quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd drop all objection if before the movie, and after every commercial break there was a disclaimer that said the entire thing was a work of fiction.
Commercial breaks? What commercial breaks? As I understand it, the movie is going to be shown uninterrupted. Which will just add to the perception that it is something other than "just another movie", and will give it an air of authenticity that it doesn't sound like it really deserves, from everything I've heard so far.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of the fun in this story rests in watching the Clintonistas squirm and get outraged. Yes, I was annoyed by that trash Michael Moore directed and by the CBS movie on Reagan. But forgive me if I'm wrong with some of you who are now defending Clinton on this, but did you also defend Bush with Fahrenhiet 9/11 and the more outrages lies and mistatements in that movie.
Oh my god, it's absolutely brilliant: Because the show presents too good an opportunity to be indulgently petty, you're saying that "I get to excuse having ridiculously selective outrage, because I can point out that behavior in others!"
A miracle excuse, doubtlessly! And the best part is that you are avoiding being hypocritical, since you don't criticize selective outrage in others ..
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I love Clinton, but this movie is acknowledged to be fiction. How is airing it any worse than airing JFK or Pearl Harbor? Both of those movies depict real historical events using fictional scenes.
To your examples: JFK: years after the fact, and while I'm not entirely familiar with what biases/truth-twisting is involved, it is at least about a subject matter that has become near-mythic in proportion. If you don't view even the most level-headed treatment of the JFK assassination story with about the same level of suspicion as a documentary on UFO sightings then I have to question your logical faculties.
Pearl Harbor: a bad summer blockbuster produced 50+years after the event in question... are you serious about using this as an example of what someone might take seriously? want to throw in Titanic while we're at it? how about Troy?
A movie coming out just a few years after an important event and being presented on network television in a way such that many people would think it is entirely based on the relatively well-known facts of the matter IS upsetting...
Ignoring facts from what is effectively THE authoritative source document on the subject is like claiming Colorado's prime export is SPAM because it was in a funny op-ed piece you read, even though the Encyclopedia Brittanica and the US Trade Department records say otherwise. If you fill in some unclear spots with heresay then it's a dramatazation (i.e. "well, I can't recall exactly what wording was used in this conversation") when you directly obscure/change objective facts then you are creating a work of fiction that is perhaps still "based on a true story".
As for comparing it to Michael Moore's works: there is a night and day difference between the independant release of a "documentary" by someone well-known to be extremely biased, loose with the facts, and willing to warp views to fit his thoughts on the matter, and a network television special/series/movie pushed as portraying an effectively factual recreation of a story...
Yes, Michael Moore absolutely twists the truth, sometimes he may flat out lie to suit his whims, this is why I think it fairly proposterous to use his work as any kind of teaching aid unless heavily couched in warnings to take it with about 50 lbs of salt. Additionally, he catches all kinds of flak about what he does, so why should this piece be any different from his stuff?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, Clinton wants ABC to censor itself. None of the articles suggests he wants to use any form of force to stop ABC from showing the mini-series.
Thank you.
As far as I'm concerned, that's the most important thing to be said about this thread.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have had enough of this bashing against free speech! These people have the same freedoms Moore does so it should air however they want. The press will come to Clinton's rescue just like they always do. BAH! I am going to try and watch my favorite show Hiatus which I heard is out on DVD....if I can just find a place online to order them....
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd drop all objection if before the movie, and after every commercial break there was a disclaimer that said the entire thing was a work of fiction.
Commercial breaks? What commercial breaks? As I understand it, the movie is going to be shown uninterrupted. Which will just add to the perception that it is something other than "just another movie", and will give it an air of authenticity that it doesn't sound like it really deserves, from everything I've heard so far.
I must have misunderstood, I was under the impression that this was some sort of mini-series documentary that was going to be aired on ABC, and thus rife with commercials.
DK -
What bashing of free speech? If anyone here seriously thinks that ABC and Michael Moore are on the same level of ethical honesty, or that ABC should only be held to Michael Moore's standards (a man almost universally agreed on this board to be a giant windbag), then I seriously question your ethical standards.
It's one thing for Michael Moore or his crazier crackpot counterpart Ann Coulter to spout off, but when a major network, one that actually expects its views to be treated with respect and credibility, releases a documentary of this sort, I think we actually expect there to be some FACT CHECKING done. It's the job of individual pundits like Michael Moore and Coulter to spin half truths, or in Coulter's case especially, to downright like through her teeth just to say the most vile hate filled invective ever heard by man. But a major network is supposed to have standards.
