[Orion27]

I watched the series and I liked liked the Harvey Keitel character. Seems he wrote most of his lines
too. The Democrats are going to take a hit on this one. They are characterized as they are: indecisive and weak.

[Buckaroo]

Here are the scenes that Clinton does not want you to see.

View the ABC footage that Bill Clinton Does NOT want you to see

[ink]

What goes around comes around, it seems.



This is all sillyness.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by ink

What goes around comes around, it seems.



This is all sillyness.

Wait until tomorrow when the Clinton lawyers go after ABC amid veiled threats by Democrats in
congress lifting ABC's affiliates licenses. How silly is that?

[vmarks]

Don't forget: Congressional Democrats 'reminded' ABC that the FCC issues them their license.

Veiled threats of censorship by government officials is far worse than unelected GOP individuals protesting a biopic on Reagan. One is government encroaching on political free speech. The other is a resistant viewing audience.

[Spliffdaddy]

The FCC issues licenses to affiliate stations - not directly to ABC.

The Dems would have to pull *hundreds* of licenses.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Amazing. Simply amazing. The Democrats have so obviously painted themselves into such a corner with all their conspiracy lunacy and attempts to re-write the history of 9/11 and the WOT that pretends none of this even existed before Bush was in office, that they’ve got to run scared and try to sensor even a dramatization as benign as this one.

Truly a pathetic display. Once again, the Democrats and the left are their own worst enemy.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

Source?

U.S. invasion responsible deaths of over 250,000 civilians in Iraq

[King Bob On The Cob]

I for one am amazed at the flip flop the left has done over this film simply because it doesn't express the "Left friendly" views on September 11th...

Loose Change is still to be taken as bible word, even though the author said it was a work of fiction to start with, but this is not?

Common people, neither side is more innocent than the other in any sense of the word. Everyone screws up. Clinton did, Bush did (and is still, even if he's slowly attempting to fix some of his big screw ups). Our next president, be it Democratic, Republican (or *crosses fingers* a moderate) will screw up.

Polarization is keeping this country from moving forward, more so than any political agenda.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by red rocket

U.S. invasion responsible deaths of over 250,000 civilians in Iraq

100% propaganda.

[red rocket]

Yeah, sure.

The Lancet
John Hopkins University
Columbia University
Al-Mustansiriya University

All part of the propaganda machine.

[ink]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Don't forget: Congressional Democrats 'reminded' ABC that the FCC issues them their license.

I'm sure Showtime would love to pick it up.

[goMac]

ABC is airing on publically owned airspace, they are held accountable for what they broadcast. If they're broadcasting libel, they can be held accountable for that. This isn't a cable network we're talking about.

Myself, I watch the CBS documentary on the fire fighters of 9/11 last night. It was a much better way to honor the occasion than the trash that ABC aired. CBS at least stood up and honored the day like it should be honored.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by red rocket

Yeah, sure.

The Lancet
John Hopkins University
Columbia University
Al-Mustansiriya University

All part of the propaganda machine.

The Lancet numbers have been questioned. The Lancet editor Richard Horton refuses to comment on the study. He wrote an entirely misleading summary of the paper which referred to “100,000 civilian deaths” when the paper did not make this distinction.

It’s not wrong to question the 100,000 number when the study is based on such a tiny sample size (relative to the number of people concerned) that the margin of error is simply enormous.

It didn't help the Lancet any when Les Roberts, author of the study, started rattling on about US elections.

Columbia University houses radicals as professors. The late Edward Said, and now Rashid Khalidi.
The Said Chair was funded in part by the United Arab Emirates. So there's a radical political activist professor, paid in part by an Arab state, currently administering funds from the U.S. taxpayer, in part for the purpose of ‘outreach' to the public. In other words, a propaganda machine.

Al-Mustansiriya University is an Islamic college founded in the 12th century. I admit I have no knowledge of their original research in the matter. Are they just quoting the Lancet?

Les Roberts, the author of the study for the Lancet, is a regular lecturer at Johns (remember the 's') Hopkins. He also released the study just prior to the 2004 Presidential elections for maximum political impact. He also is a political activist, having run for Congress as a Democrat.

Is it really surprising that more people in Iraq have died since a war began than before a war began? If that is the fact on which the case against war rests, then the case was made before it ever began—there was no scenario in which fatalities in Iraq, over a two-year term, would have been lessened by the beginning of a war.

It is impossible to know what would have happened if it hadn’t been fought. Twenty months is not enough time to know either what the cost has been or whether the ultimate benefits (if any occur) will justify that cost. Historians and social scientists, of all people, need to be the ones saying “It’s too soon to tell.”

