[quote]doogie wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
If Richard Clark is a liar then you are correct.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006246.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006778.php
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/richard-clarke/
http://theartoftheblog.blogspot.com/2004/04/clarke-lied-and-lying-liar-who-lied.html[/quote]
Linking those sites is no different than a left wingnut linking the Daily Kos blog.
[quote]doogie wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
In addition, if I remember correctly, F911 was only shown on the premium cable stations (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax etc.) and not basic cable. This means that consumers had to pay additional fees for them. This does limit the exposure to the population.
It’s constantly on my basic cable (Direct TV) on the Independent Film Channel (IFC). That channel comes with the minimum package I can buy to get ESPN. [/quote]
See, I didn’t know that. Thanks for letting me know. However, my point that you have to pay for it still stands. It is not available through free (Network) TV.
Personally, I could care less about the docudrama, but it makes for interesting talk about the hoopla around it.
Let me summarize the reasons why I care (all of which have been already mentioned, but I’d like to put it in a format that even the village idiot can understand), in no particular order:
An equally half-made-up docudrama about the life or Ronald and Nancy Reagan was in fact pushed to Premium Cable TV under the pressure of the GOP, hence at a bare minimum this docudrama should suffer the same fate
Playing with the facts – or, better yet, adding in non-facts – around such a traumatic event like 9/11 is of very bad taste, something that is usually reserved for fringe groups, not for a household name like Disney
Showing a Disney-sponsored docudrama in primetime network TV, advertised as the gospel according to the 9/11 commission, is dramatically different from showing an independent movie shot by a self-proclaimed raving leftist in some obscure cable channel nobody knows it even exists; comparing the two is like comparing the Superbowl to a San Jose Earthquakes soccer game.
Do y’all get it now, or do I need to explain it again with smaller words?
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
In addition, if I remember correctly, F911 was only shown on the premium cable stations (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax etc.) and not basic cable. This means that consumers had to pay additional fees for them. This does limit the exposure to the population.
It’s constantly on my basic cable (Direct TV) on the Independent Film Channel (IFC). That channel comes with the minimum package I can buy to get ESPN.
See, I didn’t know that. Thanks for letting me know. However, my point that you have to pay for it still stands. It is not available through free (Network) TV.
Personally, I could care less about the docudrama, but it makes for interesting talk about the hoopla around it.[/quote]
That’s essentially the rational for allowing government regulation of broadcast content, which would otherwise be disallowed under the 1st Amendment – in my opinion it’s flawed, but I understand the position.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Let me summarize the reasons why I care (all of which have been already mentioned, but I’d like to put it in a format that even the village idiot can understand), in no particular order:
Hence not incorrect as a matter of principle, just an eye for an eye?
[quote]hspder wrote:
2. Playing with the facts – or, better yet, adding in non-facts – around such a traumatic event like 9/11 is of very bad taste, something that is usually reserved for fringe groups, not for a household name like Disney.[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]hspder wrote:
3. Showing a Disney-sponsored docudrama in primetime network TV, advertised as the gospel according to the 9/11 commission, is dramatically different from showing an independent movie shot by a self-proclaimed raving leftist in some obscure cable channel nobody knows it even exists; comparing the two is like comparing the Superbowl to a San Jose Earthquakes soccer game.[/quote]
I thought if any corporation sponsored anything it was automatically suspect? At least according to some people at any rate (not hspder in particular – just making a general observation)…
Anyway, my only problem with something like this is if it’s served up as fact when it obviously has a heavy dose of opinion - particularly if they aren’t even trying to give an even-handed, balanced presentation. I don’t know if they are or if they aren’t – haven’t seen it. Though I don’t like “docu-dramas” as a general rule.
F911 was advertised as truth, and proclaimed as such by a lot of media sources – it obviously wasn’t, but I had the same precise problem with its media blitz. I’m sure you aren’t taking the position that the advertising for this Disney-backed docu-drama, or the attention paid it in the general media, even comes close to the level of attention received by F911? Which kind of goes against the SuperBowl v. San Jose Earthquakes idea.
Essentially, my position is that they have the right to broadcast it, and consumers have a right to not watch, threaten to boycott sponsors, or whatever floats their boats. If they are being responsible, though, they should not advertise it as an embodiment of facts if its opinion.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
The DNC screaming to censor this movie should be sending red flags up all over the place. Why dont they officially merge with the American Communist Party and get it over with?
I dont think any of us are exactly sure what this movie shows, but lets be honest about a few things.