If there's a suggestion being made that they don't need to have standards, or credibility, then all measure or illusion of journalistic integrity is gone. I know many here would say it already IS gone, but I'm a little less cynical than that. Papers and newscasts still issue retractions and still check facts before they go on air with rumors.
Clinton's former administration officials want ABC to not go to print with what they know to be lies, and I don't really see what the problem is with that, I don't see what the argument is there.
If someone made a movie about Iraq in which scenes were added that depicted Bush talking to Rumsfeld about how they knew Saddam had no weapons but hell, let's attack anyway just to see what happens, people would be crying bloody murder, and they'd be right to. Having suspicions is one thing, and holding beliefs about someone is another.
But when you create a documentary that you perport (sp?) to be truth, and someone is telling you flat out that it is NOT the truth, I think there's a moral and ethical obligation there to change it and get facts straight. Otherwise ABC is committing negligent dishonesty, which I think amounts to straight out lying and propaganda.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:when a major network, one that actually expects its views to be treated with respect and credibility, releases a documentary of this sort...
In all fairness, it's not a documentary. It's being sold as an "educational miniseries." Ideally, people will recognize that it's no more "educational" than Roots or The Thorn Birds or Shogun or Rudy or that Reagan miniseries we've mentioned a few times on this thread already. But like that Reagan miniseries, it's just chronologically too close to the subject matter; people will have trouble distinguishing the fictionalized elements from the real ones, and the proximity of events makes it tempting to form actual opinions from the warped and distorted "facts" presented.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig- Isn't the whole point supposed to be that you're better than the evil liberals? If you admit you're just as bad as they are, then why should anyone pick you over them?
Edit: I should mention, my party affiliation tends to change dramatically based on who is currently annoying me the most. Right now I'm feeling like a pretty solid Democrat.
posted
Oh yeah, I also wanted to pick on that part.
quote:Mig Wrote:
Assuming for the moment that the Clinton Gang is right on this movie (something I'm not willing to accept)
Great! Truth is a matter of what we like to believe. It is best to squash controversy in those places where it might actually start, e.g., internal contention over an issue.
For instance: you won't have to wonder about the rest of my post. Always easier.
*** ACTUAL SCENE FROM MOVIE ***
(this is as described by Rush Limbaugh, one individual to which the series was screened)
quote:So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.
So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed…Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”
Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.
Richard Clarke counteradvises.
GIVEN THAT:
No US Military or CIA persinnel were 'on the ground' in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden;
The head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL;
The CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.
In short, this scene -- which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden -- never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh. The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
.. would it not be wise to see merit in criticism of this 'docudrama?'
(this is merely a hypothetical question, of course, for those who have made the time and thought conserving move of closing off willingness to accept such merit, beforehand)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why can't a movie based on true events simply tell the truth?
I don't care who it's about or who it's written by or which side it favors. There is plenty of ignorance and misinformation out there naturally, how does it benefit anyone to increase that?
Let's make American dumber and less well informed about the facts. We've always been at war with East Asia.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This reminds me of an interview with the chief of the 9/11 Commission (on C-SPAN I believe). He said that he was approached several times by many different people asking him to spin the findings to blame Clinton or Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. or whoever else that would aide their agendas.
I was just listening to a BBC broadcast and they were asking callers "have you had enough hearing about 9/11". Apparently some think that 9/11 should be treated as a crime and forgotten. I guess we should forget about the bombing of Pearl Harbor too. What I find disturbing is how shows like that manuver the question from an unbiased attempt at dialogue about global events, to forming a political opinion in their listeners. Most US news are guilty of this too. Most mass media seems to have taken a life of it's own, totally unconnected with reality, and yet convincing people that they are reality and getting them to believe and act on what they are told. The ordinary person is to blame too, since it is our responsibility to be educated enough to see through the spin (or at least that the spin is happening).
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is possible to remember and honor the sacrifices and the loss of events such as 9/11 and Pearl Harber without supporting the agendas of those who would use those events for political gain. But our politicians make that a very difficut path to choose. Because 9/11 has been used to try to justify the war in Iraq, erosion of our civil liberties, and a host of other things, it makes it very hard to even grieve without giving the impression that you are supporting that agenda as well.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are not analogous, IMO.
