Top Bush Counterterrorism Official: ABC’s Path to 9/11 Is ‘Shameful,’ ‘Straight Out of Disney and Fantasyland’
Top Bush Counterterrorism Official: ABC’s Path to 9/11 Is ‘Shameful,’ ‘Straight Out of Disney and Fantasyland’
Last night on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, Roger Cressey — a top counterterrorism official to Bush II and Clinton — blasted ABC’s docudrama “The Path to 9/11.” Cressy said “it’s amazing…how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong” and “then they got the big stuff wrong.” He added that a scene where the Clinton administration passes on a surefire opportunity to take out bin Laden is “something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.” Watch it:
Write ABC and tell them to tell the truth about 9/11.
Full transcript:
SCARBOROUGH: Roger, let me begin with you. There are points of this docudrama that are more drama than fact. But talk about Bill Clinton and the central premise by ABC that he should have done more to get Bin Laden.
CRESSY: Joe, it’s amazing, based on what I’ve seen so far is how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed instructing Ahmed Rassam to carry out the millenium attacks. Then they got the big stuff wrong, this fantasy about how we had a CIA officer and the Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Massoud looking at Bin Laden and they breathlessly call the White House to say we need to take him out and the White House said no. I mean it’s sheer fantasy. So, if they want to critique the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, based on fact, I think that’s fine. But what ABC has done here is something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.
SCARBOROUGH: But at the same time, doesn’t history show that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to go after bin Laden, but the President and his cabinet were afraid to do so because they may offend some people in the Arab world?
CRESSY: Actually, Joe, that had nothing to do with it. If you read the 9/11 Commission report, it makes it very clear. In most of those cases, George Tenet, the Director of the CIA, said because there was single source intelligence it was his recommendation to the President not to take the shot. There was never a case where we had a clear shot at Bin Laden and the decision to take it wasn’t made.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
You know while I think it is shameful, that they would run such an unabashed peice of propoganda, I am not to concerned about it. I think at this point most people have made up their minds about this issue. The ones who will watch this special, and cheer already feel that Clinton was responsible for 9/11, and those who think it is Bush’s fault won’t. I really don’t think this will change anyone’s mind.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:39 amCome on, guys! Don’t you know by now that EVERYTHING is Clinton’s fault? The current deficiet, AQ, 9-11, the war in Iraq, gay marriage….it’s all Bill’s fault. Of course.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:41 amIt’s fairly obvious now to everyone capable of rational thought that The Path to 9/11 is a completely partisan pack of lies.
That being said, what can be done to combat this, apart from writing in and expressing our dissatisfaction with the situation? Is there any legal recourse?
September 6th, 2006 at 9:41 amWhen is Disney / ABC going to be called out?
The Saudi Arabian Royal Family Owns a Major Share of Disney and ABC?
In Saudi Arabia, they teach their youth that Americans are Pigs.
Saudi Arabians Attacked the United States on 911.
Saudi Arabia cut off Oil to the United States in 1973 because they are RACISTS’.
It’s time to start calling them out for what they are… NOW!
September 6th, 2006 at 9:43 amI’ve been trying to decide whether or not to see this film. On the one hand, to critique it I think I should see it. On the other hand, when so many politicos who have screened it and find it lacking in truth I would hate to watch it and give it any support. I guess I am leaning toward boycotting it and let others much more in the know see and critique it.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:45 amHear tell Scoobydoo and the gang is coming out with their own 9/11 docudrama where they cruise the streets of NY in the Mystery Machine. The Harlem Gobetrotters and Bill Clinton guest-star.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:49 am..and I thought the well of knuckle-draggers willing to believe this fairy tale had a bottom, now they are going after the simple minded and the innocent children.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:54 amZombie horseshit never dies! Kill it once, its parts are reborn a few minutes later to stumble the earth and eat our children and pets.
Speaking of which, hey, wasn’t there a slightly dead look in Scarborough’s eyes…?
September 6th, 2006 at 9:58 amThe 9-11 blog site still hasn’t added any new posts.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:00 amCowards.
Well, I wrote them again. (Didn’t use the form letter this time, but I promise I was nice.)
Looks like we have to just continue to write, everyday, twice a day, whatever it takes, until we’re heard.
May Scarborough is actually starting to enjoy the Bush Bash Party. Welcome! You’ve got a lot to make up for, so get moving.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:04 amAmerica’s Least Wanted
Here’s what Clinton really did:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml
September 6th, 2006 at 10:04 amYou know while I think it is shameful, that they would run such an unabashed peice of propoganda, I am not to concerned about it. I think at this point most people have made up their minds about this issue. The ones who will watch this special, and cheer already feel that Clinton was responsible for 9/11, and those who think it is Bush’s fault won’t. I really don’t think this will change anyone’s mind.
Comment by Krazny — September 6, 2006 @ 9:39 am
If you look at the “movie” for what it is, and only that, I would tend to agree with you. But this is much more than simply a “movie of the week.”
This “movie” is being offered to schools across America to show in their classes. And, as TP reported, ABC and Scholastic have pacted to produce an online study guide.
An online study guide?? For a movie??? Study guides are used in the teaching process. Do you really want schools teaching children the lies that are in this movie?
Other problems with this is that it was only offered to rightwingers in advance to review. Pointless as it may seem, we need to work to change the minds of the 35% who blindly support this president and his administration…not reinforce their beliefs.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:05 amRoger Cressey may be spending more time with his family soon.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:06 amthe path to 9/11…
the most interesting thing i see about this whole path to 9/11 miniseries controversy ……
September 6th, 2006 at 10:08 amI posted this on another thread, but it is appropriate here as well:
And the price tag to Disney shareholders (and workers, but not management)?
Why?
Yet, more and more, this 30 million dollar production is being unveiled as a work of fiction; a propaganda piece rewriting history in a fashion worthy of Winston Smith in 1984.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:10 amThe powers that be want to implant their version of history on the minds of the next generation of voters.
Unfortunately, the truth about 9/11 is much worse than either Dems or Reps will admit. It was an inside job. That is why the govt and corporate media keep putting out propaganda to prop up the official story.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:13 amABC must yank this garbage.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:13 amWasn’t (isn’t) Richard Clarke one of ABC News’ expert analysts? I seem to recall him showing up frequently on Nightline, at least prior to Koppel leaving.
I cannot imagine a network putting this kind of money into a major miniseries and not utilizing their inhouse expertise!
Unless they didn’t want someone’s input if that person had acquaintance with, you know, the facts. Reality only pertains to liberals…uh huh.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:14 amBet you the money for this film cameout of the %0 Billion Bush set aside to tell lies about Iran
How can the people stand for this propaganda , The 38% support Bush what so that gives him the right to brainwash the whole country ?????
September 6th, 2006 at 10:15 amMaybe we can hire the Gambino mob and get John Gotti’s crew to have John Miller take a long nap with the fishes.
He wrote most of this dreck for ABC anyway. That is how he made his mark isn’t it?…doing expose journalism on the NY Mob familia? I’m sure that they’d love a chance at some payback.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:15 amThe text of my letter to ABC, for anyone looking for some ideas on what issues should be raised.
I am writing today to tell you that I believe the history of the events that occured on 9/11/01 are far too serious to let fiction be interwoven into them. If what I’ve read about Path to 9/11 is true, it is absolutely irresponsible for ABC to be televising it to impressionable minds across the country. If you do go ahead with showing this movie, then please let your audience know frequently througouht the movie that it is partially a work of fiction.
But I’d like to put this into a greater context. The creators of this movie are calling it a ‘docudrama,’ and simply an alternate way of presenting the events that occured before 9/11. The notion of trying to appear ‘fair and balanced’ by presenting all viewpoints is simply rubbish, and lazy journalism. There are some viewpoints that are simply false, and even a member of the Clinton and Bush administration is saying that parts of this movie are fictional, and probably shouldn’t be placed into the conversation of our democracy.
To present this film is like presenting 9/11 conspiracy videos that say the Bush administration had an inside part of the destruction of the World Trade Center. Conspiracy theories are viewpoints, and, according to the ‘fair and balanced’ model, you should put a conspiracy theory video on right after Path to 911. I’m not asking you to do that, because I think conspiracy theories about 9/11 are a joke. But I also think placing the brunt of the blame for 9/11 on the Clinton administration is also a joke.
Please reconsider your responsibility to our democracy and make the necessary changes to your presentation.
-Dave
September 6th, 2006 at 10:16 amTo be totally petty, Entertainment Weekly gave it a D+.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:19 amABC is trying to rewrite history. They are putting out one of the BIG LIES that always is spewed whenever the Neocons get cornered. ITS CLINTON’S FAULT!
This has to have a rebuttal and ABC needs to know about it. Try callnig this guy, and telling him what you think.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:20 amKevin Brockman
ABC Vice President for Publicity
(818) 460 6655
Back in 2003, CBS was forced to pull its miniseries “The Reagans,” after conservative groups lambasted the network for crossing the line into advocacy against the Reagan administration. A similar effort should perhaps be undertaken to compel ABC to pull “The Path to 9/11.” At no time should a conservative producer with an anti-Clinton axe to grind be allowed to use public airwaves to broadcast a rank distortion of the truth, especially on the anniversary of the worst day in our history.
Hear hear!
September 6th, 2006 at 10:22 amProps to #11 ishkabibble
I need to repeat this quote in bold, as I think it is very pertinent
September 6th, 2006 at 10:25 amAt no time should a conservative producer with an anti-Clinton axe to grind be allowed to use public airwaves to broadcast a rank distortion of the truth, especially on the anniversary of the worst day in our history.
BTW, way back when I was a high school English teacher, the Scholastic TV guides were a godsend, a way to have a lesson plan without all the research and, in my rather poor school, typing out short stories to run off on the get this, mimeograph. (Copywright be damned, those kids didn’t have text books and sure couldn’t afford them.)