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac

ABC is airing on publically owned airspace, they are held accountable for what they broadcast. If they're broadcasting libel, they can be held accountable for that. This isn't a cable network we're talking about.

Myself, I watch the CBS documentary on the fire fighters of 9/11 last night. It was a much better way to honor the occasion than the trash that ABC aired. CBS at least stood up and honored the day like it should be honored.

Accountability is not a veiled threat to pull the license. Accountability is a lawsuit that allows the accuser to show the damage and show the false nature of the statements made against them.

Seriously. Revisit Hustler v. Falwell. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...w/hustler.html

What the Congressional Democrats did was an affront to free speech, flexing their governmental muscle.

[Sky Captain]

Those deaths are 99%+ from insurgents.

[itai195]

I'm not sure who comes out looking worst in this ugly mess. The Democrats for their affront to the 1st Amendment, the Republicans for their childish grandstanding, or ABC for turning the deaths of 3000 Americans into entertainment.

[Macrobat]

Funny, the History Channel aired "Targeted" on Sunday, in it were all eight opportunities the Clinton Administration threw away to either capture or kill OBL. No hue, no cry - and it was a straight documentary. complete with interviews from the actual people involved in the events.

[Busemann]

I'm not sure who comes out looking worst in this ugly mess. The Democrats for their affront to the 1st Amendment, the Republicans for their childish grandstanding, or ABC for turning the deaths of 3000 Americans into entertainment.

The writer of the movie is an unabashed conservative named Cyrus Nowrasteh. Last year, Nowrasteh spoke on a panel titled, “Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift.” He has described Michael Moore as “an out of control socialist weasel,” and conducted interviews with right-wing websites like FrontPageMag.

The problem isn’t that Nowrasteh is conservative. The problem is that Nowrasteh and ABC are representing “The Path to 9/11″ as an unbiased historical drama. Promos for the movie say it is “based on the 9/11 Commission Report.” Nowrasteh claims he “wanted to match the just-the-facts tone of the report,” and describes the project as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.”

Here’s some of the objectivity you can expect: Nowrasteh says the film shows how Clinton had “frequent opportunities…in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks — but lacked the will to do so.” He has referenced Clinton’s “lack of response” to Al Qaeda “and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests.” A review today in Salon.com says the film paints Clinton “as a buffoon more interested in blow jobs than terrorists.”

[itai195]

Yeah the whole situation is just ugly top to bottom

[zaghahzag]

our country is weak. we can't even take the destruction of two buildings without turning the world into a bombed out hulk. We have no moral authority anymore. our institutions of justice have deteriorated. our freedoms have been diminished in the fiction search for security.

to all the conservatives out here who want to hunt down and kill anyone who might be involved with this. Our country is scared of a few idiots with a crazy ideology. we're scared shitless. I'm ashamed to live in a country where the average person is scared of these pussies. There are 300 million of us. they can't really hurt us. they did their worst on 9/11 and we survived it. NYC rebounded within two months.

the USA is stronger than we give it credit for, and in being so afraid, we've diminished that strength. we're a sad bunch of losers. our enemies see us as weak because we feel weak.

[vmarks]

Zaghahzag, if we ignore terrorists who intend to do greater damage, then their attacks will only become more deadly.

That was their worst in 2001. If we paid no attention to them, what is to say their 2006 worst wouldn't have been much more deadly?

[zaghahzag]

who said to ignore them. i just said not to be afraid of them. we treat them like they are so powerful, and they're not.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Those deaths are 99%+ from insurgents.

If there are 250,000 insurgents in Iraq we have an entirely different problem.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Accountability is not a veiled threat to pull the license. Accountability is a lawsuit that allows the accuser to show the damage and show the false nature of the statements made against them.

Seriously. Revisit Hustler v. Falwell. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...w/hustler.html

What the Congressional Democrats did was an affront to free speech, flexing their governmental muscle.

And I'm sure if the Dems try to get the license pulled there will be a hearing and ABC can fully present their side of the argument.

Again, ABC is using public airwaves. This isn't cable. The government can pull them whenever they want. If ABC got in trouble over a nipple, they certainly should be in a lot worse trouble over this.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac

And I'm sure if the Dems try to get the license pulled there will be a hearing and ABC can fully present their side of the argument.

Again, ABC is using public airwaves. This isn't cable. The government can pull them whenever they want. If ABC got in trouble over a nipple, they certainly should be in a lot worse trouble over this.

Wow.

You want to punish political speech more than inappropriacy/obscenity?

Thanks for revealing where you fall on protected speech.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Wow.

You want to punish political speech more than inappropriacy/obscenity?

