!

Be Well.

PS Spud watches to see wot happens here.
Will the left manage to get this POS pulled?
If not will the righty tighties round here stop bleating on about vast left wing media conspiracies?
Prolly not.

Yes, is Spud back agin, entering the Drudge Retort neighbourhood of blogworld
stage left.

Spud:

1) My understanding is that the "people on the ground" were working for CIA.

2) Who gives a shit if the actual person on the grounds identity is one person you never heard of or anothers?

3) Yeah, see my post above. It's that precise sort of attitude the movie, I suspect, is meant to criticise. Good thing we didn't attempt to get him otherwise what? we might have succeeded???

I hope to GOD you have more criticisms with the film then these!!! I mean holy shit! I imagine you were probably firebombing movie theaters playing Michael Moores movie if these 3 issues are enough for you to think the movie has no merit and is an "appalling excuse."

geezus!

docudrama (dky-drm, -drm) Pronunciation Key
n.
A television or movie dramatization of events based on fact.

"Based On Fact"

So When The National Security Adviser Is Portrayed Doing And Saying Something That Never Happened Or Was Involved In How Is That Based On Fact?

-Sarge

"Good thing we didn't attempt to get him otherwise what? we might have succeeded???"

Sock Rocker,

Clinton did try to get Bin Laden.

Dumbya has not only failed to get him but Spud reckons he's actually worked hard to keep him free, too.

Osama is Dumbya's poster boy in his eternal "War on Terror".

Dumbya is Osama's poster boy fer jihadist recruitment and funding.

That is the real truth.

This "film" is a biased piece of propaganda that is trying to make it look as if 9/11 was down to Clinton when the sad fact of the matter remains that Dumbya was asleep at the switch before that day, on that day and every day subsequent to that attack.

BushCo know they have no good truths to tell us so they try to manipulate us by telling bigger and better lies.

Spud likes calling "Bushit!" on that action.

Spud realises that this is gonna make all them righty-tighty talking points you've previously memorised useless but that's not really Spuds problem now is it?

Yer reference to Micheal Moore only serves to remind Spud that MM speaks more truth to America than Dumbya ever could or would.

MM = Good American
GWB = Bad global elitist.

Spud likes keepin' it simple fer Rocky.

Be Well.

Yes. Because this isn't the real-world and there werent cameras following these people recirding their every satement and action, thus, you have to invent the dialouge which must have, in some manner, occured.

It's a dramatization, the fact that the identites of the people doing and saying certain things are in error does not mean that someone SOMEWHERE did or said it. E.g. SOMEONE ordered them not to bomb the bunker, the movie said it was Berger, Berger says it wasn't him it was probably Tenent. In the end, WHO GIVES A SHIT! SOMEONE GAVE THE ORDER! The fact that it wasn't given, i think, is the important thing.

get it? probably not.

Spud, try not to skip a space in between ever sentence, Rock thinks its annoying. Rock also thinks it's annoying that you refer to yourself in the 3rd person. Rock knows you probably think its cute and makes you special but it's annoying.

Clinton tried to get Osama once. The movie, I believe, is going to emphasize the fact that they had other opportunities but were reluctant, as Berger put it on CNN, "to miss and embarass the U.S."

Were you embarassed when Clinton missed the 1 time he sent a few missles over and missed??? I wasn't. I think it would have been nice if he tried a few more times don't you? I think it would have been better to be a little "embarrassed" then have 3,000 people die on 9/11 and thousands more in Iraq? Don't you?

Rock would like to know.

"Spud, try not to skip a space in between ever sentence, Rock thinks its annoying."

Double space now, Spud.

good one.

Maybe if Clinton would have zipped up more often

This coming from someone that's named "WifeNotHome?"

Knute Rocky asks Spud a question...

"Were you embarassed when Clinton missed the 1 time he sent a few missles over and missed???"

He came remarkably close with those missiles by the way.

Those missiles killed folk close to Bin Lden and very definitely sent a message.

Right wing talking points to the contrary.

Embarrassed? Spud wouldn't say that.

It did make Spud a little nervous at the time, truth to tell.

Ever see "The Usual Suspects"?

"How do you shoot the devil in the back?"

"What if you miss?"

Clinton missed. The Devil shot back.

Now Spud will ask Rocky a question...

What is "The Mogadishu Line"?

Further to that question...

Did Bill Clinton pre-9/11 have the political capitol he needed to invade Afghanistan and capture and kill Bin Laden?

If you answer yes to the above question you are an even bigger fool than Eye imagined and Spuds got a pretty good imagination.

Be Well.

PS: Spud appreciates yer literary criticism and thinks you would be a natural fer a job as a critic with the New York Times.

Spud'll put in a good word fer ya!