Anyway, I vaguely recall a TV docucrama about some Russian sailor who sought asylum while in a US port. I did not know the reported facts other than what Scholastic included in its teaching guide. Now, I’m wondering if I inadvertently exposed my students to lies and misstatements about that incident….
Most teachers, with 30+ kids in each of 5 English classes, with writing to be corrected or at least read a miniumum of three days a week, are overwhelmed. I can’t imagine how many English teachers have the time to do the necessary research to find out how badly this “docudrama” rends and bends the facts.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:25 amI just contacted my local ABC channel in Dallas. This Bush propaganda must be yanked. Period.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:28 amLOL I really LOVE the way you LLL Mo0nb@+5 froth at the mouth at the very insistence that maybe the Clintonistas should share in some of the blame for the rise in Islamofacism. He didn’t foment this policy it was just the way this nation thought it ought to respond, based on the previous administrations template. Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton never had an aggressive OFFENSE against Islamofacists and all went out of their way to appease so called moderate leaders. I know it doesn’t fit neatly into you “I hate Bush file” but he was the person that ended appeasement and took the fight to the bad guys. Since the previous policy didn’t seem to work (see World Trade Center crater) it was probably a smart move to change the policy.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:31 amPoll: Europeans See US as Threat to Global Stability
Look at what you Bush supporters have done to your country
September 6th, 2006 at 10:34 amI can’t imagine how many English teachers have the time to do the necessary research to find out how badly this “docudrama†rends and bends the facts.
Comment by jawbone — September 6, 2006 @ 10:25 am
I agree with jawbone — if given these “study guides” by ABC, most of the English and History teachers in our schools will use them if they’re planning to show ABC’s propa-drama to our kids.
Which is exactly why I’ve contacted the principal and chairs of the English and History departments at my son’s high school to ask them not to use this drivel in their lessons on or about 9/11, as there’s no place in our schools for idealogue propaganda masquerading as history. I’d urge all of you to do the same — at the very least, we owe it to our kids to ensure that they’re not being indoctrinated in our schools. I can certainly take care of that in my own home, but I’d venture to bet that not everyone is going to be able to do the same in their homes.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:35 amUsing This film as a study guide in schools is like having the movie deep throat for a guide in sex ed…Give us all in america a break…Stop the pre election bull shit and keep the crap out of our school’s…..We must not allow propaganda crap to lock step march our kids over this bush cliff…..Geessssss I am sick of all this crap…..Follow the money, probably our own tax dollars siphoned away by the reich to use against us….Like alway’s…..Blessings..Peace
September 6th, 2006 at 10:36 amSince the previous policy didn’t seem to work (see World Trade Center crater) it was probably a smart move to change the policy.
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier
You are correct, sir. Bush continued his Operation Ignore through the first 6 months of his term. It was on 9/12 when he changed HIS policy.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:36 amYou, my friend, are one smart and observant soldier!
I guess the next logical thing to watch for is the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse show bashing evil villains with turbans.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:36 amDisgusting, ABC has been V-Chipped out of my existence.
This is political pornography!
September 6th, 2006 at 10:37 amUsing This film as a study guide in schools is like having the movie deep throat for a guide in sex ed
Comment by Sharon Cox — September 6, 2006 @ 10:36 am
Okay, that made me laugh (cue cheesy jazz soundtrack)
September 6th, 2006 at 10:38 amThank you Sharon
Hmmm. Instead of teaching poli-sci any more we’ll be teaching poli-porn.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:39 amHey, retired reichstag soldier — if the “previous policy” was what you and your Bush ass-kissing colleagues are so sure needed to be reversed, then why wasn’t it reversed by BushCo before 9/11? Remember, it was you republo-fascists who were in charge of the entire government for 8 months prior to 9/11 — why do you hate America and Americans so much that you waited until after we were attacked and so many of our fellow citizens died before you decided “gee, maybe we oughta change the policy”???
More loser drivel, just like I thought. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time…
September 6th, 2006 at 10:39 amConcerns over news accuracy surfaced when Disney aquired ABC in the mid-nineties. Disney has a well earned reputation for altering (Disneyfying) both literature and history to create a more palatable/profitable product. Those concerns have proved damn well valid.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:42 amRR Soldier,
The Commission did find fault with Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. But according to all the previews, ABC is telling a lie both in the movie and in their advertising.
Why is that OK with you?
September 6th, 2006 at 10:47 amActually, anyone more than 5 minutes old remembers the Clinton years. I do. I remember that the GOP could give a rats ass about security or terrorism. They cared about Monica giving him a blow job. That was it. Nothing else.
I clearly remember that whenever Clinton did anything on the foreign front militarily, they said “wag the dog.” And not just figuratively, they LITERALLY said he was wagging the dog just like in the movie by sending missles to the middle east.
Why is this not ever mentioned? It’s like it never happened. But it’s the response that should be given to every GOP talking head thug when they ask about Clinton.
“Well, Joe, actually back then you guys were critcizing Clinton for military action in the middle east. When did you change your mind about that?”
And while he’s at it, he can bring up Bush Sr who literally let Hussein get away. Why is that never talked about if Iraq was such a hotbed of terrorism? If it was so bad, why didn’t he go in and get him while our army was on the ground?
Why are these two facts,…Clinton’s military action and Bush’s non-action, never mentioned?
September 6th, 2006 at 10:50 amhe was the person that ended appeasement and took the fight to the bad guys
I’m tired of “appeasing” this grease fire. It’s time to “take the fight to it” with this bucket of water!
[CRACKLE, HISS, COUGH, COUGH, CHOKE]
September 6th, 2006 at 10:50 amBush Republicans are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of Republican and Democratic Americans. They’ve never been shy about lying to hide their incompetence. Now, all they have left to offer us is lies. And they’re so desperate, they’re actually lying about the circumstances and events of a national tragedy to maintain power to perpeturate their ineffective negligence and illegal actions. The unbridled evil and dishonorable corruption in the hearts and minds of Bush, Rove and Mehlman is just as abominable as the unbridled hatred and insanity in the hearts and minds of America’s most malicious foreign enemies. The Bush administration represents America’s greatest threat. They are nothing more than parasites feeding on American decency for personal political gain. There intentions, actions and deciet have damaged America more thoroughly than all the world’s terrorists combined.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:50 amKrazny, I apologize in advance if your reputation is tarnished and your invitations by progs drop off…but I have to agree with you. The polarization of the country regarding the War in Iraq, Presidents Clinton and Bush, etc. will not shift due to a mini-series on ABC. Extremists on both sides of the debate will continue to despise EVERYTHING about President Bush and blame EVERYTHING on President Clinton. They are beyond reason.
I am surprised that TP did not take a collective bow with their “we-hate-George Bush-to-the-core” crowd after the President alluded to the manipulations and concert of certain Leftists and anarchists groups. Nedra Pickler of the AP wrote(09-06-06), “The White House also unveiled a letter from bin Laden to Taliban leader Mullah Omar in which he wrote about plans for a ‘media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government’ so the people will pressure leaders to retreat in the fight.” Regarding Iraq, bin Laden continued, “The most serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war that is raging in Iraq…The whole world is watching this war and it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”
Well said, binny.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:51 amComment by Retired Republican Soldier — September 6, 2006 @ 10:31 am
So you don’t object to false information being planted into our national conversation about what happened on 9/11?
It’s cliche to say “typical conservative”, but I guess that’s exactly what you are. Conservatives don’t have facts or fiction, they have messages they have to get to the public to maintain their power. The democratic conversation is theirs to distort, just as it always has been throughout history, because confused democracies make complicit democracies. You simply see democracy as “mob rule,” and so see no problem in trashing what democrats see as its most treasured element: its ability to decide, based on facts, what direction the country is to head in.
When I read about some distortion of events in Moore’s books and films, I immediately rejected his works, but you come here to tell us how thrilled you are with liberals gnashing their teeth over false information being spread on national television. It’s because you desire for some sort of faux-monarchy, where the public is too confused to make real decisions.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:51 amSince the previous policy didn’t seem to work (see World Trade Center crater) it was probably a smart move to change the policy.
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier
Yes, the Islamic Fundamentalists leaped with joy when W was inaugurated. “Here is someone who will engage in a fight, and who will be an excellent – if unaware – recruiting tool for our cause,” the extremists gushed.
Just as the Iranians returned the hostages after Reagan was inaugurated, so the Islamic Fundamentalists engaged America after W was inaugurated. The first was done out of fear (or some behind-the-scenes deal) and the second was done out of eager anticipation.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:52 amWhy is that never talked about if Iraq was such a hotbed of terrorism?
Comment by WagtheDog
I just want to ask: What did Iraq has to do with 9/11?
September 6th, 2006 at 10:53 amI don’t get it, don’t democratic voters have enough man power, that would, with for example boycotting shows, purchases etc,… pressure ABC. Walmart and the rest of Republican econ. powerhouses, to stop producing such S..T and supporting republican insane policies
September 6th, 2006 at 10:54 amIn my view: SHAME ON DEMOCRATS for not opposing those louder. The one who is silent in crime is almost as guilty as the one doing it..
So democrats BOYCOTT the goods, boycott the shows, boycott the schools, be loud, be visible, or you ain’t any better…
Johnny, you do realize your asking a republican if it’s ok to lie, don’t you?
I made that mistake yesterday, asking one of the republican trolls if it was ok for ABC to lie to the nation, he never got back to me.
They support lies and misinformation because it furthers their agenda and they enjoy making fools out of Americans.
It’s just that simple.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:54 amReagen built the “Islamofascist” threat you accuse Clinton of coddling. If you want to blame anyone for 9-11 other than Osama, blame St. Ronnie.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:57 amWagtheDog brings up an excellent point:
September 6th, 2006 at 10:58 amIf Iraq was harboring terrorists and WMD’s, shouldn’t the original blame go to dubya’s father, for not getting this SOB in the first place? And wasn’t OBL attack originated due to US troops in Saudia Arabia, and thus occupying Islams holy land, Mecca? Which war was that, I forget….Oh right, Gulf War, which was under which presidency?