First, nobody took the Islamic terrorist threat serious until 9-11. Not Carter, not Reagan, not Bush I, not Clinton and not Bush II. That is just the fact of the matter. Im really not in love with any politicians at this point, but let’s deal with Clinton’s administration since that is the one really being examined here(at least from what I have read).
Albright is perhaps the biggest disgrace to American foreign policy in our history. 90% of the people I talk to on the street have a clearer vision of how America should defend its interests than she does. Ditto for Janet Reno. I dont need to rehash all of the particular incidents here, but from start to finish, their policy and subsequent decisions were a disaster.
As far as Sandy Burger, he should be in a federal prison, looking at parole around 2015 or so. Not even worth mentioning again.
With this cast of characters, is it any wonder Clinton made so many absurd decisions in terms of American security?
For once, I would like to hear a politician say that in retrospect, he screwed up. I would immediately have so much more respect for Clinton if he did that. To be fair, the other presidents should have done the same, but the two party system just does not allow for anyone to take blame.
[/quote]
Good post.
The democrats strong reaction to this movie violates one of the lefts tennants:…freedom of speech. Their hypocrisy and self serving tactics know no bounds.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Let me summarize the reasons why I care (all of which have been already mentioned, but I’d like to put it in a format that even the village idiot can understand), in no particular order:
An equally half-made-up docudrama about the life or Ronald and Nancy Reagan was in fact pushed to Premium Cable TV under the pressure of the GOP, hence at a bare minimum this docudrama should suffer the same fate
Playing with the facts – or, better yet, adding in non-facts – around such a traumatic event like 9/11 is of very bad taste, something that is usually reserved for fringe groups, not for a household name like Disney
Showing a Disney-sponsored docudrama in primetime network TV, advertised as the gospel according to the 9/11 commission, is dramatically different from showing an independent movie shot by a self-proclaimed raving leftist in some obscure cable channel nobody knows it even exists; comparing the two is like comparing the Superbowl to a San Jose Earthquakes soccer game.
Do y’all get it now, or do I need to explain it again with smaller words?
[/quote]
Crstal clear. The Reagan show should not have been moved from prime time. But since it was anything that is critical of Clinton should suffer the same fate.
What exactly did the Clinton admisnistration do to stop OBL? Why is discussing this taboo?
The program is apparently just as critical of the Bush administration althought the time frame is 8 months vs. 8 yrs. Should they edit those scenes as well or just the ones critical of Clinton?
[quote]hedo wrote:
hspder wrote:
Let me summarize the reasons why I care (all of which have been already mentioned, but I’d like to put it in a format that even the village idiot can understand), in no particular order:
An equally half-made-up docudrama about the life or Ronald and Nancy Reagan was in fact pushed to Premium Cable TV under the pressure of the GOP, hence at a bare minimum this docudrama should suffer the same fate
Playing with the facts – or, better yet, adding in non-facts – around such a traumatic event like 9/11 is of very bad taste, something that is usually reserved for fringe groups, not for a household name like Disney
Showing a Disney-sponsored docudrama in primetime network TV, advertised as the gospel according to the 9/11 commission, is dramatically different from showing an independent movie shot by a self-proclaimed raving leftist in some obscure cable channel nobody knows it even exists; comparing the two is like comparing the Superbowl to a San Jose Earthquakes soccer game.
Do y’all get it now, or do I need to explain it again with smaller words?
Crstal clear. The Reagan show should not have been moved from prime time. But since it was anything that is critical of Clinton should suffer the same fate.
What exactly did the Clinton admisnistration do to stop OBL? Why is discussing this taboo?
The program is apparently just as critical of the Bush administration althought the time frame is 8 months vs. 8 yrs. Should they edit those scenes as well or just the ones critical of Clinton?
[/quote]
Read the 9/ll report.
More importantly what did Clinton do vs. what did Republican want to do while Clinton was in office. Tagging explosives was too contraversial for them. Multi-point wire taps (with warrants) were too much. Military strikes were wag the dog.
How many of the anti-terror bill’s acts did they water-down? After WTC, atlanta, OK bombing what did Republicans do? Nothing, or worse actually blocking measures to protect us. When the baton was passed, Sandy told Condi your number one priority will be terrorism. Of course that was changed to missle-defense(huh?). When informed of the millenium bombings Clinton “shook the trees”, When informed of 9/11(more accurate the PDB:bin laden determined to strike) Bush “cut the brush”.
And even post 9/11 republicans still don’t get terrorism–see Iraq, see terror prosecution (0),see domestic protection (the ports, the chemical facilities, etc.) It’s been dismal.