Thanks for revealing where you fall on protected speech.

It certainly is not political speech. It's about as much political speech as me putting a show on ABC about how George Bush believes black people can't swim.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac

It certainly is not political speech. It's about as much political speech as me putting a show on ABC about how George Bush believes black people can't swim.

Would you care to explain how it is "certainly not" political speech?

Would you care to explain how it is "certainly not" protected free speech?

[Monique]

Sorry but who cheated the electorate to become president his name Georgie Bushie.

So, he had memos telling him that there was an imminent attack and he ignored it. Just like when he was sitting in the classroom and was told a plane hit the World Trade Center and he did not know what to do.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Would you care to explain how it is "certainly not" political speech?

Would you care to explain how it is "certainly not" protected free speech?

Let me explain it to you this way. If this was about how a fictional president couldn't catch Osama, even if it was implied that this fictional president represented Clinton, I would not have a problem with this. However, they are using Bill Clinton's name, along with other people's actual names. This is what makes it different from a political statement. The movie, when it started using actual names, put itself in a position where it now must accurately represent the person. After all, this movie is passing itself off as fact.

Let me put it to you this way. If I wrote a movie about a candidate called Victor Marks, wrote about how he worshipped the devil and drank blood, and then called that movie a documentary and a political statement, do you think that movie should be allowed on public airwaves under the guise of a documentary? No. This is irresponsible. Political statements are opinion based on fact. This is opinion based on an alternate history that conservatives have wet dreams over, but never actually happened.

[besson3c]

So you media free speechers (or however you want to characterize this crowd), are you hip to the War of the Worlds broadcast?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by goMac

This is opinion based on an alternate history that conservatives have wet dreams over, but never actually happened.

Did you even watch the thing?

This is the funniest bit of hysterics I’ve ever seen liberals pull! The few direct references to Clinton were basically actual news footage of him- his own words. (Much of the stuff leftists love to pretend he never said or did). The rest was commonly known stuff (outside the lunatic leftist fringe that is) that was merely dramatized.

Everyone knows there were several bungled attempts to get Osama that the Clinton Admin presided over. Get over it. It’s history. You can’t sensor it, or have the kook Michael Moores of the world smokescreen all media outlets past it forever.

Most sane people don’t think along the silly leftwing mindset that seeks to blame Americans -whether Clinton or Bush- for 9/11 or the decade of terror attacks that led up to it. That’s what really has liberals so scared. You’ve invested so much time in blaming America that it’s all GOT to be either Clinton or Bush’s fault. So any look at pre-Jan. 2001 and it’s: “*GASP!* SENSOR IT! It’ll show Clinton in a bad light! Oh no! Circle the wagons! Get out the talking points denouncing it!”

Guess what? Most sane people blame ISLAMIC MILITANTS for the terrorism they committed! So even though we know Clinton ****ed up a few things, it doesn’t mean he’s responsible for the acts committed by terrorists. I know, I know, that’s not in the script of your ‘blame America first’ bullcrap, so let’s pretend there are no warts in the Clinton Administration and censor anything that touches on them.

The fact that libs are throwing such a hissy over this just illustrates how desperate the left’s history revision and lies have become, and how scared they are that these lies won’t pass scrutiny long enough for them to make their election hoop dreams come true. Bottom line.

Like the History Channel documentary that was far more in depth, nobody would hardly have noticed nor cared to place any political blame over a dramatization of the events leading up to 9/11 if the left hadn’t mounted such a “EEEK! We don’t want anyone to remember that the WOT didn’t all begin when Bush took over” scared-shitless campaign over it.

But by all means, keep up the running scared routine and supporting censorship of something you don’t even really know the content of. It’s really revealing, to say nothing of hilarious!

[itai195]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Everyone knows there were several bungled attempts to get Osama that the Clinton Admin presided over. Get over it. It’s history. You can’t sensor it, or have the kook Michael Moores of the world smokescreen all media outlets past it forever.

Most sane people don’t think along the silly leftwing mindset that seeks to blame Americans -whether Clinton or Bush- for 9/11 or the decade of terror attacks that led up to it. That’s what really has liberals so scared. You’ve invested so much time in blaming America that it’s all GOT to be either Clinton or Bush’s fault. So any look at pre-Jan. 2001 and it’s: “*GASP!* SENSOR IT! It’ll show Clinton in a bad light! Oh no! Circle the wagons! Get out the talking points denouncing it!”

Well, this is where ABC bungled things IMO. How could they not foresee that Clinton admin officials would object to a drama that portrays things they didn't say and actions they didn't do leading up to an event that cost the lives of 3000 Americans?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

This is the funniest bit of hysterics I’ve ever seen liberals pull! The few direct references to Clinton were basically actual news footage of him- his own words. (Much of the stuff leftists love to pretend he never said or did). The rest was commonly known stuff (outside the lunatic leftist fringe that is) that was merely dramatized.

