ABC and 9/11 Mini-Series... Part II (Dems Threaten ABC Over Airing of MiniSeries)

[portisizzle]

it aired on Showtime. People didn't mistake that as fact, and a lot less people saw it.

p.s.- it sucked.

I did not ask were it was shown. So long as the fact that it was shown is not lost in this conversation.

p.s. - it probably did. And this movie will probably suck as well. Sad the Democrats decided to make such a stink about it. Now more people will see this than ABC ever thought possible. Ratings game and do not think for one minute that ABC is not licking their chops with this type of coverage.

[portisizzle]

Yup, and i doubt this will get canceled so people need to calm down.

I am calm. It is the Democrats having a seizure over the movie. Right?

[Burgold]

If we're being honest, he was not the first and will not be the last to have an affair while in the oval office. He also is not the first politician to lie to the American people or the first politician to lie under oath.

I rarely see people label other Presidents this way. When was the last time you read John "The Pimp" Kennedy? Or dispariage Eisenhower because of his affair, etc. I'm not saying that you can't call him a poor President. You can and should if you feel that way, but cheap insulting, shorthand nicknames are unworthy. I feel the same way when people take pot shots at Bush about his intelligence.

History may castigate Clinton for the affair or it may portray it as a huge eight year never ending witch hunt. It may also list it as a sidenote and not deal with it hardly at all. In any case, speaking respectfully should not be out of bounds.

[chomerics]

BJ CLinton was as disgraceful a President as we have EVER had hold the office. And that is being VERRRYYYY subjective.

Hmmm, getting a blow job, or lying about a threat in order to send our troops into a war which was not needed. Then, single handedly labeling anyone who had an opposing view as a traitor and a terrorist sympathiser, while ignoring the constitution both home and abroad. Taking a $6trillion surplus, turning it into a $8 trillion dollar deficit, watching an American city die while playing the guitar at a fund rauiser, reading a book for 7 minutes to a classromm of 8 year olds after finding out we are under attack. Never finding the man who attacked us, and then attacking the wrong person. Alienating traditional allies, and isolating America instead of the terrorists. Turning a country into a civil war after supposedly "freeing them" etc etc etc. . .

Yea, getting a BJ is SOOOOO much worse, how could I not have seen the obvious mistake

[@DCGoldPants]

This needs a merge with the other thread now.

[portisizzle]

If we're being honest, he was not the first and will not be the last to have an affair while in the oval office. He also is not the first politician to lie to the American people or the first politician to lie under oath.

I rarely see people label other Presidents this way. When was the last time you read John "The Pimp" Kennedy? Or dispariage Eisenhower because of his affair, etc. I'm not saying that you can't call him a poor President. You can and should if you feel that way, but cheap insulting, shorthand nicknames are unworthy. I feel the same way when people take pot shots at Bush about his intelligence.

History may castigate Clinton for the affair or it may portray it as a huge eight year never ending witch hunt. It may also list it as a sidenote and not deal with it hardly at all. In any case, speaking respectfully should not be out of bounds.

People go to jail everyday for lieing under oath. If what you are saying is that other Presidents have lied under oath present the evidence.

[portisizzle]

Hmmm, getting a blow job, :

Lying under oath. Get it right.

[Burgold]

Lying under oath. Get it right.

"Hmmm, getting a blow job, or lying about a threat in order to send our troops into a war which was not needed. Then, single handedly labeling anyone who had an opposing view as a traitor and a terrorist sympathiser, while ignoring the constitution both home and abroad. Taking a $6trillion surplus, turning it into a $8 trillion dollar deficit, watching an American city die while playing the guitar at a fund rauiser, reading a book for 7 minutes to a classromm of 8 year olds after finding out we are under attack. Never finding the man who attacked us, and then attacking the wrong person. Alienating traditional allies, and isolating America instead of the terrorists. Turning a country into a civil war after supposedly "freeing them" etc etc etc. . ."