Blame Clinton? Hell, let’s go further back and blame Kennedy!
Blame Clinton? Hell, let’s go further back and blame Kennedy!
Sorry if that tangent sounded like a M.A. post without all the ……………..
September 6th, 2006 at 11:00 amAgain, my apologies
Ignoring it isn’t going to make it go away. Ignoring it is what the right-wingers want you to do while they keep galvanizing their base. We’ve got to frame the message instead of letting Rove and his army decide what their message is.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:01 amSven, what YOU don’t get is that the lunatic fringe of the Democrat Party is perhaps 30% of the Party faithful (apologies to Party atheists) – on a good day. They have 99% of the Socialist leftard Parties – but those membership numbers are well below the well-oiled machine of the National Democrat Party. Let’s assume they have 35% of extreme left voters – out of an oppositon numbering 49%, they do not have as much economic muscle as you seem to assume. (Also, please note the great purchasing power of “limo-latte liberals” is tempered by the welfare recipients who despise President Bush.)
Hate to “Beat and Run”…..
September 6th, 2006 at 11:03 am“The White House also unveiled a letter from bin Laden to Taliban leader Mullah Omar in which he wrote about plans for a ‘media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government’ so the people will pressure leaders to retreat in the fight.â€
Summary: A group of politicians known for using hand-picked facts, half-truths, and lies, releases a statement claiming that a shadowy terrorist group is responsible for the voters being dissatisfied with the politicians, almost exactly three months before midterm elections.
Go peddle it somewhere else, we don’t buy stupid here.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:04 amI’m still confused why so many people actually believe that television affects their lives. The remote control stazi unit hasn’t stopped by my house yet and informed me of my duty to watch anything. To think that one single medium is responsible for shoring up the truth about anything is abhorrent. ABC admitted that this was not a documentary. Sorry if people want to have some level of security about a corporate media giant being unbiased. To paraphrase Marx, TV it’s the opiate of the masses. I don’t know which is more of a travesty people who think Jon Stewart is funny without understanding why or people who believe Rush Limbaugh delivers the real news.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:04 amBoycott Desperate Housewifes, Lost and everything ABC/Disney.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:04 am“Hate to “Beat and Runâ€â€¦.. ”
but your good at it.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:05 ammighty,
September 6th, 2006 at 11:05 amOnly you could marry discontent with politicians and terror plots. Keep playing that “we’re being manipulated by Muslims” card.
There really is little doubt now on my end that you are a paid shill. Your days are numbered, whore.
MA keep up the good fight, they’ve resorted to name calling, that means they’re more than afraid that you are right!
September 6th, 2006 at 11:08 amWell … I have to give Scarborough some credit for having Casey on and letting him speak. Maybe Joe is getting a little fed up with the Bushwhacker …
And the point, Republican Soldier and Mighty A, is not that Clinton is blameless … it’s that no one should be LYING about what happened. As Cressey said, if anyone wants to critique Bill Clinton or George Bush FAIRLY, based on, ya know, actual evidence ‘n stuff, that’s just fine. What we’re hearing over and over again – by Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger, and now Richard Cressey – is that this “docu-drama” contains not only inaccuracies but material falsehoods. That serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever.
I thought you folks on the right had figured it out by now: Lying = bad; telling the truth = good. Jeez, my kids know better than you …
September 6th, 2006 at 11:08 amOoops; I meant “Cressey” in the first paragraph (No. 60).
September 6th, 2006 at 11:09 am#55
Where is ABC’s admission that the “dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources” is not a documentary?
Oh, I got you, they’re calling it a ‘docudrama’ in order that the semantics may confuse the viewers.
It should be called ‘fiction, and not being marketed as a clarified docudrama.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:10 amSomeone correct me if I’m wrong, i just want to know, didn’t Michael Moore change the description of his movie from “documentary” to something else because he interjected his opinion? Like I said, maybe I’m wrong, I just thought I remembered hearing that.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:13 amPoor mighty-
September 6th, 2006 at 11:13 amWent to fight the big bad enemy and found herself fighting patriots at Think Progress instead. What a confused person! How misdirected! Enemies of “Freedom” don’t sit in blogs! The boogeyman isn’t at Think Progress! The boogeyman is in Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan and Palestine and the deep recesses of mighty’s mind! Oh my god the enemy described by mighty surely is so insurmountable it’s not worth a fight so she tries to make friends with us! Such flattery, concern and good intent!
Mighty Fraudite don’t run off just yet, please answer who you think takes responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of a country. If it’s not the person who is in charge at the time, then what are they doing there to begin with?
That’s really nothing to do with “hating Bush” but it’s about you and similar trolls ideas of RESPONSIBILITY. Let’s say a crime actually occurs during the shift of a security guard. That guard maybe was asleep and derelecting his duty. What kind of law school did you graduate from that says “well he can use the ‘i didn’t do it! the guy before me is responsible!’ line” I’d really like to know. The FACT is the incident occurred during the guys watch and he just doesn’t have the integrity to admit he failed in his duty.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:16 amWhy isn’t coach jason walking the streets of Baghdad? You a chickenhawk?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:16 amMoore calls his film an op-ed piece.
Let me know when ABC does the same for theirs.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:16 amDRxJ (No. 50) – Actually, Bush 41 helped engineer the solution to Hussein’s WMD (which is only fair, since he and RR – and Don Rumsfeld – facilitated Saddam’s acquisition of WMD even though they new he had used chemical weapons on the Kurds and on Iran … over the objections of DEMOCRATS in Congress). Under Bush 41, the U.N.-brokered peace deal that ended the Gulf War included the requirement that Iraq dismantle its WMD programs, eliminate certain long-range missiles, and permit U.N. inspectors to oversee the process. Despite the road blocks Saddam put up, the weapons inspections scheme actually WORKED – a fact that none of Bush 43’s supporters are yet willing to accept.
Not that that has anything whatsoever to do with 9/11, mind you … but since we’re all so keen on th’ truth ‘n stuff, I thought I’d point that out.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:19 amcoachjason
Prime difference: Michael Moore’s “Documentary” was based on facts and jumped to conclusions. He didn’t just make shit up, the stuff in his documentary happened, just a certain amount of it was just a wee bit meaningless. His facts were right, his conclusions, were a bit far-fetched.
ABC’s “Docudrama” has thus far appeared to be nothing but a pack of lies. It falsifies the facts in order to come to its conclusion, that Bill Clinton was to blame for 9/11.
One is an honest, albeit minority, opinion. The other is a direct attempt to lie to the public.
Oh yeah, and calling MA a whore is not exactly name calling. Type “Mighty Aphrodite” in Google some time.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:22 amAlso BACK ON TOPIC, this is a top counterrorism official to the current regime and even he is saying the “docudrama” is woefully inaccurate and like a disney fantasy. I bet that just really annoys the fanatical cheerleaders that someone responsible actually has the balls to admit this is basically a load of crap.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:22 amMoore’s piece, which I don’t personally care for, is a narration. Not a goddamn dramatization.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:22 amDLC Been there done that, and it needs not be a part of any arguement that we may have. As soon as I begin to tell one of you libs about my service, I’m attacked and called everything from liar to baby-killer, so lets not go there again. Let’s stay on topic! You call yourself a patriot, what have you done to prove it? I consider a patriot someone who protects his country from it’s government. Seems like you want to protect your government from republicans. Again, maybe i’m wrong, but that’s how you come across.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:23 amAnAmerican Thank you for correcting me, and I believe ABC has already said it’s a docudrama. Drama’s usualy tend to take poetic license and base their stories on facts. Like the Amityville Horror movies.
Since the neo-con Republicans have no qualms about risking the lives of our military, and no seeming compunction about the deaths of innocent Iraqui citizens, it is ludicrous to think that they suffer pangs of conciense in shifting the responsibility for their failures. This is the only thing these people are good at. They rearrange facts and causes as events render old facts and causes obsolete. The “PLAN”, is not to solve the problems facing our government in the Middle East. The “PLAN” is to be able to hold onto power.
As more Americans become aware of the governmen’ts gross incompetence, the efforts to refute fact will become more brazen. This is what is known as a cover up. We will witness scapegoating. How much longer they can hide behind this veil of mis-information, or how much longer the majority American people will tolerate it is unanswered. As things begin to unravel, expect to see ever more diablolical posturing and finger pointing. But be consoled, for what’s done in the dark will be revealed in the day. That day is coming soon, and along with the administration there will be media outlets with much to answer for. Do not forget who the truth tellers are. Do not forget who the propagandists are. Do not beg for the truth…….make them pay for their lies.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:25 amcoachjason
I for one would never once accuse you of being a baby killer. That is, unless you killed babies. Did you kill babies coachjason?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:25 amWhy isn’t coach jason walking the streets of Baghdad? You a chickenhawk?
(a) How do you know he’s not in Iraq?
(b) It’s irrelevant anyway.
Now, re: the stupid program — I don’t think we can or should ignore it. It’s being billed as a dramatization of the 9/11 report, and most viewers will assume it’s factually correct — unless they get informed otherwise. Raising a howl is probably the best way to raise awareness. Even if ABC airs it, if we get enough coverage of its shortcomings (a polite word for “lies and inaccuracies”), the effect will be muted.
Don’t know what to do about those Scholastic study guides, though. Any teachers out there want to comment on the efficacy of contacting our kids’ educators and voicing our concerns?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:25 amBruce… Since I own stock in Google, I’d appreciate it if you’d keep typing stuff into it!
