I understand that, while ABC is still mulling over whether to cave in to Clinton and the Democrat's attempts to cover up the truth, it is still scheduled. What they have done, apparently, is edit the rather minor points to which there has been honest objection. If Sandy "Stuffed Pants" Berger didn't really say what they have him saying, then it's a legitimate complaint and they should certainly take it out. Ditto that horrible nincompoop Madeline Albright: apparently they have her making a comment in a meeting which she didn't make. Again, if it's untrue, then by all means it should be excised. That aside, the main issue is, and continues to be, whether the Democrats can raise enough of a stink by shrieking really, really loudly - it's what they do best - and get ABC to pull a broadcast based on accepted facts, then we've gone a long ways down a pretty dark road.
Bullshit, Karl. Utter bullshit. I'm not going to look up all of the condemnations of Clinton's small attacks on Iraq and Sudan or large-scale operations in Sebia made by Trent Lott and the entire AM radio spectrum. Every time Clinton engaged in even minor arms-based activity overseas, the right wing screamed and yelled that it was all a distraction from the most important issue of the day: a ************** he received in the Oval Office. I'm not going to look this up because I don't need to. You know exactly what I'm talking about. If you can't be honest about what the political climate was like in the 90s, then I don't know what to say. Poppycock, my ass. Furthermore, I know how you will all react should I bring up Tora Bora: you'll insist that its a left-wing smear and that there are 1001 reasons why we didn't get bin Laden. It's a nice day outside. Let's talk about something more cheerful. Karl, are you going to the Touch & Go 25 bash this weekend? We're going on Saturday. Scratch Acid? Man or Astro-Man? Should be excellent.
You know what's bulls--t? It's people like you saying that, you know, if Clinton HAD done it, Trent Lott would have been really really upset. And THAT is the excuse YOU would use? I'm glad George W. Bush doesn't triangulate like, "Gee, what would Harry Reid think?" As for Tora Bora, that was a mistake that was regrettable. But at least W. effectively emasculated Al Qaeda, while Clinton chose to get his c--k sucked. It is a beautiful day...and a beautiful weekend. I am going to watch my kid play soccer.
I would hope that we could all agree that the actual events of 9/11 - and the events leading to it - deserves much better than a "fictionalized" account on a crap network.
Let's start here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06path.html?_r=3&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Are you honestly saying that the movie is accurate and factual? ABC has openly admitted that parts of the movie are "fictionalized" - their term- so I'm surprised that you'd think otherwise. Look, all I'm saying is that the subject matter demands more than a schlock "movie of the week" treatment.
No I really don't know because I haven't seen it. I believe I asked you how you know. You answered my question with a link to an unbiased, trustworthy source. Thanks
I watched part of it. Simply terrible. Anyone who claims to be interested in the truth about what led up to 9/11 should be disgusted by ABC's effort. Here's a completely biased source. Sachin
I did not watch it because, frankly, I hate Hollywoodizations. ANd when I heard of the made up "fake but accurate" scenes, that was too much for me. But I am enjoying the left go ape over it.
What's wrong with calling out obvious falsehoods masquerading as fact? As for "censorship", shall we review the little tantrum about the Reagan "biopic"?
I think this pretty much sums it up. They are demanding that ABC scrap the miniseries entirely, for while installing porn filters on library computers will lead us down the path to totalitarianism, censorship to protect Bill Clinton's legacy from right-wing smearmongers is essential for a healthy democracy.
In these trying times, on Larry Chomstein can be counted on to speak truth to power. And also to try to kill his right wing grandma in a hemp induced haze.
I thought this quote said it better! "As President, Bill Clinton was perfectly capable of both defending this nation from terrorists AND ejaculating all over the hired help. That's what true leadership is all about." The issue is reduced to: "Capable, yes, but did he?"
Claymore, your protests would carry more weight if your side had any sort of credibility when it came to standing up for the truth. We've linked to a number of conservative commentators who pointed out inaccuracies and falsehoods in this movie, while your side has Congresspeople issuing veiled threats to ABC on letterhead my tax dollars pays for. And let's not forget the Left's stirring condemnation of Mary "Fake But Accurate" Mapes, the Al-Reuters photographer caught faking photographs from Lebanon, the misleading AP stories on poverty, or the outright slanders against Joe Liebermann, who's on your side to begin with. Wait. There was no condemnation. Instead, your side took up the liars' cause. And don't try to Red Bull me on this. I read your side more than I read mine. I know what gets posted on Kos, myDD, DU, Eschaton and others. At this point, if you had any shred of dignity left, you'd admit that the Left is more than willing to throw any pretentions to truth out the window at the first opportunity. Sachin
repped. You know, the Democratic outrage in fact created a real buzz about this show. So it's classic. In their very efforts to discredit it, they made it more likely that more people would watch. And THESE are the people that Claymore wants to have take over our government? Yikes.
Which is why the slightly conspiratorial side of me wonders if ABC tried to create the controversy. After all, I am convinced that Michael Moore did the same with F 911 (He created a line that Disney was censoring him when he was told before the movie was filmed that they were looking to concentrate on family movies again and probably would not be distributing his film).
I don't think either side has a monopoly on "the truth", which is why I pointed out the GOP reaction to the Reagan biopic in the first place. If you go back to my original post on this thread, I was pointing out the fact that the actual events leading up to 9/11, and indeed events of 9/11 itself, SHOULD defy the whole left/right schism so prevalent in this country. The whole argument about who's more into censorship debases the issue at hand.
Just so you know, for what it's worth, I didn't watch this show. And don't intend to. And, for the record, I have zero problem with anybody raising a ruckus over the purported accuracy of this show, or that show, or any other show, Republican or Democrat or Martian. That being said, I find it highly amusing -- and just a teensy eensy bit ironic -- that the Democrats and its allies in the netroots, who cried "Censorship!! Censorship!!" over the Republican efforts to quash the Reagan biopic, found themselves on the receiving end this time. There's a word I am looking for...what is it??...oh, yeah. Hypocrisy. Your side is swimming in it.