Yup, lying under oath about a blow job is so much worse than all of the above. The two are linked. There are many believe that the question was irrelevant to his job as President and should never have been asked. Several Presidents have had affairs while in office.

"People go to jail everyday for lieing under oath. If what you are saying is that other Presidents have lied under oath present the evidence."

Way to miss the point. I'll bet if we walked through every transcript of every president and every quote he said while under oath we would find some discreprencies that history has proven to be lies. The point, by the way, is that the office of the Presidency deserves some respect.

[portisizzle]

The point, by the way, is that the office of the Presidency deserves some respect.

I got the point. Tell me then how Clinton showed respected the office via the Lewisnski ordeal?

My opinion is that Clinton disgraced the office not only with his actions but also in his total disregard for American jurisprudence by lying under oath. Clinton is a man to be made example of. Not a man to be respected.

BTW, you got any examples of Presidents lying under oath yet?

[Burgold]

It's simple. One event does not encompass an entire Presidency. He will probably be more remembered for the affair than for standing up to Congress and shutting down the government rather than sign what he believed was a bad budget. He'll probably be more remembered for that than standing up to the Congress and Europe and demanding that a genocide be stopped. He'll probably be more remembered for that than the good economy or the can-do entrepenurial atmosphere that was prominent during his time or reversing the dreadful Bush economy and defecits he was handed. Speaking of whom, President George H. Bush makes great strides to speak respectfully of President Clinton and has even befriended and joined him in several causes. I think that states my case pretty strongly. Presidents and ex-presidents shouldn't be treated with casual derission.

[Air Force Cane]

what ever happened to the liberals complaints against "censorship", the "chilling effect on disssent", and "abridging First Amendment rights"?

I guess those deeply held beliefs only apply when liberals want them to apply.

[portisizzle]

It's simple. One event does not encompass an entire Presidency. He will probably be more remembered for the affair than for standing up to Congress and shutting down the government rather than sign what he believed was a bad budget. He'll probably be more remembered for that than standing up to the Congress and Europe and demanding that a genocide be stopped. He'll probably be more remembered for that than the good economy or the can-do entrepenurial atmosphere that was prominent during his time or reversing the dreadful Bush economy and defecits he was handed. Speaking of whom, President George H. Bush makes great strides to speak respectfully of President Clinton and has even befriended and joined him in several causes. I think that states my case pretty strongly. Presidents and ex-presidents shouldn't be treated with casual derission.

If one event encompassed and entire Presidency for Clinton is would be Monica Lewinski. All the things you posted above would be actions that each and every President since the beginning of our Union has had to deal with. Clinton is not special in this regard.

If in twenty years people are asked to name something special that happened within each presidency assuredly Clinton would be tied to Monica.

[Burgold]

What you are hearing is dissent. :laugh: Dissent about the lies in the Mini-Series. So, liberals are consistent. They're consistently complaining.

Where I stand on this is simple. I believe viewpoints have a right to be expressed. As a Jew, I have even argued that NeoNazis have the right to assemble and spew their garbage. Simultaneously, I do think that truth matters. And when fiction is presented as truth or rather when agenda driven propaganda is presented as truth warning flares do go off. I don't know if that is the case in this case. I think they should be able to air it. However, I also think that an effort to tell the truth or correct the errors in it should be made.

[Burgold]

If in twenty years people are asked to name something special that happened within each presidency assuredly Clinton would be tied to Monica.

Presidents and their reputations are reinvented or rediscovered all the time. Look at Truman. He is now looked at as a good President while in his own era he was looked at a poor one. Look at Nixon. Thirty years later, Watergate still defines him, but no one calls him Richard "The Crook" Nixon or Richard "The Liar" Nixon. In fact, people speak with respect about Nixon these days, even if they speak disrepectfully about some of his actions.