September 6th, 2006 at 11:26 am#65, the boogeyman is actually under MA’s bed. In 1948 it was a Red Army soldier, in 1950 a North Korean and Chinese soldier, then in 1953 back to just Fifth Column Communists in general. 1961-2 it was a Cuban (not the cigar), then the rest of the 60s it was a Viet Cong. Then back to Soviets in time for Prague Spring. Next it was the Ayatollahs, then Gaddafi, then Saddam, Saddam, Saddam, then …. well you get the picture. Americans define themselves by who they demonize, rather than look at themselves. But that is so Animal Farm…
September 6th, 2006 at 11:27 am“and I believe ABC has already said it’s a docudrama. ”
That’s the whole point, it’s not a docudrama, it’s a work of fiction.
If anyone thinks ABC is doing some sort of patriotic service to the country by making lies a part the 911 memory, then they need to do some meditating on what this country was and what it’s become.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:30 am#75 Please tell me that’s a rhetorical question Bruce. But I guess the answer is “No”, I’ve never made my girlfriend have an abortion.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:30 amThe more I read the posts from known trolls such as Fraudite and Retired Soldier the more I worry just what their idea of Government is. Apparently it’s a regime which cannot be held to account for anything that goes wrong during its time in office. Well, only if it’s Republican. It is to be supported unquestionably and can do no wrong, ever.
That doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence that they are even patriots or are wanting the best for this country. True patriots don’t just blindly accept and defend their government. A quick look through the founding fathers ideals show even they were against this kind of thinking.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:30 amYa know, maybe deposing a secular tyrant, replacing him with Iraqi Mullahs seeking deeper ties with their Iranian Clerical Brethren, and building up Iran’s influence wasn’t really the smartest way to combat “Islamic Fascists”, huh sport?
And now today, we find out that Pakistan signed a peace accord with Taliban troops in it’s tribal areas that have strong support for the Taliban. Pakistan will withdraw it’s troops in return for pledges not to launch attacks against Pakistan
Pakistan was one of only 3 countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Govt of Afghanistan prior to the Dec. 2001 US invasion
Pakistan has nuclear weapons
Pakistan is about to withdraw from a region strongly sympathetic to the Taliban
The CIA’s unit devoted to catching or killing Usama bin Laden was disbanded last year
Can Karl Rove please explain how ANY of this makes the US safer from another terrorist attack?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:31 amCoachjason (No. 73) – welcome. For the record, no name-calling here; just glad you survived the war intact.
I think the problem with this “docu-drama” thing is that the public has no way of knowing which parts are “docu” and which parts are “drama.” It’s not like each fictionalized (or inaccurate) scene will carry a disclaimer.
Also, ABC/Disney is supplying this film to Scholastic, so that it can be given to schools for … educational purposes! I suspect my conservative friends would be more than a little alarmed if Scholastic were distributing “Fahrenheit 9/11″ to their kids’ schools – and so would I. I apply the same philosophy to politics in the classroom as I do with religion – an absolute wall of separation!
By the way, isn’t the truth about 9/11 dramatic enough without inserting outright falsehoods into the story?
ABC can call it what they like, but screwing with history for political purposes is crap, in my view.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:32 amHang on one minute; this one is just too fugging stupid. Okay coachjason, who holds the Senate, the Congress and the Oval Office? (IE: All three houses?)
The Republicans.
How many of the current Supreme Court Justices were nominated by someone other then a Republican?
2. Ruth Gader Ginsberg, and Stephen G Breyer.
So tell me coachjason, just who is the Government of the United states right now?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:32 amOh! It’s okay! Everyone move along! Nothing to see here! It’s an “Amityville Horror” style interpretation! Too funny!
September 6th, 2006 at 11:32 am#81 you’re right, “…the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.. ” Amazing how quick you quote the founding fathers then will work to discout what they say…
September 6th, 2006 at 11:33 amSadly, we are controlled by the “system” . The same system that emerged post WWII, brought about Vietnam, nearly succeeded in turning Cuban missile crisis into nuclear war, took-out JFK/RFK/MLK, became temporarily impotent after Cold War because of unwillingness to reengineer itself non-militarily, fabricated brownskinned Islamic boogeyman as next global threat, etc., etc. The neocon enablers of these imperialistic institutions, defense contractors, war profiteers, and extreme Judeo-Christian ideologies, have succeeded in eliminating democracy and stupifying the public. The evil becomes further institutionalized as evidenced by the 9/11 docu-fiction being spewed by one of the system’s propaganda arms, ABC/Disney.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:33 amTop Neocon Come-ons #31:
Hey sweetie! I’ve never made my girlfriend have an abortion! Wanna lock lips?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:33 am#88 Go ahead,act like you’ve ever kissed a girl…
September 6th, 2006 at 11:36 amHey honey,
September 6th, 2006 at 11:36 amWanna come back to my place? I’ve never made my girlfriend have an abortion, AND, I make a mean omelette!
#76, Crispy, to illustrate why allowing ABC to push a reportedly factually incorrect (for apparent propaganda purposes) film as history while the course of the nation is being decided by the public’s understanding (or lack) of said history, I have a thought experiment:
What do you know of the history of William ‘Braveheart’ Wallace? Did Wallace father the King of England, Edward III? Did Wallace’s death immediately start the Bannockburn uprising? How good a historian is Mel ‘you can take away my license, but you can’t take away my freedom – oh you mean you can take that too? G**da** J**’ Gibson
Next: did the US Navy capture an enigma machine from a German U-Boat in WW2?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:38 amHey Sugar-Pumpkin, wanna come back to my place? I’ve got a new Documentary called Amityville Horror just burning it’s way out of the package AND I’ve never made my girlfriend have an abortion. You game?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:39 am#40. Well said! But nowadays I’ve noticed that people can barely remember what happened during the Clinton years besides Monica. As for the Bush I years, besides Dana Carvey’s impression and the ‘highway of death’ in Iraq it’s like a land before time. That’s just my experience with some people I know.
As for this 9/11 propaganda-drama, you can bet big ratings cause Americans will watch anything that has to do with 9/11. The show could be interrupted every 15 min with an announcement that says “What you are watching is an out and out lie and you are all wasting your time” and people will still continue to watch.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:41 amDave Von Ebbers, as I’ve said in the past, you are a breath of fresh air around here. One, like myself, willing to put aside personal politics to discuss real solutions. I agree, if the ABC docudrama is being touted as fact, then a rebuttal should also be provided. If it’s being touted as drama, then let’s watch the show while eating some popcorn. I don’t turn to ABC for my olitical views, just as I’m sure you don’t turn to Michael Moore. About the pamphlets sent to teachers, it’s disgusting. Since when do television networks dictate classroom topics? hopefully most teachers will just present it as one alternative. The movie United 93 was much the same. It’s near impossible to tell what exactly happened on tha flight. But an attempt was made to show the heroism of the people involved. I apologize for the Amityville reference, it was the first movie that came into my head that had the disclaimer that it was “based on actual events”.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:42 amThe way DLC picks up chicks “Hey baby, I’m a famous blogger… do you want fries with that?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:44 amThe movie is a hit piece and a campaign tool. It doesn’t need to be balanced by anything. It needs to be yanked. Period.
Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:44 amYanked, I thought this was a free country with the freedom of speech?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:45 amor arewe just supposed to protect your speech?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:46 am“************DM – You know how right-wing the Associated Press is….You’re a little dupe – why not be proud of being a tool in the chest of someone who hates George Bush EVEN more than YOU…”
I seriously doubt the authenticity of anything that’s sourced from the White House. The Bush Administration’s policy of deceit is too well-documented.
It came from the White House – at best it’s out of context, more commonly its a plain lie.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:46 amFollow the money. Free speech is free speech. Government employees who engage in propaganda is a federal crime, asshole. Come back later will ya?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:47 am#91 – Sounds like we both agree on the “Path-to-911-is-bad” premise. Is your contention that anything short of getting ABC to pull the program is not enough? I imagine it’s possible to do it, but it would take a lot more press than we’re getting in a very short time.
(And to answer your question, alas, my memories of both Braveheart and English history are too faulty to trust, and I was never a WWII buff (although I found Cryptonomicon a great read). If you wanna talk about how Superman threw the Kryptonian proto-continent into the sun, though, I’m your guy!)
September 6th, 2006 at 11:48 amDLc… come back later? What is my debatability too much for you, or are you on your way into work. If you work for me… you’re late A-HOLE!
September 6th, 2006 at 11:49 amRe: 101 Lies are not illegal, immoral but yet legal. You should know, you use them to get elected.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:53 amAnyone remember the hit piece on Kerry that Sinclair Broadcasting was going to air back in 2004, and after a lot of bad publicity (including calls for boycotts), it got re-edited into a tepid, garbled, ineffective “new special” about how the two major candidates’ war records (or lack thereof) were being used in the campaign?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:54 amI have another one: ‘The Great Escape’. How many Americans escaped from the camp?
a. 15
b. Just Steve McQueen and James Garner (although he played a Canadian)
c. 0
And how many Americans go to Disneyland and really think those fake towns are as good as the real thing?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:54 am
This is wrong headed thinking. What this is will do is ingrain in the minds of millions false history and it will snag millions into the fantasy. It re writes history in manner which will NEVER be fixed. This kind of thinking is what is costing us our democracy. Very much like people think “no thinking and informed person would ever believe Rush Limbaugh” when in fact their are millions who not only believe him, they have turned their critical thinking over to him.
Have you read that they are sending this out to the schools, marketing it to children.
This is Goebbels and it is taking our nation further down a very, very dark road. It is niave and even foolish to think it won’t make a difference.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:55 amcoachjason
Freedom of speech does not cover hate speech, slander or libel. The rule of thumb with the bill of rights is that one person’s right to something only extends as far as another person’s right to something. So if your speech destroys my right to my good name, I can sue you for it. The trick is that I have to sue you for it, so if you wait until I am dead you can say whatever you like about me.