[quote]100meters wrote:
…
And even post 9/11 republicans still don’t get terrorism–see Iraq, see terror prosecution (0),see domestic protection (the ports, the chemical facilities, etc.) It’s been dismal.[/quote]
You are the one that does not get it. It is apparent in any of your posts.
In order to fight terrorism on our side of the pond you have to infringeon civil rights. You have stood against that.
In order to fight it at its source you have to use the military, the CIA and other tough tactics. You have stood against that.
In your own words you think it is a law enforcement issue. Let’s wait until they attack us and arrest them!
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
hspder wrote:
Let me summarize the reasons why I care (all of which have been already mentioned, but I’d like to put it in a format that even the village idiot can understand), in no particular order:
An equally half-made-up docudrama about the life or Ronald and Nancy Reagan was in fact pushed to Premium Cable TV under the pressure of the GOP, hence at a bare minimum this docudrama should suffer the same fate
Playing with the facts – or, better yet, adding in non-facts – around such a traumatic event like 9/11 is of very bad taste, something that is usually reserved for fringe groups, not for a household name like Disney
Showing a Disney-sponsored docudrama in primetime network TV, advertised as the gospel according to the 9/11 commission, is dramatically different from showing an independent movie shot by a self-proclaimed raving leftist in some obscure cable channel nobody knows it even exists; comparing the two is like comparing the Superbowl to a San Jose Earthquakes soccer game.
Do y’all get it now, or do I need to explain it again with smaller words?
Crstal clear. The Reagan show should not have been moved from prime time. But since it was anything that is critical of Clinton should suffer the same fate.
What exactly did the Clinton admisnistration do to stop OBL? Why is discussing this taboo?
The program is apparently just as critical of the Bush administration althought the time frame is 8 months vs. 8 yrs. Should they edit those scenes as well or just the ones critical of Clinton?
Read the 9/ll report.
More importantly what did Clinton do vs. what did Republican want to do while Clinton was in office. Tagging explosives was too contraversial for them. Multi-point wire taps (with warrants) were too much. Military strikes were wag the dog.
How many of the anti-terror bill’s acts did they water-down? After WTC, atlanta, OK bombing what did Republicans do? Nothing, or worse actually blocking measures to protect us. When the baton was passed, Sandy told Condi your number one priority will be terrorism. Of course that was changed to missle-defense(huh?). When informed of the millenium bombings Clinton “shook the trees”, When informed of 9/11(more accurate the PDB:bin laden determined to strike) Bush “cut the brush”.
And even post 9/11 republicans still don’t get terrorism–see Iraq, see terror prosecution (0),see domestic protection (the ports, the chemical facilities, etc.) It’s been dismal.[/quote]
Tagging US made explosives…I’m sure the Al-Queda orders directly from Dupont…don’t you?
Wiretaps too much…unless a Democrat comes up with the idea right? Law enforcement issue wasn’t that what you were supporting.
That’s the issue, son, Clinton and his administration, missed their opportunities because they were distracted. Bush missed it because they failed to recognize the same signs. I’ve read the report but I doubt you did.
Clinton doesn’t want anything critical of his administration aired and that’s the issue. I don’t hear an outcry from the Republicans and they are apparently not well treated in this movie either.
I’d like to see the movie and make my own mind up. I guess the Kos kid’s feel intimidation and complaints against ABC are more in step with party ideals.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
And even post 9/11 republicans still don’t get terrorism–see Iraq, see terror prosecution (0),see domestic protection (the ports, the chemical facilities, etc.) It’s been dismal.
You are the one that does not get it. It is apparent in any of your posts.
In order to fight terrorism on our side of the pond you have to infringeon civil rights. You have stood against that.
In order to fight it at its source you have to use the military, the CIA and other tough tactics. You have stood against that.
In your own words you think it is a law enforcement issue. Let’s wait until they attack us and arrest them![/quote]
That’s what scres me the most, when people treat terrorism as a law enforcement/criminal matter. We as a nation HAVE to be agressive and proactive w/r/t terrorism.
Our best defense will be a good offense.
I just read that last Friday evening, Bill Clinton’s lawyers sent a new letter to ABC chief Bob Iger demanding that ABC yank "The Path to 9/11.
It blows my mind that Bubba is that paranoid about this film. Did not see any guns being put to people’s heads to make them watch it.
Interesting to note the silence of the ACLU on this. Oh that’s right, it’s not a how to book written by a pedophile, so they have no interest.