I don't know that every President sent troops to a foreign nation to end a genocide despite the dissent of Congress. The Republican led Congress didn't want Clinton to go into Serbia/Bosnia. They didn't want him to keep going after Bin Laden (remember them screaming Wag the Dog! Wag the Dog! Osama's a nice guy, he's just doing this to distract from Monica) The Republican led Congress was angry that pork and over-spending was being limited (Clearly, with Clinton's restraint gone they began spending like the most liberal democrat never imagined. See the last six years.) etc.

Lastly, I'll repeat what I said in my previous post. If Presidents George W Bush and President George H Bush can treat Bill Clinton with respect and work with him when it comes to crisises, then why can't you see that he should be treated with respect at least as someone who held the office of Presiden of the United States.

[Air Force Cane]

too funny! whatever a lib says, you can count on him changing his tune a few years down the road once the situation benefits him..

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/000364.php

"No, there are no First Amendment violations here. The RNC protested the content of a program, which is its right, and CBS voluntarily pulled that program off the air, which is its right.

"But the decision makes it very easy to imagine a future where representatives for the Bush administration have the power to disapprove of any content that touches politics, policy, or history — including news programs."

So what is the DNC saying? That the unfettered exercise of our rights will lead us to a dictatorship? Apparently the only way for America to remain a free society is if a certain segment of the population agrees to remain voiceless. Alternately, we can only remain free if broadcasters are not allowed to control the content of their broadcasts, but must air all material produced (by the politically correct people, of course). Or maybe the DNC suggests that dissent can only be exercised by people in Hollywood, San Francisco, or New York. Nothing that has happened in this tempest in a teacup is scarier than the DNC's statement. This isn't a fringe group, for crying out loud, these people want to run our government! Either they're about to drive off a cliff in the next year, or centrist Democrats need to stage a palace coup and eject Terry McAuliffe. They have become delusional in their bitterness." :applause:

[Lead Blocker]

Whether you are a democrat or a republican you have to admit one thing.

The attack that happened on American soil is too important for any group to use for personal gain. On that September day we were all Americans and not divided by any category, just Americans. Man, that was a good feeling.

Since then, the desire to be absolved from any responsibility of that day by political leaders has shredded that unity and reduced average citizens, like ourselves, who had no say in the actions that may have prevented the attacks to pick sides and defend them. This defending sides really distracts us from finding out as many facts about the events that led up to that day as possible, leaving us to argue half-truths and rumors.

While not complete, the 9/11 commissions report is the closest thing to the facts that we have and it serves as the basis for what happened that day and what we could do to prevent this from happening again. For anyone to mislead Americans by claiming they are basing a piece on this report, but altering it so one group can avoid accountability is just foul. But what’s more disgusting is the intent to portray this TV program as an academic program complete with study guides.

This is a well organized and high priced election year version of finger pointing that could influence the thinking of generations of Americans if it is indeed taught in schools. What’s disturbing is somebody expected to profit from it, otherwise they would not have invested $40 million dollars to produce it.

I think our priorities are just mixed up. Apparently, no one wants to admit that a person affiliated with their political party could have done more to protect us. Its not a reflection on us, it’s a reflection on them as a leader. That ® and (D) really gets in the way sometimes.

[Air Force Cane]

that is a good post. but I am not sure where your logic leads.

the 9/11 Commission Report DOES note that Burger and Albright and Clinton had NUMEROUS opportunities to deal with Bin-Laden. To even kill him if they had wanted to.

How is that political?

It is the truth. The liberals can try and fight it to preserve Clinton's "Lewinsky Legacy" and Hillary's ability to win in 08- but the truth is the truth.

[Destino]

Did people even bother to read the article?

Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

This is educational material?! If this **** makes it into school then Michael Moore's movies should as well. It's a mockumentary just like Moore puts out.

[Destino]

It's nice to know they cared so much about 9/11 that they tried to get Michael Moore's movie pulled.

I can't believe this crap... "Your television programming, which will be marked as 'some scenes dramatized' doesn't portray us in a good light... so please pull it."