Uh huh. Commonly known stuff. Like, common wet dream among the far right?

No. The stuff that was in the movie isn't fact, even though you'd like it to be.

The real footage was used to push a message that was false.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by itai195

Well, this is where ABC bungled things IMO. How could they not foresee that Clinton admin officials would object to a drama that portrays things they didn't say and actions they didn't do leading up to an event that cost the lives of 3000 Americans?

So what exactly didn't they say or do? Gives some actual specifics, not just parrot silly talking points. Go ahead, step up.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by goMac

Uh huh. Commonly known stuff. Like, common wet dream among the far right?

No. The stuff that was in the movie isn't fact, even though you'd like it to be.

The real footage was used to push a message that was false.

Again, your sheer desperation to insist this, based on something you didn't even see speaks volumes.

You’re in such a “circle the wagons and yell conspiracy” mode you still haven’t figured out there was literally nothing to circle them over! That’s what makes this whole thing even funnier!

All you have to do is show a partisan Democrat a rope and he'll panic and hang himself with it even when there was absolutely no need to!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Again, your sheer desperation to insist this, based on something you didn't even see speaks volumes.

You’re in such a “circle the wagons and yell conspiracy” mode you still haven’t figured out there was literally nothing to circle them over! That’s what makes this whole thing even funnier!

All you have to do is show a partisan Democrat a rope and he'll panic and hang himself with it even when there was absolutely no need to!

Fine. Tell me where in the 9/11 commission report it talks about the stuff that was in the movie.

If the movie is fact, please, by all means, prove it. C'mon. It's common knowledge, right?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac

Let me explain it to you this way. If this was about how a fictional president couldn't catch Osama, even if it was implied that this fictional president represented Clinton, I would not have a problem with this. However, they are using Bill Clinton's name, along with other people's actual names. This is what makes it different from a political statement. The movie, when it started using actual names, put itself in a position where it now must accurately represent the person. After all, this movie is passing itself off as fact.

Let me put it to you this way. If I wrote a movie about a candidate called Victor Marks, wrote about how he worshipped the devil and drank blood, and then called that movie a documentary and a political statement, do you think that movie should be allowed on public airwaves under the guise of a documentary? No. This is irresponsible. Political statements are opinion based on fact. This is opinion based on an alternate history that conservatives have wet dreams over, but never actually happened.

Not at all.

As a public figure, when I run for office, I open myself up to public criticism. When you publish something horribly false, it is political free speech and you can do that. It's protected from government censorship, however irresponsible you may be.

I can sue you for damages, and if it is false AND not a parody that a reasonable person would understand as unbelievable (see the Falwell parody that Hustler published) then I would win. If, however, you publish a parody that every reasonable person would understand as a parody, then I lose. Parody is also protected free speech.

But you aren't kept from publishing it. Maybe you shouldn't. Maybe if you don't want to lose big at court, you wouldn't do such a thing. But in no way can the Congress prevent the publishing of such a thing. The courts can bar you from it after you've been found guilty of libel or slander. And that's my point: that Congressional Democrats making threats about the FCC licensing because they don't like the content is an affront to protected free speech.

ABC has lawyers who vett programs and allow only what they think will not get them sued. They don't like losing, so they fact check and libel check what they broadcast.

This is the thing about freedom: even if you don't like the speech, the government cannot prevent it. People don't have to listen to it. They don't have to pay for it. (ABC pays for their FCC license, not your taxes.) But ABC gets to say it. Which is why I'm fine with you protesting ABC, but absolutely not fine with Congressional Democrats using their government power to make their displeasure known. There's a huge difference between the two.

[Spliffdaddy]

As wacko as the liberals are *now* - imagine what's gonna happen when the Dems lose in '08.

After 60 years of being in power they believe they have (as Rush says) an entitlement to that power. Democrats are totally at a loss as to how they are supposed to get it back. I can say this much - it ain't the way they're currently doing it.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by besson3c

So you media free speechers (or however you want to characterize this crowd), are you hip to the War of the Worlds broadcast?

What was wrong with Orson Welles' Halloween broadcast? Nothing that I know of. He broke no laws, and was not responsible for people reacting badly to it. He told a story, he didn't incite people to kill themselves or panic.

What is wrong with broadcasting this production? No laws have been broken by doing so. Complain as much as you please, it's your right as much as it is ABC's to broadcast.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

So what exactly didn't they say or do? Gives some actual specifics, not just parrot silly talking points. Go ahead, step up.