Oklahoma City, Atlanta Olympics, and 9/11 are much more comparable, IMO.
None should be forgotten, but the latter 3 should not be provided the same rhetoric as the former.
(Of course, I'm not a huge fan of Executive Orders, and even less the extent to which the War Powers Act has been stretched and contorted. Anyone with me to lobby congress to legislate a limitation on the War Powers Act? I'd propose that congress must, at the time they provide the president the permission to start battle, publish a legally binding date by which they must provide a full declaration of war, or else military action must cease. I'd stick a max deliberation time of 2 years from the day of giving the president temporary war powers.)
posted
This is from an interview that director Nowrasteh gave to National Review Online:
quote:The Berger scene is a fusing and melding of at least a dozen capture opportunities. The sequence is true, but it’s a conflation. This is a docu-drama. We collapse, condense, and create composite characters. But within the rules of docu-drama, we’re well documented.
Just a curious question. If the Pres was given war powers, which he claims he doesn't even need to be afforded from Congress, and 2 years passed and no decision was made, would the troops legally automatically come home? What would happen in Iraq if that had been the case last yaer? The whole dichotomy of temporary/permanent war powers given to the president worries me too much. Temporary powers can get us into just as much trouble as permanent, and even more if those permanent powers DON'T follow the temporary powers.
It's a giant headache. I think you're right about the difference between Pearl Harbor, 9/11 etc.
Mig -
Funny, the article you link says Bush did the same thing you're slamming Clinton for. And you have to appreciate the irony, that when Clinton DID order strikes on terrorist camps in the Middle East, everyone said it was only because he was trying to deflect attention away from political problems. But when he DOESN'T order an attack (which is a sketchy accuasation from what I've seen), it's because of political problems. I guess "your people" just like to have it both ways. Comments?
posted
Why don't you think Sept. 11th and Dec. 7th are in the same catagory? About the same amount of people died, both were unprovoked, and both attacks destroyed vital US infratructure.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Maybe they are in the same category, but they certainly fall under different subcategories.
Edit to add: I think part of the distinction also falls under the fact that after Pearl Harbor there was a clear enemy, with clear targets to attack. We knew EXACTLY who did this to us, what their purpose was, and exactly where to find them.
That is most certainly not the case with 9/11. Those who attacked us represent no nationality, no single race, citizenry or religion. That they are all of a single religion does not mean they represent it. The differences are enough for me to place them in different categories of some sort.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig: even if its a conflation, it was false in original version for this simple quotation above:
quote: Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Also, the 'within the rules of a docu-drama' basically means there are no rules. Docu-dramas regularly take absurd liberties with the facts.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, while you're busy ignoring all of our most salient points, would you at least in the meantime afford us the courtesy of formatted link tags that do not stretch the page?
Well, that'll make an interesting decision, no won't it? The whole point is to put back some teeth in Congress's duty to draw up acts of war. As opposed to the perpetual "we are at war, but not really officially" stuff we have today. If our elected officials can't figure out in 2 years what our purpose/grievance is for a military action, maybe we aren't supposed to be there? My whole proposal would definitely have caused a whole different situation, not just last year, but in the months leading up to granting the president the permission to attack Iraq. I think it would require some more foresight, while still allowing immediate cut-and-dried events (like Pearl Harbor) to be quickly acted on.
I find the fact that the president can be granted essentially on-going carte-blanche military powers the most worrying. ---
Telp, Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack with military weapons from a recognized nation state.
With the others (particularly 9/11 and Oklahoma) you had a small set of people bringing to bear an inordinate amount of force against civilians. These people were not acting as agents of a recognized nation, they were acting out of an aggressive philosophy, supported by a rather decentralized organization.
I guess the flip side is, why didn't we declare military action against those people who had similar ideals (and may have helped support McVeigh and possibly others)? Because it wasn't a military action, it was an act of mass murder. Just like, in my opinion, 9/11.
Despite the rhetoric, it really does appear to be apples and oranges.
quote:I'd propose that congress must, at the time they provide the president the permission to start battle, publish a legally binding date by which they must provide a full declaration of war, or else military action must cease. I'd stick a max deliberation time of 2 years from the day of giving the president temporary war powers.