You are being dishonest.

- It's not up to democrats to defend republicans. You and I both know how the system works so you point about them not demanding Moore's work be pulled is absurd.

- Moore's work never claimed to be based off a report (when as your article shows seems to be a lie) nor was it marketed to schools as a learning tool. Moore is a liar, there is no doubt about it, but no one tried to push his product as unbiased educational material. Had it been is there any doubt Republicans would have had a problem with it? No.

- Your statement "some scenes dramatized' doesn't portray us in a good light" isn't in line with the article you posted so I assume you are being intentionally dishonest. The article you posted CLEARLY shows that the "facts" are in question and that it's not merely an issue of portayal. Do you have a problem with someone questioning the validity of material claiming to be true? The GOP certainly did the same thing when Moore's movies were released.

[portisizzle]

Presidents and their reputations are reinvented or rediscovered all the time. Look at Truman. He is now looked at as a good President while in his own era he was looked at a poor one. Look at Nixon. Thirty years later, Watergate still defines him, but no one calls him Richard "The Crook" Nixon or Richard "The Liar" Nixon. In fact, people speak with respect about Nixon these days, even if they speak disrepectfully about some of his actions.

I don't know that every President sent troops to a foreign nation to end a genocide despite the dissent of Congress. The Republican led Congress didn't want Clinton to go into Serbia/Bosnia. They didn't want him to keep going after Bin Laden (remember them screaming Wag the Dog! Wag the Dog! Osama's a nice guy, he's just doing this to distract from Monica) The Republican led Congress was angry that pork and over-spending was being limited (Clearly, with Clinton's restraint gone they began spending like the most liberal democrat never imagined. See the last six years.) etc.

Lastly, I'll repeat what I said in my previous post. If Presidents George W Bush and President George H Bush can treat Bill Clinton with respect and work with him when it comes to crisises, then why can't you see that he should be treated with respect at least as someone who held the office of Presiden of the United States.

1) The first thing that came to my mind when you wrote "Nixon" was "Watergate". Am I wrong for thinking this way?

2) It has been an established tradition that Presidents do not criticize past or present Presidents. It does not suprise me that Bush has held to this tradition. However you would be wrong to say that Clinton OR Carter have held their tongue over the past six years.

3) Prove to me that the Republicans wanted Clinton to not go after Osama because of Wag the Dog. (You still have not brought any proof that other Presidents have lied under oath. Having a hard time finding somone other than Clinton lied under oath?)

[chomerics]

2) It has been an established tradition that Presidents do not criticize past or present Presidents. It does not suprise me that Bush has held to this tradition. However you would be wrong to say that Clinton OR Carter have held their tongue over the past six years.

Really? Show me where Clinton lambasted Bush 1 or Bush 2.

3) Prove to me that the Republicans wanted Clinton to not go after Osama because of Wag the Dog.

How about these quotes. . .

"Look at the movie 'Wag the Dog.' I think this has all the elements of that movie," Rep. Jim Gibbons said. "Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/21/wag.the.dog/

How about Cohen comments, the Sec of Def. who was a Republican before being appointed. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/

How about some of these cartoons. . .

How about some more commentary from your side. . .

how about this article from Salon?

When Clinton really had to look "presidential" for a day, he simply launched cruise missiles against a sort of Arab version of Ken Starr.

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/23news.html

From good old AIM. . .

Osama bin Laden’s camp in Afghanistan consisted of shacks and tents, hardly a fit target for a missile that costs nearly a million dollars per copy. These targets were chosen and approved by a very few people who had limited or incorrect information. The missiles were launched more to divert the attention of the public in the U.S. from the Clinton sex scandal than to seriously hurt possible terrorists.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3341_0_2_0_C/

Do you want me to stop, or are you still not convinced?

[Midnight Judges]

Allright... I don't want this to become a bashing thread...

So...

1) Is this a reasonable response? If not, what is?