You may live in the past ,I could give a shit about Reagans miniseries. we are talking about the here and now. Thank GOD you PUSSIES on this vile site do not represent most of America.All clit-ons dirty laundry is starting to come out, thats to bad ,ha,ha,ha,ha,. clit-ons lawyers? No thats funny.

Posted by controlledpairs

what a sad sack of shit you are..

All thats left of the right is deflection to a previous administration because the total control of the house + senate and presidency is a COMPLETE DISASTER. You guys couldn't run a peep show without going bankrupt or starting a war.

I hope the democrats grow a pair and start playing hardball with these losers.

The movie just started. I'm watching it. I hope we get lots of reviews here later.

I just watched 30 minutes of this ABC 9/11 - What a crock of crap - not even talking about the controversial aspects - on the political level even - just it's the dumbest pseudo-documentary I can remember.
Total dumbfest - I can't believe they will get even mediocre ratings.

Sit
I watched a few minutes, it was trash.
Did you watch the CBS re-run with Atta flying the first plane in? Those Frogs made the documentary of a lifetime and they sure as hell never bargained for it.

"Holy shit! Holy shit!"
I'll never forget that guy screaming. If the FCC tries to crap on CBS for that I will be royally pissed off.

I've been watching - most of it, but not all. They didn't cut the scenes I thought they would with Berger, Clark and Albright.

You're both right, it's a load of crap. Trouble is that people watching it won't know what's true and what's not.

I think I'll watch something better, like the "Tremors" marathon on SciFi.

What I've seen so far is pretty good. Though I think the "Traffic" style cinematography is a bit old already.

I can't find any misrepresntations of the facts that don't have a ring of truth to them. The Clinton administration did view terrorism as a "law and order" problem while bin-laden and al-qaeda never let us think that they were anything but at war with us.

The most damning scene so far is the scene showing the Clinton people refusing to give the go ahead to capture bin-laden for fear of possibly harming children in his compound which is followed by a scene showing hte bombing of the 2 embassies in Africa by Bin Laden in which 247 men, women and children were slaughtered.

The message comes through loud and clear. Had Clinton risked the political fallout an got bin-laden when he could, those 247 people would still be alive, and in the larger sense so would the 3000 people who died on 9/11.

A very powerful film to say the least. I wonder what type of ratings it's going to get.

"Had Clinton risked the political fallout"

True, no doubt. But Bush actually had a world-supported excuse to waste Bin Laden and Bin Laden is still alive.

Data, I am sure that Bush is going to be held to task tomorrow night. It wil be interesting to see how they deal with Bush's part in the failure to stop the 9/111 attacks.

Data - about 325 miles south west of me. Didn't feel anything, but we did have one I felt in Central Florida back in 1973/1974. Nice segue from "Tremors!"

"Nice segue from "Tremors!""

Did free-form FM at KLOL, baby. I know my segues. Nobody else could do Holst and ZZ Top in the same set. Radio today sucks.

Excellent coverage of the main details from 1993 to 9/11/01. The 1st WTC bombing attempt and the Ramzi Yussef depictions to PI were all right on. No BS detected. Clarke and O'Neill seemed spot on character.

Are we on the same planet?
Or are you a paid shill?

I'm watching the post show ABC News rundown now. So far it's being fair and accurate as far as I can tell.

T&C, how'd you like Albright?

Yav and town, I agree. I thought the entire production has been very fair so far.

Part III: Tenet comes out a bit wimpy too. His character is too human -- i.e., too much the safe playing politico in a role that might require that. He does not come out as the type who deserved the civilian equivalent of the Medal of Honor.

yav, I thought Albright was portrayed as a nasty annoying uncomfortable character. It was like fingernails grating along a chalkboard whenever she appeared. I wonder if she's like that in real life.

Yav -- I think they really cut some tape on Albright. Maybe afraid of litigation?

She came accross in character. Not sure she used those words, so it could be libelous. If She did, she needs to refute with contect. What did you think?

Ras -- yes, a bit.

Ras -- yes, a bit.

T&C, I think you're right on how they portrayed her and what they attributed to her. That was one of those parts that I found way over the top. I've never heard anything about Albright to support that portrayal. I also found Tenet's character weak. The conclusion they drew from the aborted attempt to get UBL didn't match the 9/11 report. Actually I was fairly annoyed after that and changed channels for a bit.

By the way, linking to horowitz (who's role in this "project" is well documented) isn't helping your cause.

Good analysis at 11:14, T&C.

I might watch tomorrow to see how Bush is handled. Then again, if they interrupt it and cut to Bush's speech, and anything unflattering is delayed until after. . .

Yav -- I don't like the Horowitz line of thought, either, but he covers a lot of details worth citing for future reference. (I'll read that again and weigh in more thoughtfully after I've digested it a bit.)

If I have any cause, it's just to see the truth played out. And a sneaking suspicion that the neo-cons have played far too loose with the truth for way too long!