Well, for one example.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by itai195

Well, for one example.

LOL!
Again, I have to laugh because clearly Albright hadn't seen the show either!

She says, "The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory"... but states previously that "It is my understanding that the notification to Pakistan was delievered once the missiles were already in the air".

These were cruise missiles fired from hundreds of miles away and they take hours to reach their targets. That the Pakistanis were informed when they were "in the air" is exactly the point made in the movie- it was plenty of time for those sympathetic to bin Laden in the Pakistani govt. to warn him. Had she actually seen the movie, not just circled the wagon on command, she'd know that they make this very point in the film and that it's not really in dispute.

Like I said, just show a partisan Democrat a rope...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by vmarks

What was wrong with Orson Welles' Halloween broadcast? Nothing that I know of. He broke no laws, and was not responsible for people reacting badly to it. He told a story, he didn't incite people to kill themselves or panic.

What is wrong with broadcasting this production? No laws have been broken by doing so. Complain as much as you please, it's your right as much as it is ABC's to broadcast.

My understanding was Welles presented WOTW as a news report, as in, "this is happening right now". Never mind that it was a story that had already been the public consciousness for 40 years, nor was it the first time WOTW had ever been dramatized on radio. It was deemed irresponsible for being presented as news with no disclaimer.

The Path to 9/11 has nothing what-so-ever to do with Welles' broadcast; it was clearly a dramatization, was labled as such, and clearly wasn't being presented as "ABC Nightly News" IE: these events are happening RIGHT NOW.

[GSixZero]

Check out this post... a right winger clears up some of the factual inaccuracies in the ABC miniseries.

defective yeti: Factual Inaccuracies In The Path To 9/11

[Spliffdaddy]

[itai195]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

LOL!
Again, I have to laugh because clearly Albright hadn't seen the show either!

She says, "The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory"... but states previously that "It is my understanding that the notification to Pakistan was delievered once the missiles were already in the air".

These were cruise missiles fired from hundreds of miles away and they take hours to reach their targets. That the Pakistanis were informed when they were "in the air" is exactly the point made in the movie- it was plenty of time for those sympathetic to bin Laden in the Pakistani govt. to warn him. Had she actually seen the movie, not just circled the wagon on command, she'd know that they make this very point in the film and that it's not really in dispute.

Like I said, just show a partisan Democrat a rope...

I dunno why I should bother responding to this, since you didn't respond to what Albright's criticisms were at all. You're focusing on the logic of notifying Pakistan, but that's not what she wrote about. Not to mention the version of the movie you saw has been heavily edited over the last several days.

Also, it's a bit misleading to say that Tomahawk cruise missiles take 'hours to reach their targets.' They fly 550 MPH with a maximum range of 1000 miles, which means 1hr 50min maximum if the targets were at max range and Pakistan was notified immediately.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by red rocket

U.S. invasion responsible deaths of over 250,000 civilians in Iraq

Apparently someone skipped statistics class.

The numbers have been called into question because they are orders of magnitude higher than anyone else's guess. Espescially with their interpretation of how to use confidence intervals

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by medicineman

Your history of Italy differs from mine. Before 1860, Italy was still composed of city-states and/or autonomous regions. In 1861, Garibaldi organized an invasion of Naples and Sicily to unify the country. It then became a kingdom under Vittorio Emanuele II. The country still remained in chaos, as the southern population opposed the new kingdom. (Rome and Venice were still under the control of the Papacy and Austria, respectively) From 1870 to 1922, Italy was a constitutional monarchy, with limited suffrage electing a weak parliament. Universal male suffrage wasn't instituted till 1913, with the Socialist Party becoming the dominating force in national politics. This was interrupted by WWI, with Italy fighting on the side of the France and the UK. War's end brought about a fascist movement with Mussolini at it's head. You know that Mussolini allied himself with the German Reich, and it wasn't until war's end, 1945, that the country was liberated.

All that being said, I don't understand your claim of Italy having 'some measure of democracy' before WWII. The titular monarchy wasn't abolish until 1946, when a democratic republic was formed.

Your understanding leaves a lot to be desired. I recommend you take time to read further about this subject.

V

[olePigeon]

It's no better than Fahrenheit 9/11. Conservatives like Spliffdaddy eat it up like many liberals did with Moore. They're filled with half-truths and sidestepping. It's enough to get half the people to support it, and enough to get the other half to argue about it.

It's a movie rendition of a political radio talk show.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

As wacko as the liberals are *now* - imagine what's gonna happen when the Dems lose in '08.

I'll buy books for $3.99 CAN, $4.99 US.