2) If ABC corrects a little bit, would it be okay?

3) If you are a Democrat, are you happy about the hot air spent on this mini-series?

Bonus Question:

I'm a Christian who thinks the Patriot Act is good, we shouldn't give mass citizenship to illegal immigrants, taxes are too high, and not too happy with an out of control judicial branch that legislates from the bench. I'd be happy if Roe v. Wade was overturned, but it's not high on my priorities. I don't much care for the homosexual agenda because I believe teaching it would be like teaching kids it is okay to steal.

Is there any way those beliefs can be reconciled to Democrats or am I too far off for their party? I vote Republican because I don't believe Democrat values square with mine, and I don't even feel like they reach out to me...

1. Yes, the term "docu-drama" is an oxymoron. This mini-series is based on pure falsehoods, conversations that never took place under circumstances for which there is zero evidence.

2. Yes, they need to be as accurate as possible for the sake of all the uninformed people who will be getting their information from a "docu-drama."

3. Not really happy about Dems making a stink but what else can they do right now? They have zero power in Government and none of their legislation can even make it out of committe because Republicans dominate every committee.

Bonus question: No the Dems don't represent you nor should they try to because you are wrong on every issue you listed. If they did pander to you, they would no longer represent me. You belong in the Christian right party.

[Air Force Cane]

Chom- why do you make it so easy to destroy your arguments? :laugh:

"clinton never attacked Bush"... Oh really?

http://isfullofcrap.com/oldcrap/2005/09/clinton_attacks.html

Clinton attacks Bush (no, GEORGE Bush)

Bill attacks Bush. Let's look closer:..

Former US president

Bill Clinton sharply criticized George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina

, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.

Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors

,

Actually, former President Carter has regularly savaged Bush from Day One.

Oh, you mean immediate sucessor? Well, there's also plenty of examples of Carter attacking Reagan's foreign policy, too. In fact, that was what the Carter Center was founded for.

Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."

Virtually alone? Clinton probably shouldn't make any trips to the United Kingdom, Australia, Spain (who only left after the invasion), Bulgaria…

Tony Blair and John Howard should not let Clinton's words stand without rebuttal.

The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism "and undermined the support that we might have had," Bush said in an interview with an ABC's "This Week" programme. Clinton said there had been a "heroic but so far unsuccessful" effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.The US strategy of trying to develop the Iraqi military and police so that they can cope without US support "I think is the best strategy. The problem is we may not have, in the short run, enough troops to do that," said Clinton.

Military cuts that happened under which presidency again?

On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities' failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm's strike on August 29. People with cars were able to heed the evacuation order, but many of those who were poor, disabled or elderly were left behind."If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out," Clinton.

Ray Nagin's Memorial Motor Pool, and the conflicts between local and state officials that resulted in a compounded disaster handed to FEMA.

On the US budget, Clinton warned that the federal deficit may be coming untenable, driven by foreign wars, the post-hurricane recovery programme and tax cuts that benefitted just the richest one percent of the US population, himself included. "What Americans need to understand is that ... every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts," he said."We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."

So he's saying that Kosovo and Somalia were both funded straight out of his own pocket. right..

[Sarge]

Man, from all the squealing from Dems and leftists, ABC must really be on to something. The fact that clinton new zip about national security and his loathing for the military has come home to roost

[Midnight Judges]

Sarge, your panties seem to be in even more of a bundle than usual. I guess you're just frustrated that after 5 years of dominating the entire Government, your Republican party has done squat about the border, expanded the federal government by hundreds of thousands of jobs (not just military), started a war based on falsehoods and now it's all going up in flames. Opportunity squandered.

George W. Bush is worse than Jimmy Carter and he will ruin your entire party with his incompetence for the next 20 years. So yeah, I'd be a little ticked if I were you too. Say bye bye to all the influence fringe wackjob Republicans have, ain't gonna happen again for a loooooong time.