That's the read I've had on your for a while, T&C. I wasn't too worried until I read the Horowitz link! Thanks for clearing that up for me.

"The most damning scene so far is the scene showing the Clinton people refusing to give the go ahead to capture bin-laden for fear of possibly harming children in his compound which is followed by a scene showing hte bombing of the 2 embassies in Africa by Bin Laden in which 247 men, women and children were slaughtered."

Of course, anyone who watched ABC Nightline after the movie saw Richard Clarke himself debunk the Tarmac Farms episode.

"It had no chance of success", said Clarke.

And, as previously pointed out, that whole segment was pure fiction, with no US personnel OR Northern Alliance troops in the area at the time and no required second source to verify bin Laden's presence.

WHAT really was amazing, was the right-wing fundamentalists who wrote this script, taking the opportunity to show their right-wing fundamentalist counter-points, the terrorists, shouting "Clinton is Satan, Clinton is Satan", just like the right-wingers were doing here at home at the time.

Too bad that an otherwise important story about John O'Neill, the FBI, and Richard Clarke's efforts to get Osama had to spoiled by including the long-held Republican myth that Clinton had not given full orders to use deadly force against Osama, and that somehow we passed on a perfect opportunity to get him.

The saving grace of that fictionalized scene may have been the hysterical CIA woman after the Nigerian bombing, who in an odd sort of unintentional way represented the hysterical rants of the righties on this wet dream of a myth.

In tomorrow's episode, how will the Bushies be portrayed?

Will they show Richard Clarke hounding everyone in the white House to act on the recommendations he had made and being totally ignored and moved to another office?

Will we see Incurious George reading My Pet Goat and looking like he wanted his Mommy?

Will we see George saying "he can run but he cannot hide", then saying that bin Laden wasn't important?

How will the vacationing President who ignored the direst warning about the attack and the Sec of Def who "couldn't imagine" such an attack be treated?


Stay tuned for the next episode of "SOAP"!

While I'm at it, it was also quite interesting that bin Laden is shown strategizing that the best way to fight their enemies the Israelis in the ME was to "cut off the head" by going after the US.

Too bad so many otherwise seemingly cognizant citizens have bought into the Bush fiction that Osama, the terrorists head, doesnt matter.

Apparently it is considered to be an effective strategy buy our enemies.

TC,

I've been posting that link, literally for years here, and trying to get everyone I could to see the Frontline special.

I always wanted to see a movie made of O'Neill's story. The irony of his death at bin Laden's hands in the Towers is off the scale.

"strategizing"

huh?

Ok. Bush-phonetically, "stratergerizing".

Good info from T&C and Corky. You know I've read the 9/11 report and I've heard things from Clarke and Albright (and Berger) and I am not catching all the misinformation in this "show." This is exactly the problem with this kind of partisan crap being broadcast on an anniversary of the most heinous act on American soil.

Yav -- I think there were a lot of last minute edits. Clarke refutes very powerfully the scene in which the CIA had UBL in their sights. That merits more investigation, but Clarke is very credible. The highlighting Clinton's "did not have sex..." remark was a direct dig at Clinton, but it was historically accurate. It did undercut his credibility with the moral rightwing far more than W.'s lies and dissembling has hurt W.'s cred.

Tonight may go into the Cole bombing.

My argument as a young naval officer with a degree in international affairs way back when these things were just unfurling, was that the financing of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan was a scary and wrong-headed idea. In the long run, that risky analysisn seems to have proved correct. After I left active duty, I argued that our involvement in Lebanon in 1983 was silly, and that placing Marines on the ground was excessively risky. That, too, unfortunately, proved right.

T&C, you were right back then. Small consolation. From Florida I watched what was happening in the 80's with South and Central America with the same sickening feeling. I wasn't sure about what was going on in the rest of the ME and why we were supporting dictators there like we were in our own Hemisphere. I understood supporting Afghanistan in that the USSR was involved, but the ramifications didn't sink in until the Taliban took over. Revisiting everything by reading "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll, I wondered where my head was at back then.

BTW, the "moral rightwing" didn't need any excuse to hate Clinton. They already did. Republicans were on a hunt for anything to justify their prejudice. It is the same as it was with Iraq and the excuses. They won't own up to what happened with Clinton anymore than they will with Iraq. This $40 million dollar propaganda piece is still all about how evil that blow job was and how it lead to the attack on America.

What do you expect from the "moral republicans" though? (see YWAM)

Yav you are right when you suggest the Moral Right was already against WJC. They were PO'd they didn't get to dominate GWHB's second term, and they stewed for 8 years to come back with a vengeance. Unfortunately for them, their mistakes may have proved their (and our) undoing. Polls look bad for the ultra-right wingers in most parts of the country. If the anti-incumbancy attitude boils over, the party could be over for the neocons... What would they do to stay in control???