That’s why so many books come out after any given popular figure dies, generally purporting to the be the true story of their lives. Once you are dead your good name, well it isn’t quite as easy to defend.
This movie seems to me, to be an act of libel, it aims to destroy Clinton’s good name. You might debate with me over how good Clinton’s name actually is, but the fact remains that it is making things up which never happened in an effort to discredit Clinton and his staff, who are all still alive.
Now from ABC’s point of view this means that the movie leaves them open to a law suit due to the false claims contained within and the fact that it has not billed itself as a parody, and if it comes to that they will lose based purely on what has been found out about it already. It is therefore, from their point of view best if they yank the movie, after all, there is no obligation from ABC’s viewpoint to screen it.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:56 amRE: 109 I won’t argue Clinton’s good or bad name, history will do that by itself. I’m simply saying that what this movie does is no different from what Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Sean Hannity, Al Franken, or Stephanie Miller does. They distort the truth and rename it “the truth”. I have not seen the movie, as I assume most of you have not, so how can we complain over the merits 9or demerits) over who gets defamed in the process? It seems to me that the only ones who will watch it are republicans who agree with what it says already. If you’re afraid the dem’s will lose membership because if one movie, then their loyalty should have already been questioned. If it does make Clinton look bad, let him sue to clear his good name.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:03 pmHey, Coachjason – are you trying to ruin my reputation or something? Last time I defended you I got flamed for being a “faux” liberal, or something like that. (Like I give a good gosh-darn about anyone else’s labels!)
Anyway, about that First Amendment argument – you’re right in the obvious sense: The film is protected speech whether its accurate or inaccurate. But, the First Amendment doesn’t protect ABC from OUR views, either. The government has no right to interfere with the network, except with in FCC guidelines (to the extent those guidelines are, in fact, constitutional – and that’s an entirely different pandora’s box), but private citizens can bitch and moan to their heart’s content. If ABC bows from pressure exerted by private citizens, there’s no First Amendment issue.
Least, that’s the way I see it.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:04 pm#99 – “It came from the White House – at best it’s out of context, more commonly its a plain lie.” – Comment by DM
*********Dear DM – “It’s a Small World after all…” THAT’s just what your friend and ally bin Laden said!!!!!!!
Darn it, the judge just showed up…..
September 6th, 2006 at 12:05 pmI remember you Dem’s calling “the Day after tomorrow” the movie George Bush doesn’t want oyu to see. So let’s call this movie the one “Bill Clinton doesn’t want you to see!”
September 6th, 2006 at 12:05 pmDave Von ebbers… you got me there. If they succumb to your pressure, then so be it. Maybe it’ll go straight to video and then people will flock to Blockbuster (another company I own stock in) to rent it. So in that sense, I’m with you, YANK THE MOVIE ABC!!!!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:08 pmBTW… Dave V.E., I’m not trying to ruin your rep. Lest being a good person and a good American discredits you from this site!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:09 pmEver wonder why coachjason and all the other trolls never have anything new or intelligent to say? And why they only spew out the same old bulls–t lies and accusations that we’ve refuted thousands of times already? That’s because they know what the truth is and they know we are right but don’t care. They don’t read our blogs for fact or opinion, they come to fight. Forget about them!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:11 pmcoachjason
Look, the difference between this and M Moore’s movie is this:
Michael substantiated his claims and his sources were factually accurate. What conclusions he drew were perfectly within his legal ambit. In effect no libel took place. Many rightwingers actually mention the fact that it was a masterwork in that there was nothing which could be claimed on its own to be libel within it. Those facts that were presented did not constitute libel or slander, because they were true, what conclusions Michael Moore drew from those facts, were his opinions.
I notice the bulk of those names you have listed up their are conservative, but still, they are generally giving and opinion and not stating fact. You are free to have whatever opinion you like under the law, you can call people names etc… but you cannot falsify the facts to suit your world view. This movie has crossed that line in a spectacular manner. It is not entirely that it is a propaganda piece that attracts my ire towards it, it is that it lies in order to fuel its argument.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:11 pmAre you just naive or a troll?
I can’t believe people are this naive. We are not talking about some show about the life of some damn jumping horse or one trying to prove that Lizzy Borden was guilty. We are talking about a major historical event which occurred recently – one that the political balance and future direction of our nation is very much tied to.
This thing will no doubt be royally debunked, even more than it already has, but the cult which controls the nation and millions who see the show will NEVER hear the corrections. The republicans will no doubt work off the lying talking points created in this propaganda piece for years to come.
No wonder the country is going to hell.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:12 pm#102 – hmm, ABC has the right I suppose to show whatever it wants and I have the right to ignore it, complain about or whatever. I can’t change which direction the sheep bleat. However, I think that they should probably give equal airtime to the libel case Bill Clinton will bring, CNN will have Nancy Grace all over it I’m sure (/sarcasm off).
BTW: William Wallace died years before Edward III was born and Bannockburn was 9 years after Wallace was executed, so Mel Gibson is being ‘liberal with the facts’. Now, the fact that he fueled anti-English sentiment in Scotland is not his fault right? And U-571 was a crock. The British Navy not the US were the guys who captured the enigma, I suppose Matthew McConnaghy’s english accent was about as good as Kevin Costner’s. And finally – the Great Escape – answer was 0 – no Americans were involved. Now you could argue that of the three examples, only ‘Braveheart’ marginally caused harm to anyone. But U-571 and the Great Escape are unintentionally giving Americans (if they see the ‘based on true story’ at the beginning and look no further) an incorrect understanding of history. IMHO, putting a factually incorrect ‘based on true events’ version of 9-11 WHILE DECISIONS ARE STILL BEING MADE on the public perception of that history is propaganda, no other word for it.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:12 pmBruce (No. 109), I think you are overstating your case when you say that “[f]reedom of speech does not cover hate speech, libel or slander.” Actually, there are quite a number of First Amendment cases involving libel and slander, in particular. When it comes to libeling a public figure, the person making the libelous statement can only be held liable if he or she acted maliciously or with reckless disregard for the truth. And, there are certain kinds of libelous statements that are “privileged” – for example, one usually cannot be held liable for defamation if the statement is contained in pleadings filed in court, or if the statement was made by one politician against another in the context of a political campaign.
As far as hate speech goes, I would argue that your dead wrong. Hate speech, in and of itself, is protected by the First Amendment. There is no such thing as “group libel” under our constitutional system, and speech that advocates criminal or violent action is protected unless there is a clear and present danger of imminent violence or harm – and even then, the speaker can only be silenced if there is no other way to prevent the imminent threat of danger from materializing. Hate crimes are punishable only because there is underlying action – assault, battery, criminal damage to property, vandalism, etc. The “hate” element goes to the offender’s motive; that is, if the underlying criminal conduct was motivated by hate, the offender may be subject to a stiffer penalty.
And before anyone argues that hate crimes violate the First Amendment because they “punish thought,” remember that motives are always relevant to determining the severity of the crime or the punishment for the crime. Take a look at any death penalty sentencing statute and you will see that the “aggravating factors” often relate to motive – for example, if you kill for compensation you may be eligible for the death penalty; or if you kill a witness to prevent him or her from testifying; or if you kill to cover up a crime, etc. – these are all aggravating factors based on motive. And the reason is, a person who will kill for money, or to cover up a crime, etc., may be less likely to be reformed and more likely to pose a threat to others. The same could easily be said for someone whose criminal activity is motivated by racial, gender, religious hatred, etc.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:17 pmBruce, when I was a kid my dad taught me to not only “question everything” but to “believe none of what you read and half of what you see.” Using that premise, Michael Moore’s movie and this one, can be no more than half true. I cannot speak for others, but as for myself, I don’t need Rush, Hannity, Moore, or ABC to craft my political opinion. Besides Clinton isn’t running for any office any time soon, so how does this effect his political future?
September 6th, 2006 at 12:18 pmCan the FEC get involved in this if it’s so obviously partisan that it looks like a bajillion dollar giveaway to the Republicans during election season?
Is ABC, Disney, and Scholastic giving Republicans un-declared campaign donations with this?
September 6th, 2006 at 12:19 pmFor those who say it is only a movie or that ABC bills it as a docudrama, I say it is much more than that. Limbaugh and the others are prddling this movie as fact, not as drama. Their faithful listeners accept the movie as fact. Heck for years soem of the myths propagated by this movie have been accepted as fact by the right. Also when ABC plans to send it out to schools across the nation it is attempting to shape America’s perception of what happened. It is attempting to mold the minds of the young with dramazitzed depictions of 9/11, many or most of which are absolutely untrue. It is propaganda pure and simple and they are attmpting to warp the minds of the youth with it. Kind of like how the Hitler Youth or the Young Pioneers were brainwashed. I just had to toss that in because GWB keeps bringing up Nazism and COmmunisum lately.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:21 pm#117 and Bruce, Michael Moore’s F911 was not dramatized with Harvey Keitel and so-on interpreting real events and staging fake events with fake dialogue.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:22 pmRE: #122 Don’t you just love the kids who are unable to put aside politics for common ground solutions. I’m doing all but agreeing with you boys and still, all you can do is call me names… pathetic!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#126 I don’t recall the name of the movie, but there was a movie made that refuted F911, point by point. If that can be done, then F911 can’t possibly be all true. HAS THAT EVER OCCURRED TO YOU?
September 6th, 2006 at 12:26 pmthere’s even a website devoted to debunking everything M.Moore says, using FACTS. go to http://www.moorewatch.com and see for yourself
September 6th, 2006 at 12:28 pmCoachjason, one of the beefs I had with “Fahrenheit 9/11″ was the way Moore created the impression that members of the bin Laden family and/or the Saudi royal family were allowed to leave the country while all commercial flights were still grounded. In fact, commercial flights resumed around the 13th or 14th of September (Thursday or Friday), because I recall one of my siblings leaving for Germany on 9/14. Anyway, the bin Ladens (or Saudi Royals – can’t remember which) actually left the country on Monday, 9/17, albeit by private jet.
