Watching the left squirm and shiek and wail about an ABC docudrama which, among many other things, points out that the Clinton administration had at least something to do with dropping the ball with regard to terrorism and thus has to share culpability for the resulting 9/11 attack just has me rolling. Particularly considering that none of them have actually seen the thing but want it censored anyway, it says a lot about thier committment to the free exchange of ideas. There are no fewer then ten threads on this at DU, and the m00nbats are absolutely apoplectic at the thought that someone would dare suggest that everything wrong in the world might not be entirely George W. McBushhitler's fault.
To be fair, this is the same writer who did the botch job on the Reagans that had many conservatives riled up. I've heard that a number of scenes in the docudrama never happened. I don't like "fake but accurate". It is good to see the Clinton presidency record on this issue exposed, although I would have preferred to see something beginning in Tehran 1979 and winding its way through Beiruit, Lockerbie, WTC I, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, etc. to the present day. Sachin
Well, it is delicious, but it would also be unfortunate if, as has been reported, in the exercise of dramatic license, the makers of this program conflated characters and events and otherwise departed from the facts. I can see the moonb@ts throwing the "fake but accurate" label back into the faces of some. But is there any doubt that the Clinton Administration had opportunities to wax Bin Laden, and didn't do it? That their approach to counter-terrorism was to basically do nothing?
Haven't had this much satisfaction since Rather was fired! A bunch of liberal lefties upset about another broadcasting network other than Fox! Priceless!
Absolutely amazing! They can make up whatever they want about GWB, as if it is fact, but do not present negative facts about them. And this is the same party that upholds the constitution on free speech right?
I can't say I'm surprised. If anything I'm surprised that it got this far and that it's even going to be broadcast. I heard Reid on the 3:30 news demanding that it be pulled. All the Democrat pressure was understandable as the film has the potential to reach more people than F-911 and this isn't the sort of thing the Democrats want shown in an election year. And speaking of F-911, a film loaded with distortions and deceits (here's a short list) - http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm - imagine what the outcry would have been like if the Republicans had made a concerted effort to suppress it.
Sandy Berger should be disqualfied from ever saying anything about 9/11 until he answers some questions about why he "accidentally" stuffed Clinton-era terrorism documents down the front of his pants, smuggled them out of the national archives, took them home and shredded them. Madeline Albright, who even the most rabid leftwinger would have to concede was an ineffective, borderline incompetent Secretary of State, ought to be too embarrassed about her complete failure to accomplish anything at all in the Middle East to open her mouth about anything. The left live in a fantasy world where terrorism began in 2001, shortly after Bush stole the election. From what I've gathered, the ABC piece isn't at all kind to the Bush administration either. The problem isn't that it blames Clinton and his merry band for everything, it's that it blames them for anything at all. The analogy here is not the Reagan movie, which CBS bought as the story of Ron and Nancy's lifelong love affair but Barbra Streisand took over and turned into a virulently hateful and completely fabricated tale of Reagan's personality. It included so much patently absurd "We're Christians and everyone else can rot in hell" bullshit that even CBS, certainly no frreinds of the Resgans, was forced to concede that it bore no resemblance to reality. The correct analogy, as OG points out above, is to Michael Moore's ridiculous Farenheit 911. Half the elected Democrats in Washington attended the premier. Tom Daschle hugged Michael Moore outside the theater. The left uniformly praised it, and responded to criticizm by saying that the American people should ALL see it and "judge for themselves" That piece of garbage is still in regular rotation on Showtime, as is the Reagan hit piece, and is readily available for anyone interested. Apparently there are some "reconstructions" of conversations which some of the participants, like "Stuffed Pants" Berger, who has no credibility whatever, claim never took place. However that may be, it is documented fact that US intelligence DID in fact have the opportunity to off Bin Laden a coule times, and took a pass. The exact words used in the meetings where this decision was made is hardly the key point. If this was another "Bush is an idiot who screwed up and got us into this mess" piece, the Democrats would be urging "every American" to see it. But it's not: instead, it makes the case that NO American administration took actions that might have headed off these savages when they had the opportunity, and THAT is what they object to. The left thinks "freedom of speech" matters when it's Michael Moore doing the talking, and anyone who complains is guilty of "censorship". But "censorship" is exactly what they are demanding here. The next time a leftie wants to toss around the word "hypocrisy" - the ultimate crime, in their view - they'd do well to look in a mirror.
I haven't been following this story too closely, but Karl and Sacchin have already noted that some of the criticisms of the movie are apparently legit. I don't really care either way, since it's still a surprise to me that anyone still makes TV movies. Anyone but Lifetime, that is. But . . . You're forgetting the cheesy Reagan biopic, in which the GOP raised similar (legit) concerns and succeeded in getting CBS to drop it from their schedule.