This will require a constitutional amendment (to make it a "must").
Not a pro or con, just a comment on the difficulty of passing it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
By refusing to address the many relevant criticisms that have been made towards your position, you are behaving in a cowardly and childish fashion.
Please stop. This is just an Internet forum, man. You can at least have the guts to directly tackle the more difficult opposition online, can't you? Or are you just, as you have appeared so far, a coward when it comes to defending your opinions?
posted
But isn't that the whole argument for going to war? That global terrorism cannot function without state support...and thus those states that have funded/helped the terrorists have essentially adopted them as their military?
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe, but I don't get what you mean... Whose argument for what war?
I suppose you can make the argument, but then it becomes rather easy to claim every nation on earth aids and supports some form of terrorism against someone. I don't know who has stated that the terrorists are now those nation's military though. I can see it from certain perspectives... But the same kind of perspective changing can lend creedence to all sorts of different interesting, yet fruitless ideas.
Do you agree, at least that 9/11 and Pearl Harbor are substantively different? This quick peppering of questions without addressing my posts directly is a bit confusing to me, I have to say.
posted
Telp: it couldn't have been a justification for going to war in Iraq, of course; take a look at this recent report by the Senate Intel committee:
quote:
1. Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Aq'ida to provide material or operationa support.
2. Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa'ida and saddam Hussein's regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative.
3. . . .Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provded two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000. . . .No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war.
4. Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq.
5. . . . .Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.
6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Ira, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.
7. Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike. . .
8. No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
And of course, if that's our justification, lets take on some of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the past decade or so, instead of states with no particular ties to terrorism such as Iraq -- Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, among others.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well, that'll make an interesting decision, no won't it? The whole point is to put back some teeth in Congress's duty to draw up acts of war. As opposed to the perpetual "we are at war, but not really officially" stuff we have today. If our elected officials can't figure out in 2 years what our purpose/grievance is for a military action, maybe we aren't supposed to be there? My whole proposal would definitely have caused a whole different situation, not just last year, but in the months leading up to granting the president the permission to attack Iraq. I think it would require some more foresight, while still allowing immediate cut-and-dried events (like Pearl Harbor) to be quickly acted on.
I find the fact that the president can be granted essentially on-going carte-blanche military powers the most worrying. ---
Don't get me wrong Bok, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with you. The present system of presidential abuse is unacceptable. We're just quibbling over the details.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Years of military service against an implacable foe that stood for tyranny and oppression. Devoted family man and widower, top graduate of an elite school, decorated time and again for his actions during the war.
I'd say he's pretty damned electable.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Unlike Bush, Sisko LITERALLY has been chosen by godlike figures to accomplish their master plan. Sisko would nail down the evangelical vote.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you agree, at least that 9/11 and Pearl Harbor are substantively different? This quick peppering of questions without addressing my posts directly is a bit confusing to me, I have to say.
Sorry 'bout that. Don't mean to be confusing. I guess I'm playing devil's advocate (that and I haven't had alot of time for detailed replies ). But as for the difference between the two events, I still think that they are similar, especially since the Pentagon was hit and the 4th plane was heading for the capital as well. So it wasn't just an attack on civilians but on our military command center.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Unlike Bush, Sisko LITERALLY has been chosen by godlike figures to accomplish their master plan. Sisko would nail down the evangelical vote.
Well I mean he was PART GOD after all. His mom was a prophet possessing a human body, so yah, he get's the religious vote. Was I the only one who thought DS9 went a little too far with that storyline??
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But even those events (and averted events) were done for a symbolic purpose. Japan was hoping to (and very nearly succeeded in) completely disabling the US Pacific Fleet, so that it could take over large swaths of the Pacific/Asia, and perhaps force a US peace treaty. That's a huge difference.
And remember, one used military issue equipment and support (the Zeros came from Japanese carriers). Very different from 9/11.
I just don't see much in common except that similar amounts of people died... Which doesn't seem enough to link the two. Otherwise Oklahoma City counts (since it was a federal building that was blown up), which few would agree with.
quote:ABC is frantically recutting its $40 million miniseries about 9/11 amid a blistering backlash over fictional scenes that lay the blame on the Clinton administration.
Also feeling the heat was Scholastic, which yanked a classroom guide tie-in to the program.
Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, the former head of the 9/11 commission and a paid consultant on the ABC miniseries, told the Daily News yesterday that some controversial scenes in "The Path to 9/11" were being removed or changed.
"ABC is telling me that the final version I'll be pleased with," said Kean, softening his own previous defense of the movie.
Unmollified, Democrats continued to demand that ABC yank the two-night docudrama that former President Bill Clinton's spokesman called "despicable." It is scheduled to start airing Sunday.
And Clinton's lawyer sent Kean a chiding letter expressing "shock" that a man so dedicated to accuracy had worked on a movie "that has been widely criticized for its libelous historical inaccuracies."
The chorus of outrage - ranging from Clinton cabinet members to liberal bloggers to 9/11 families to ordinary moms canceling trips to Disneyland - put ABC and parent company Disney under tremendous pressure just days before the movie's premiere.
First to go was a made-up scene showing Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger hanging up on CIA operatives who were moments away from killing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. "You will not see that in that way in the final edition," Kean said.
The Clinton White House did scotch several opportunities to kill Al Qaeda's founder because intelligence was sketchy. But unlike in the film, the CIA was never steps away from Bin Laden, nor did Berger hang up on agents in the field, Kean admitted.
Driven by the Internet's main liberal Web sites, the outrage over ABC's dramatization was reminiscent of the 2003 conservative furor that forced CBS to pull an unflattering Ronald Reagan biopic. Phones rang off the hook and e-mail boxes were clogged all day at Scholastic Inc., ABC and Disney. "We're getting slammed," said one frazzled ABC staffer.
Scholastic caved quickly, yanking educational materials tied to the movie that critics said linked Iraq to 9/11 and glossed over the grim situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues," Scholastic Chairman Dick Robinson said.
posted
I'm just waiting for Mig to crow about liberal control over Hollywood and the media causing this overshadowing of the (well, historically inaccurate, but the message is OK) TRUTH about Clinton!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The liberal media did beat ABC into submission. They certainly were all in favor of Moore's docu-drama because it bashed Bush. Lies about Bush are OK, any negative critiscm about Clinton is not.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's important to note that the article quoted above does NOT indicate that the liberal media had a hand in the edits.
quote:The chorus of outrage - ranging from Clinton cabinet members to liberal bloggers to 9/11 families to ordinary moms canceling trips to Disneyland - put ABC and parent company Disney under tremendous pressure just days before the movie's premiere.
quote:Driven by the Internet's main liberal Web sites, the outrage over ABC's dramatization was reminiscent of the 2003 conservative furor that forced CBS to pull an unflattering Ronald Reagan biopic.
And so what? A lie is a lie.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, DarkKnight, for pointing out that two wrongs make a right.
The 'liberal media' was not 'all in favor' of Moore's tripe, although it's certainly beneficial to your point of view to be able to state their opinions without, you know, having to ask them as a group or anything like that. I like your efficiency, dude: cut out the middle-man!
Lies about Dubya are not OK. Lies about Clinton, as were repeatedly included in this 'docu-drama'-I loathe that term, I know of no place I've seen it used where it couldn't be better and more truthfully served by the term 'propaganda'-are not OK, either.
If you were Bill Clinton, you would've been freaking pissed too and written a letter trying to get them to stop. If you were a liberal politician, you'd be raising hell.
Freaking partisans, I swear.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: The liberal media did beat ABC into submission. They certainly were all in favor of Moore's docu-drama because it bashed Bush. Lies about Bush are OK, any negative critiscm about Clinton is not.
Do you really fail to understand the difference between a film that one goes to see knowing who made it and why and a network presentation claiming to be a truthful portrayal of events and that uses the public airwaves?Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, who in the liberal media was against Moore's tripe? Please cite a source. Do you honestly believe Clinton was very concerned about terrorism? Do you believe he did everything he could to stop terrorism? Do you believe that Monica Lewinsky did not distract Clinton? If I were Clinton I would try to honor the tradition of not bashing the next President, and not have had sexual relations with an intern and lied about it for months, or not sent tanks into Waco, and on and on. I also would not have responded to this docu-drama either. What would the point be since I would have done the best job I could as President?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
). But as for the difference between the two events, I still think that they are similar, especially since the Pentagon was hit and the 4th plane was heading for the capital as well. So it wasn't just an attack on civilians but on our military command center.