If it runs, I’ll watch it and make up my own mind.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JD430 wrote:
The DNC screaming to censor this movie should be sending red flags up all over the place. Why dont they officially merge with the American Communist Party and get it over with?
I dont think any of us are exactly sure what this movie shows, but lets be honest about a few things.
First, nobody took the Islamic terrorist threat serious until 9-11. Not Carter, not Reagan, not Bush I, not Clinton and not Bush II. That is just the fact of the matter. Im really not in love with any politicians at this point, but let’s deal with Clinton’s administration since that is the one really being examined here(at least from what I have read).
Albright is perhaps the biggest disgrace to American foreign policy in our history. 90% of the people I talk to on the street have a clearer vision of how America should defend its interests than she does. Ditto for Janet Reno. I dont need to rehash all of the particular incidents here, but from start to finish, their policy and subsequent decisions were a disaster.
As far as Sandy Burger, he should be in a federal prison, looking at parole around 2015 or so. Not even worth mentioning again.
With this cast of characters, is it any wonder Clinton made so many absurd decisions in terms of American security?
For once, I would like to hear a politician say that in retrospect, he screwed up. I would immediately have so much more respect for Clinton if he did that. To be fair, the other presidents should have done the same, but the two party system just does not allow for anyone to take blame.
Good post.[/quote]
Great post man, exactly what i think those democrat basterds shuld be removed from socity (as they are only a nucence) and placed each in a solitary confinement cell till’ they die.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Hence not incorrect as a matter of principle, just an eye for an eye?[/quote]
Not at all – it just removes any credibility from any Republican that claims that the Democrats are the only ones being hypochritical with regards to Freedom of Speech; they did the same before.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m sure you aren’t taking the position that the advertising for this Disney-backed docu-drama, or the attention paid it in the general media, even comes close to the level of attention received by F911? Which kind of goes against the SuperBowl v. San Jose Earthquakes idea.[/quote]
I was not referring to media attention. I was referring to a) Credibility and b) Accessibility. Basically this mockumentary will have a lot more credibility in the public’s eyes and be much easier to watch or even “run into”. Not only everybody assumed F911 was biased and attached very little credibility to it, to watch F911 you had to make a much more conscious effort.
Do I need to be clearer on this?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
And even post 9/11 republicans still don’t get terrorism–see Iraq, see terror prosecution (0),see domestic protection (the ports, the chemical facilities, etc.) It’s been dismal.
You are the one that does not get it. It is apparent in any of your posts.
In order to fight terrorism on our side of the pond you have to infringeon civil rights. You have stood against that.
In order to fight it at its source you have to use the military, the CIA and other tough tactics. You have stood against that.
In your own words you think it is a law enforcement issue. Let’s wait until they attack us and arrest them![/quote]
Did the British military prevent the recent attempted bombings? Or the subway bombings?
Who got better info from al-libbi? The fbi(traditional techniques) or CIA (alternative techniques including fake burials). Keeping mind al-libbi told the cia al-qaeda was wmd training in iraq (false).
And again, the techniques you’ve described have increase terror how many fold? If military commanders in Iraq are against such tactics why aren’t you?
[quote]hedo wrote:
Maybe they should show the movie and let people make up their own minds…just a thought.[/quote]
Maybe we should show them the facts, then let them make up their own mind.
Another thought.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
hedo wrote:
Maybe they should show the movie and let people make up their own minds…just a thought.
Maybe we should show them the facts, then let them make up their own mind.
Another thought.
[/quote]
Facts have never been a concern in any other post you’ve written…why now?
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
And even post 9/11 republicans still don’t get terrorism–see Iraq, see terror prosecution (0),see domestic protection (the ports, the chemical facilities, etc.) It’s been dismal.[/quote]
Exactly. Thank you. Newt Gingrich was the most powerful man in the House since 1994 when the GOP got control.
Perhaps if they had spent less time chasing Clinton’s dick and more time on domestic security then perhaps we wouldn’t be remembering that horrible day tommorrow. Not to mention Guliani and his failure to accomidate security in NYC (Police/Fire radios not working in WTC, port security etc) after he took office in 93.
To me, the fact is that no one should be making films about September 11th.
I don’t agree with the big Hollywood movie that came out this year, and I don’t like this one.
9-11 has influenced too many things, including the current war. To start making propaganda movies about it, either right or left, is not right.
The fault lies in Hollywood for, as always, giving into money over morals (and that’s a stretch for me to say).
I am dissapointed, to say the least.