No, the correct analogy is to the Reagan movie, because the two TV movies both utilized public airwaves. But, to be frank, I think the Reagan movie looked idiotic. I hate Barbara Steisand. I think this 9-11 movie looks idiotic. I think all TV movies look idiotic. Although he can sometimes demonstrate a sincere humanism (say what you will about the factuality of Roger & Me, but his sympathy for the laid-off workers was neither insincere nor opportunistic), I don't like Michael Moore's dumb simplification of political issues. I don't have time in my life to waste on Al Franken. I detest Rush Limbaugh. I can't stand Ann Coulter. Jeanene Garafalo (sp?) couldn't possibly be less funny, unless she had been named Dennis Miller. Bill O'Reilly can suck my left one; my right, I'll spare for Bill Maher. Hannity, Colmes, Carlson, Dowd . . . I wish I believed in hell, so I could tell them all to go to it. Discourse has been dumbed down since Thok first argued with Gront about how to market the wheel, but that doesn't excuse the latest generation (on both sides of the political aisle) for keeping the discourse dumbed down and hysterical. That doesn't excuse CNN and FOX for relying on Michael Bay-style explosions during political commentary. David Brooks and Mark Shields discuss matters passionately, articulately, and civilly every Friday on the News Hour. Everybody else can go ******** themselves.
Sorry to threadjack this, but Neal Stephenson had an interesting view of hypocrisy in The Diamond Age. Basically, his view was that people who live by a code of morality leave themsleves open to charges of hypocrisy by those who do not live by a code. Most of it is the standard "spirit is willing, flesh is weak" but occasionally, it is more serious. Anywho, I acutally found the passage online:
The public airwaves aren't the issue. If they were, Keith Olberman would be in jail for all the complete fabrications (read: lies) that he spews forth every night in MSNBC's desperate attempt to find a demographic consisting of deranged people, apparently. The ABC picture is based very closely on the Senate 9/11 report. It wasn't just a couple Hollywood hacks who sat down and made it up out of whole cloth, like the Reagan thing. The problem is that nobody much has read it, and the Democrats like it that way. If more people DID know what it said, then everyone would know that Joe Wilson lied his ass off and fluctuates between a) admitting it and b) claiming he was "misquoted". Bottom line, this piece is based very carefully on the facts as discovered by open testimony in front of a bipartisan committe of the US Congress. The left says what we need is another commission, because this one didn't say what it wanted it to say, but it's as close to the truth as we're ever going to get. (Except for the "phony cell phone calls, bombs planted by Dick Cheney, etc" stuff, which is surely the REAL answer to it all) The fact is, as explained in the movie, that Reno and Gorelick, Clinton appointees both, established a ridiculous "wall" which prevented the FBI and the CIA from putting the pieces together. It's not arguable. It's just heresy to say so. The Bush administration didn't handle it well either, but it's mostly because they thought George Tenet over at CIA was competent, instead of a useless buffoon. But the warning signs were most certainly there. For both administrations, and no fair-minded person can claim that either was more culpable than the other. Which of course leaves out the left. Like I said, the only substantive objection is that conversations between key Clinto administration players were "recreated" and don't likely exactly reflect the actual deiscussions. But the basic facts are the basic facts, and THAT is what they don't want anyone to hear. See, what I don't like is Michael Moore's lies and ignorance.
So according to Bo, then we should be able to censor the MSM for using the public airways to spew their lies.
MSNBC isn't on the public airwaves, but I digress. Wait, before I do so, I should note that O'Reilly has been caught telling at least as many lies. Frankly, the whole cable news empire has such dishonesty and hysteria as its foundation. This is flat-out untrue, Bill. Read what John Podhoretz--the National Review guy--has to say about it. He even calls a bit involving Sandy Berger "libel." (It's not, so I'm assuming he's using the term for rhetorical flourish.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe both specials used the same screenwriter. Sen. Slade Gordon disagrees with you. I basically agree with this. I'm not going to defend Moore any more than I already have. He's been caught doctoring images and grossly misrepresenting other stuff. End of story. Ann Coulter has been caught stealing other people's words and footnoting her books with references that don't contain the information she claims they contain. The segments of her latest book about intelligent design and Darwin are so grossly (and, I suspect, willfully) ignorant that she should be laughed off every TV show she appears on. Ann Coulter and Michael Moore deserve each other.
Video of one of Clinton's missed opportunities. Remember. It was a law enforcement problem. Not a military one. Use IE. Does not work on Firefox.
So Clinton should have engaged in a high-risk military action in a foreign country a year before 9-11? You sincerely believe the GOP would have applauded this? The same GOP that dropped the phrase "wagging the dog" in every set of talking points it released?