Nonetheless, it was not as if they were permitted to leave while the rest of us were still grounded.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:31 pmWith this weekend’s upcoming mockumentary “The Path to 9/11,” Disney and ABC are breaking dangerous new ground in the conservative propaganda war. Even as the ABC network follows in the footsteps of Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ in “mobilizing the base,” ABC News on Sunday declared Robert Greenwald’s new documentary “Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers” a left-wing hatchet job “produced like a political campaign.”
For the details, see:
September 6th, 2006 at 12:32 pm“ABC News Slams New Iraq Documentary, Ignores Own 9/11 Right-Wing Fantasy.”
128. What’s the “common ground” solution you’re putting forth here? That you own stock in a bunch of companies and you think corporations have the right to re-write history at will as long as there’s a caption that says it’s a docudrama.
Oh wait, I see the connection.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:33 pmDave V.E. I think it’s official, the libs are gonna cast you out. You agreed with me again. I cannot be held responsible for what they do to you next…
September 6th, 2006 at 12:34 pmcoachjason to be fair you’ve made some inflammatory posts yourself.
As for the likes of Fraudite and co, what drives these trolls to keep coming back to this site day in and day out? Nothing better to do? Mental affliction to keep going back to something you fundamentally disagree? In all the time these masochists have been here I’ve not seen anybody change their mind or have other thoughts because of their trolling natured posts.
Could it possibly be, the contents of this site are a threat to their fragile psyche? If they won’t be swayed by anything here, and nobody is really being swayed by them, they are only here for the above reasons – mental affliction of some kind, in the presence of MANY times been proven wrong and made to look like idiots; or they’re paid to do it. Or they’re really just that dumb.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:34 pmSince the media has been bought and paid for by the extreme right wing of this country, I don’t go there, ever. I got my satellite turned off because of it. It comes down to this, from coachjason’s post, that the likes of Al Franken is put in the same sentence and compared to RUSH LIMBAUGH????? Therein lies the problem. What is truth then? The trolls on this site, whenever something is posted that was written by a real journalist, is slammed as being nothing but left wing propaganda, even though there are facts that can be supported in these writings. You know, the work of REAL JOURNALISTS.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:35 pmI will NOT watch the ABC phony docudrama propaganda 9/11 swift-boating attack blaming it on former President Bill Clinton!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:36 pmI would rather watch flies mating, then this GOP putrid sludge > lol.
Re:#133. I came here to work with you guys for some common ground. I am totally willing to put my personal political views aside for whoever wants to work with me. I never made the claim that I have the answers, in fact, I have more questions than you can shake a stick at. Besides, I guess that the Evil Blockbuster and Google corp are now war profiteering. What are they selling to many DVD’s to afgani’s or Iraqi’s?
September 6th, 2006 at 12:37 pm#129, er yes, F911 certainly has some editorial comments that a economical with the use of all the facts, I agree. I also think Moore cherry picked facts for entertainment value (like Bill Maher does). I remember Craig Unger was unhappy with what Moore left as his contribution to the ‘House of Bush’ part of the film.
I couldn’t find any trace of the debunking films you mention as I google-monkeyed. Just because a film exists, does not mean that F911 is untrue or even half untrue (or some mathematical formula diving the amount of truthiness of F911 by the number of debunking films).
And now another pithy Turtle quote:
George Washington was lucky he won – instead of a freedom fighter, he could have simply been a hanged traitor…
September 6th, 2006 at 12:40 pm9/11 Conspiracy
Here are some 9/11 conspiracy videos. The first is a link to a full-length documentary called “Loose Change” (click on the link and follow the link to the video):
http://www.loosechange911.com/
Other shorter 9/11 conspiracy stuff I also found interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc2lih2qjEg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXpcnhwFlIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF8-8Kaa8jo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmvGFVr6KNk
September 6th, 2006 at 12:40 pm[...] more on abc’s forthcoming 9/11 propaganda, from roger cressey (who was interviewed on msnbc’s scarborough country last night. think progress has the video, and the boldface emphasis is mine): SCARBOROUGH: Roger, let me begin with you. There are points of this docudrama that are more drama than fact. But talk about Bill Clinton and the central premise by ABC that he should have done more to get Bin Laden. [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 12:43 pmDave von Ebers
First: Hate Speech. It depends on your definition of Hate Speech. Speech intended to incite violence and that is the definition of hate speech so far as I understand it. that is why I included the ability to call people names as a part of what you can do. You can say whatever you like about how you think of someone (That is Ann Coulter’s great trick to avoid court) but you can’t say “Lets go kill X Person or People” with serious intent. This was one of the features of the American legal system that took out one of the larger Klans.
As to libel, I would say that making stuff up that never actually happened counts as reckless disregard for the truth. Further as Bill Clinton is not a political candidate at this point, the protections offered in an election are not extended to this case. Ditto those protections extended to the happenings of court procedings.
I would say he has a extremely strong case against ABC for defamation based on this mini-series.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:45 pm#129-the movie you are pointing toward was a pieice of crap by mAnn Coulter “Farenhype 911″. The fact that crazy bitch was involved gives it absolutely zero credibility…and you are the first person I have ever heard say it refuted everything in F911. You are spouting hearsay.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:45 pm#140 George Washington was lucky he won – instead of a freedom fighter, he could have simply been a hanged traitor…
September 6th, 2006 at 12:46 pmIf fire fighters fight fire and crimefighters fight crime… what do freedom fighters fight?
#145 Hmm – that’s a poser…I like it
September 6th, 2006 at 12:47 pm#144, I knew someone would bring that up. There was another movie that had nothing to do with Ann Coulter. I’m still drawing a blank on the name… when I find it, I’ll let you know. It’s really funny though how you give no credit to any movie that is made by people who are not liberals.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:49 pmcoachjason
It is not a matter of political future, it is a matter of it effecting his future at all. Further Bill Clinton is not the only one with a claim on damages, his staff by the sounds of it also have a strong claim, as this movie will cause damage to their credibility in their chosen professions too, thereby reducing their chances of advancement and harming future earnings they could acrue in their given fields.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:49 pm#63 here is the link from which I garnered my point.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:50 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/04/path-blog-yanked/
MA keep up the good fight, they’ve resorted to name calling, that means they’re more than afraid that you are right!
Comment by coachjason — September 6, 2006 @ 11:08 am
I’ve put that in bold for emphasis. You’ve really, really not looked through the history of Fraudites posts have you? Or perhaps you have but you’re looking at them through rose tinted glasses? That alleged lawyer is constantly resorting to derogatory inflammatory responses.
Also I don’t know why you’ve not noticed it, but the majority of the abuse and name calling comes from a few trolls (probably the same few people using different IDs) who seem to come here for no purpose other than to try to derail everything, using any means necessary including namecalling, goading and so forth. Since you think one of said people are doing a great job, that completely disqualifies your “I’m just trying to get along” smokescreen.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:51 pmWell, Coach … let’s not go too far, here. I’m not saying all of F9/11 is wrong, I’m just saying that one issue, in particular, really chapped by behind. I’ve watched the film a couple of times, and I think Moore makes some valid observations (and I love the soundtrack!), but he’s often superficial. I had the same issues with “Bowling for Columbine” … every so often, I would be struck by what I considered to be a valid point, then, somehow, the reasoning would get bogged down. (What, exactly, is the connection between the presence of defense contractors in the vicinity of Littleton, CO, and the shootings? I’m still a bit confused about that one …)
On the other hand, to Moore’s credit, he’s willing to raise issues that most people ignore. On Iraq, for example, someday there will have to be a reckoning about America’s past involvement in supporting and helping to arm Saddam Hussein. We can’t just ignore that part of the story. The same is true with respect to the way the U.S. used folks like Osama bin Laden to fight a proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, then looked the other way as he became more and more radicalized. At a minimum, guys like you who served in Iraq are entitled to an explanation.
So, Moore engages in polemics, but sometimes we need polemics if for no other reason than to rattle the cage and force the country to address the hard issues. ABC, on the other hand, it right smack-dab in the middle of the mainstream media; they shouldn’t be messing with the truth, if you ask me. ABC can do far more harm than Michael Moore.
(And, at least Moore seems interested in the fate of the soldiers and marines over there. The main stream media would just as soon forget that there are men and women in harm’s way every day. And, don’t get me started on how the media, and the public generally, totally ignore the returning wounded, whether physically or mentally … it’s as if they’re ghosts, which is utterly unacceptable.)
September 6th, 2006 at 12:51 pm#148 Are you saying that it is not possible that any claim made by this Path to 911 movie could possibly be true? To just discount the whole thing is saying the Clinton admin gets off scott free. That contradicts the final outcome from the 9/11 comission.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:51 pmcoachjason
I refuse to take seriously, any site with the word “watch” appended onto it. They are frequently less then credible sources. It is like buying time share off of a “Christian.” (Rule of thumb, if someone is that vocal about their religion there is a reason for it, and it isn’t their faith in God.)
Besides I don’t believe everything I hear. If I did that, I would be a GOP supporter, I am not. I don’t even support the Democrats, I just believe in telling the truth.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:52 pmcoachjason
Nope. Simply that those claims that have already been brought to light are false, and as such constitute libel. I remember some of those speeches Clinton gave in his last 3 years, terrorism was not something he was ignoring.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:56 pm#153 – Coach, I tried the moorewatch site too – I couldn’t find anything significant of value beyond a lot of poorly sourced mudslinging and triumphalism about finding out Moore for editorializing and being more interested in commercial success with his satirical style. Kos covered the Moore debunking exercises in depth – this thread is not about Moore it’s about ABC, and who controls what the idiot box in the corner of your room shows you. Try leaving the States and looking at other people’s media, you’ll get an idea why Greg Palast calls living in the States, “Behind the Electronic Berlin Wall”.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:00 pmDave Von Ebers. Okay, you libs have gone too far. Cloning? Dave, your thoughts seem to mirror mine. though I only watched 9/11 once and never saw Bowling…
September 6th, 2006 at 1:00 pmyou’re right, why do the leaders we support seem to almost always become enemies and vice-versa.
I do want answers. I want to know why I was sent to kill people who may have just been defending their homeland. I say may, because the plan has always been to give the iraqi’s their country back, therefore no need to fight for it. I want to know why people give so much credit to how damaging a movie can be. JFK (the movie) made the CIA look terrible, yet I saw no lawsuits come from the aftermath.
Again, thanks Dave for proving that there are level-headed liberals out there who will grab the olive branch when extended. you are a pleasure to talk to.
I agree with:
Mark, “It is propaganda pure and simple and they are attmpting to warp the minds of the youth with it. Kind of like how the Hitler Youth or the Young Pioneers were brainwashed.”
and
Briseadh na Faire, “The powers that be want to implant their version of history on the minds of the next generation of voters. ”
Between the school study guides (Scholastic – say it isn’t so!) and Apple’s iTunes free downloads they are aiming this at the kids.
And that is despicable.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:02 pm#156 – here’s your answer:
September 6th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Terry, i don’t see an answer there. A quote that does nothing to explain americas changing policies.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:05 pmJust for the record: I would haveabsolutely no objectionto ABC/Disneydistributing this to movie theaters–and publishing a companion book to be sold in bookstores. (It could be put right next to Whitley Streiber’s The Grays.)
September 6th, 2006 at 1:05 pmpbg, actually straight to video would be great…
September 6th, 2006 at 1:06 pmBruce, you may be right about the libel issue, but I suspect, as a practical matter, a court or a jury would be very, very reluctant to hold a television network liable for defamation against a former political leader, especially when the defamation relates to his conduct in office (and no, I don’t mean his, ahem, recreational conduct in office). Whether or not the film is defamatory, and it may well be, courts and juries are understandably reluctant to punish anyone, including a television network, for political speech.
As far as hate speech is concerned, I still say it all turns on the “clear and present danger” test. Of course, if someone is advocating violence against a person or group, then takes material steps to act on that advocacy – forms a group, gets weapons together, etc. – they could probably face conspiracy charges anyway.
Take for example Matthew Hale, former leader of the “World Church of the Creator” – so far as I know, he has never been charged with anything connected with Benjamin Smith’s rampage (Smith killed an Asian student and former Northwestern basketball coach Ricky Birdsong, who was African American); but, if he had worked with Smith, armed him, advised him to go on a shooting rampage, helped him plan the attacks, etc., Hale could have been charged with conspiracy.
Also, there is a huge difference between civil and criminal liability. For example, Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center had great success suing a white supremacist organization and its leadership in a wrongful death civil suit after one of its members killed an African American couple. Civil liability was based on negligence – that the organization and its leaders knew or should have known that their actions (and, of course, words), would or could have encouraged the offender to attack African Americans. But, that’s a far cry for censoring the organization or imposing criminal penalties for its speech – unless, of course, their speech created a clear and present danger …
September 6th, 2006 at 1:07 pmcoachjason
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.â€
– Hermann Goering
Are you telling me you don’t see what has been happening since 9/11?
September 6th, 2006 at 1:09 pmAren’t all crimes against people “Hate crimes”? ever murder someone because you loved them? The same should go for speech. When you say that Bush is a Chimpanzee (funny as it is) isn’t that hate speech? I’m sure you’re not saying it because you love him. And when I say “you” I’m generalizing…
September 6th, 2006 at 1:10 pm#159 – sorry that was the ‘how’ of ending up in Iraq, not the ‘why’ – my mistake. It also partly explains the ‘how’ of America’s changing policies (a straw man I know, but full circle to the role of the media in setting public perception).
September 6th, 2006 at 1:10 pmDave von Ebers
Civil Liability is what I am talking about here though. If I had been talking about criminal liability I would say that hate speech is a crime, whereas what I am saying is that it isn’t protected under Freedom of Speech.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:12 pmRE:163 For the record, I have never and will never call one who questions a governmental policy anything but a patriot. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. If you don’t like the way america deals with terrorism, or terrorists, put an electable candidate on the ballot. Or come up with a better solution. It really is that simple isn’t it?
September 6th, 2006 at 1:13 pmHate speech does not cover just calling someone a monkey.Stating that we should burn Bush alive however, does fall under hate speech, hence why at least one case of bad punning ended with some jail time.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:15 pmcoachjason
And I respect you for that view. However, that is not to say that a lot of what Goering described way back when hasn’t been happening. Ann Coulter is a particular case of this, Bush’s tendency towards saying “Some people say…” is a great example of this.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:17 pm164 – Yes, Coach, all violent crimes are “hate crimes” in that sense. The reason that certain forms of hate – that is, bigotry that rises to the level where it actually motivates the bigot to do physical harm to another person – are given special emphasis in the law is that they are perceived to be more pernicious, harder to root out, and part of a long and sorry historical practice. If a person kills some one in a drug deal, or robbing a liquor store (or, is simply one of a group of criminals who robs the liquor store, but isn’t the one who pulls the trigger – that’s called “stick-up murder” in criminal parlance), he or she is undoubtedly a dangerous person – and, in fact, the law deals harshly with that person. But the individual who kills, say, African Americans or white folks – because of their race – arguably poses a greater danger on the whole because there likely will be no way to satiate that impulse. As long as African Americans or white folks are around, the killer will have a reason to kill again.
Then, of course, there is the harm done to the victims, their families, other members of the targeted group. It’s bad enough to lose someone to a violent crime, but to have to spend the rest of your life in fear that you may someday be killed because of the color of your skin, your gender, your religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. – that’s just plain wrong.
Least, that’s my view …
September 6th, 2006 at 1:18 pmWhy did you ignore my post coachjason? Why are you meandering all over the place except on topic?
September 6th, 2006 at 1:18 pmBruce (No. 166) – yeah, I kind of got off on a tangent there …
Still, I think that it would be hard for Clinton, et al., to win a defamation case as a practical matter – but that doesn’t mean the movie isn’t libelous, or “actionable” as th’ lawyers like to say.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:22 pmDave von Ebers
The difficulty in winning is probably a big reason why Clinton hasn’t sued, the trouble is when such liberties have been take with the truth, one has to stand up eventually. There are a lot of people who claim that Clinton hasn’t sued and therefore the movie is true. I think Clinton has to stand up for himself here.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:26 pmIf ABC airs this piece of fantasy dung, everyone should totally boycott this station – forever. They have betrayed their trust in labeling fact as fact and fiction as fiction. They’ve probably violated FEC rules in doing so which will result in hefty fines. Bravo for Clinton that he is pursuing legal channels on the obvious besmerching of his character and reputation.
As an american citizen, I find this action by ABC totally shameful and appalling. With Richard Chessey’s latest interview on Scarborough Country, Condi’s statement before the 9/11 commission, Richard Clark saying this is a piece of “pure fantasy” and nothing about it is accurate, how can ABC think that this will be anything for them but self-destruction?
Bye, Bye….ABC! Disney will be in the toilet with them.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:28 pm#169 – right on Bruce – that ’some people say’ is always the indicator that what is coming next needs close attention. Also ‘ we have learned from the British Government…’ – because those patsies are in lock-step with the Busheviks and can be a convenient place to deny responsibility, since the British have no control over what Bush says they said and Bush has no responsbility for what he has said.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:29 pmDarn it dave Von Ebers you have to quit making sense! There’s no place for that here… just ask GoBackToSleepAmerica. I was kind of being rhetorical when I was asking about hate speech. I find it hard to believe that in this day and age we have to fear for anything based on the color of our skin. It’s too bad that still happens…
September 6th, 2006 at 1:30 pm#175 – “Some people say” = “the voice of God in my head says”
September 6th, 2006 at 1:32 pm#177 and once again you ignore my post and question, and take a sideswipe at me as a person even though I’ve not said anything about you.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:32 pmRE:171 it’s called conversation. You should try putting aside your hatred and liberal playbook posts and try having one some time. I didn’t ignore your post, I probably just didn’t see it. I’ll go back now and look
September 6th, 2006 at 1:33 pmI enjoyed the comments above but you may be leaving out the FEC’s role in this. They are the ones responsible for the laws governing what is a political advertisement and what is not. Either ABC needs to label this presentation a “work of fiction” (or something to indicate embellishment of the truth) or a political ad because it obviously veers far from the truth about any of the assertions made within it.
After all, we do have the historical record to prove the point that it is fiction. Factual data does not appear to be on the side of those presenting this work. Add to that the ever-increasing group of government officials who are speaking out about the obvious twisting of the facts and you have a prescription for disaster – not only for the GOP but for the WH in general.
Given all of this, I would believe that Clinton would have a very strong case that this was intentionally created to defame his character. The prima facia evidence (transcripts of the 9/11 commission, videotaped testimonies, and testimony from officials to the contrary) would support the case of intentional besmerchment of him as an individual as well as a President.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:34 pmGo Back To Sleep America I hadn’t looked at Mighty aph.’s posts. Sorry I left my rose glass at home today. If she posts name calling then shame on her, but people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. you calling people trolls is just as telling of what kind of person you are.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:36 pm#180 You’re doing again coachjason. My “hatred” hmm? My liberal playbook posts?!
You claim to be here to find common ground. Yet your very first post in this topic is to back up a known and repeat troller. Then you go on to post inflammatory things yourself, and you’ve done that now twice the last post and the one just before that.
To me that looks like you’re not really here to find common ground at all. It looks much more like you’re just trying to throw a curveball, while taking sideswipes and potshots.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:37 pmIf you don’t like the way america deals with terrorism, or terrorists, put an electable candidate on the ballot. Or come up with a better solution. It really is that simple isn’t it?