Where is there censorship?!? ABC could have still aired it! However, because ABC is on the public airwaves, it will face more public scrutiny over this documentary than would have been the case had, say, The History Channel aired it.
(via here emphasis there's) Sens. Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer, and Dorgan sent a letter to Disney today containing the following passages:
Again, you're hanging your argument on the "public airwaves" hook, and I just don't think that passes the smell test. Another couple of reasons why this bears no resemblance to the Reagan pic: 1) This is based, supposedly very closely, on the facts as revealed by the Senate 911 commission and is intended to outline policy mistakes. While some conversations have been reconstructed, the basic facts are a part of historical record. 2) The Reagan pic, conversely, was an attempt to describe one man's personality, based on nothing whatever except Barbra Streisand's conceits about how mean and hateful all Republicans are because she doesn't get invited to State dinners any more. So you didn't get, say, Sandy "Stuffed Pants" Berger telling a CIA guy over the phone to cancel the Bin Laden hit, which is based on the fact that SOMEONE cancelled the Bin Laden hit. Instead, you get Ron telling Nancy over dinner that AIDS is retribution from God against wickedness and that homosexuals deserve to die, which is not only a fabrication but, in fact, the complete reverse of how he felt. It's just part of the liberal myth-making - of which YOU are a part - whereby anyone who believes in God is Fred Phelps. 3) Unlike Clinton today, who is free to point out whatever "errors" this movie may make, Reagan was dead when Streisand created her piece of blatent character assisination and could not respond. If you cannot see the difference, then you're just not open minded enough to discuss this with. You know as well as I do that the shrill, hysterical Democratic response, which includes a thinly veiled threat against ABC's broadcast license, has nothing to do with respect for the historical facts and everything to do with their steadfast refusal to admit that CLinton had anything whatever to do with 9/11. In other words, their prime object here is to cover up the truth.
Let me just add that in response to F911, President Bush did not threaten to sue, as CLinton is doing, despite many, many clearly untrue, distorted and/or libelous "facts" presented in the movie. Finally, let me ask this: did you, or any single liberal you can name, object to one single distortion, error or lie in F911? Or does your highly principled respect for truth only extend as far as your own back yard?
Check out the link I posted earlier. It was written by a conservative, and it notes places where the movie very clearly and incorrectly deviates from the 911 commission. From what little I've read, nobody cancelled any hit. There was apparently not a workable plan. bin Laden's compound was in the most hostile country in the world. We couldn't just put James Bond in a turban and send him in. This right-wing belief that some soldier had bin Laden in the sight of his rifle is new, and it's both ugly and untrue. That was ugly, and you know what? Some liberal writers (can't remember which--it was a long time ago) criticized the movie over this. There were completely legitimate criticisms that could have been made re: Reagan's silence and likely discomfort on the issue that the writer didn't need to resort to such an ugly slander. If I'm not mistaken, Reagan was buddies with Rock Hudson, whose homosexuality was the worst-kept secret in Hollywood. I doubt Reagan hated gays, and any discomfort he felt about homosexuality likely reflected the cultural norm at the time. Reagan also never mentioned AIDS in a speech until it had killed (IIRC) thousands of people. Whatever feelings Reagan had would have been far too complex for a TV movie, the Most Idiotic Genre Ever Invented, to cover. Where have I said that?!? Fred Phelps is nuts. He doesn't represent anybody but himself or any movement but his own. I think the most I've ever claimed is that, at one time, his rhetoric was slightly closer to the mainstream. That's not untrue. That's not even debatable. Oh, please. Reagan had--and still has--millions of advocates.
Lies! Lies! They’re all a bunch of liars! Too bad MSNBC isn’t on the public airways or we could censor them.
What??? High Risk?? I am sorry, this attitude simply doesn't pass the smell test in a cesspool. And it doesn't matter what the other party thinks. Ever. Then AND especially now. Any President who worries about what the other party thinks won't get anything done. Meanwhile, it was INARGUABLE that Osama bin Laden was responsible for terrorist acts against the United States during the Clinton years. It is INARGUABLE that we had chances to wax him during the Clinton years. It is INARGUABLE that the Clinton Administration, at bottom, refused to do it out of motives that were then, and are now, completely unjustifiable. It is INARGUABLE that if we HAD wasted OBL, no one would have done a damn thing about it, anywhere, aside from some deragned lefties crying that we somehow engaged in "illegitimate assassination" or "violated a soverign country" (a country, by the way, that was using soccer stadiums for public beheadings and dismemberments). So, really, what you say here, and what you assert here, is pure unadulterated poppycock. Clinton was more interested in getting fellated that in eliminating a terrorist threat. This fact is so inarguable even YOU can't argue against it.