Comment by coachjason
The problem is governments. Government doesnt care about ending terrorism. Every fact tells us this. Government depends on terrorism: it means profit for them and control, based on fear, of people. Perfect business.
and never saw Bowling…
September 6th, 2006 at 1:39 pmComment by coachjason
You should. Best documentary ever.
For the record, I’m calling them as I see them:
Troll:
- One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
- One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. ‘you’re nothing but a fanboy’ is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
- 1b. Noun
A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous disagreements, sex, status, ect.
A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a “Flamer” who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll for a more in depth description. Much of the posts from the likes of MA fall completely into that category. Some of yours certainly do, including the last few directed towards me.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:41 pmRE:#182
September 6th, 2006 at 1:42 pmYou are right. I want nothing to do with common ground! You are a DOLT and a HateMonger. I have done absolutely nothing to try and understand you or the liberal point of view. I kill babies, rape Iraqi women, and share oxycontin pills with Rush Limbaugh! Bush Is God!
Now back to reality… Go Back To Sleep America likes nothing more than to question the validity of anyone who may have a differing viewpoint because he is unable to debate the view. GBTSA Isn’t recess over yet?
Darn it dave Von Ebers you have to quit making sense! There’s no place for that here…
September 6th, 2006 at 1:43 pmComment by coachjason
I know thats supposed to be funny. But, why theres no place for sense here?
Re:184
September 6th, 2006 at 1:45 pmBTW the library called, their dictionary is overdue!
# 186. What’s that supposed to be, obfuscation? More ad hominem attacks? Tsk tsk.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:47 pmJuan C I say that because GBTSA seems to have the inability to make sense and line it up as ‘truthiness”. I really was only joking because several have accused me of being some kind of chickenhawk or troll (that’s the latest). It seems only to come from those who lack the ability to converse and go directly to name calling.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:48 pm# 186. What’s that supposed to be, obfuscation? More ad hominem attacks? Tsk tsk.
Comment by Go Back To Sleep America
September 6th, 2006 at 1:51 pmThanks for proving my point, you are unable to converse civily. Ad Hominem? Obfuscation? Supercallafragilisticexpealladocious!
Coachjason you are not seeing are you? I didn’t go straight to name calling or being insulting towards you. Yet you’ve done that. You’ve resorted to petty ad hominem attacks.
I pointed out some serious flaws in your premise for being here and the only thing you can come back with is ad hominem attacks and bullshit “I was really only joking” comments, while AT THE SAME TIME CONTINUING YOUR AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:51 pmIt seems only to come from those who lack the ability to converse and go directly to name calling.
Comment by coachjason
This is your first post.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:55 pmMA keep up the good fight, they’ve resorted to name calling, that means they’re more than afraid that you are right!
Comment by coachjason — September 6, 2006 @ 11:08 am
Now, if you knew more, I guess you do, you would know that MA is just a poster whose comments dont make sense, are filled with poor language and name calling in order to pick up futile fights. I dont really know or care about his/her motives. And you said we were afraid that she was right. Do you have any proof of this? In order to be respected or read, do not engage in name calling or defend people that do that. My whole support to GBTSA. He is an interesting poster, here.
coachjason
She is a troll. She is one of these hysteric types that attacks people whether they disagree with her or not. On another article here just recently she decided to go after Unbelievable even though Unbelievable was actually arguing a point that she (MA) agreed with.
We treat her the way we do because in general there is little point to arguing with her. I mean, we all have fairly differing views on the site really, but we don’t have time for people who come on and decide just to insult us. Another example of a troll is Seixon, though he doesn’t really call people names, he has a disturbing habit of claiming a source for his arguments that actually says the exact opposite.
Jason Hendler landed on the troll list when he started calling us all “Libtards” the second he found the site if I remember correctly. Besides the guy is a moron, he believes Crichton knows more about Climate Science, then guys who have spent their entire adult lives studying the climate. If you ever hear us say “Don’t give me science, give me science fiction!” It is him that we are referencing here.
The last “Great” troll on our list is a guy called Santo. So far as I can see his politics are actually liberal, it is just that he is a complete nutjob.
As an example of what I mean by differing views: I’m kind of pro Israel and don’t believe Bush was actively behind 9/11, just responsible for it in that he was the president at the time and that he acted like a bit of a wuss on the day – note to others on my side of the aisle this is not the time to discuss Israel or my views on 9/11, it gets tiresome after the 5000th time, I am just giving an example where our views may differ.
To some extent when we are going on about the rightwing what we mean is not really the guy who supports traditional conservative policies, it is the guy who uses the word “Liberal” as a swear word and doesn’t even think about the policies.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:55 pm[...] Roger Cressey, former Chief of Staff to the President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board at the White House from November 2001 to September 2002, told Scarborough: [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 1:57 pmGBTSA you, so far, have proven yourself worthy of nothing less than Ad hominem attacks. You cannot debate issues, or at least, you have yet to try with me. I remember you calling all republicans “Trolls”. I’m a Republican and take issue with the troll comment. Let’s then try to disperse with the pleasantries and I’ll debate whatever you wish, including the topic of this blog.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:57 pmBruce Gorton, I hope I do not fit into the same category with those you named. I have, and will continue to listen to your point of view. I just have a severe distaste for those who lump me into a group because I agreed with someone. I’m sorry it was M.A. I did not know of his/her history. I just noticed that the first thing I saw was her/him being called names for arguing a point. I assumed her intentions were good and also valid.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:02 pmHey Bush lovers. September 11, 2001 happened on your boy’s watch. Period. End of argument. While he was playing faux cowboy and clearing brush around his faux ranch, evil people were playing real terrorists plotting real murders. And to refresh your memories a bit more, we were attacked again after 9/11 by terrorists. So far, the anthrax murders have gone unsolved and its terrorists are still out there, just like that guy holed up in the mountains of Afghanistan somewhere east, north, west, and south of Rummy’s nonexistent WMD.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:06 pm196 Now you’re resorting to lying in an attempt to further trash me. Nowhere have I called all republicans “Trolls”. In fact if you bother to find it, you’ll note more than once I’ve stated quite plainly I think Conservatism has been hijacked and corrupted by the Neocons, whom, for various reasons I don’t believe are really true Conservatives/Republicans. The “trolls” I’ve refered to are very deserving of that title as they rarely stay on topic, are often posting disparaging insulting and attacking remarks and invariably end up insulting people directly.
Worthy of nothing less than ad hominem attacks? I cannot debate issues? You’ve not read many of my posts have you, where I’m often disagreeing and disproving things. I do take exception to the trolls who come here, who DO exist. To them sometimes I respond strongly. Many times I’ve also pointed out what they’re doing or trying to do, and (without too much success I guess) pointed out how everything’s going off topic. Just like this is.
I’m sorry if you take issues with certain people being called Trolls, which they in fact are (you’ve got the definition above and others can prove it just as well as I can). However, if you cannot distinguish between Republican and Troll, that is a problem of yours not mine. The two ARE different things. I would hope you might agree on that.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:08 pmcoachjason
Look, its not like we have a lot of confidence in Republican debating techniques here.
Take Illegal Immigration: The Liberal standpoint is really a matter of “Prosecute the guys who are hiring illegal immigrants, and deport as many as you can while making it easier for people to immigrate legally into the USA if we have a bottom rung labour crisis going.”
The Right polarises this to: “Those dumb latinos are stealing our jobs, taking our social benefits, and upping crime in our cities.”
The Left then points out: “The dumb crack was said about the Irish too, the jobs they are stealing happen to be the ones nobody wants, they pay taxes just like everyone else and frankly why aren’t we going after the guys who are hiring them anyway?”
The right then uses that to build this straw man: “The liberals think we shouldn’t do anything about Illegal immigration.”
Now I am not saying that this is all of the rightwing, but the vast majority of those who come to this site fall directly into this sort of idealogical mud slinging.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:09 pmAlso, a good many of the Trolls I rather suspect probably couldn’t really give a damn about (real) Republicans or Democrats and are plainly here just to disrupt and derail topics.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:09 pmcoachjason
If you are an honest conservative, who is willing to debate you will get a lot of respect here. It will take time, we have had to deal with a lot of trolls who happen to be Republicans but, if you are as you say you are, welcome and please stick around, we need some opposing voices or our ideas will stagnate.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:12 pmAlso, a good many of the Trolls I rather suspect probably couldn’t really give a damn about (real) Republicans or Democrats and are plainly here just to disrupt and derail topics.
Comment by Go Back To Sleep America
September 6th, 2006 at 2:17 pmI apologize if I ever came across like that. I enjoy spirited debates in the interest of gaining knowledge. And I hope that’s what we can do here. I also hope that is not another subdivision of the definition of Troll.
Bruce, Coach – I know what Bruce is referring to, but I actually find the troll-types pretty funny. Mighty A has gone after me before, telling me I must be a terrible lawyer ‘cuz I can’t matcher her scathing wit, etc., and while I will generally respond with some minor retort, her insults don’t bother me one wit. I’m not too familiar with Seixon, though I know I’ve read a few of his posts. Anyway, life’s too short to get involved in slinging insults.
‘Course, I will admit I take a different tack on my blog, but that’s more for effect – I’m really just trying to stir up conversation. And, I never insult commenters. On the other hand, I rarely get comments, so its kinda moot …
September 6th, 2006 at 2:18 pmI applaud the TP faithful for trying to engage MA and the like in a debate, but debate isn’t what they want.
They’re trolling for an argument, and for people to read their twisted diatribe or cutting comments.
Has anyone here ever succeded in changing one of these trolls minds?
September 6th, 2006 at 2:34 pmI know it’s hard to do, but ignoring these deadenders is still the best policy.
The failures of the Clintonistas to kill or capture bin Laden and disrupt al Qaeda and the lies they tell to cover their failures:
U.S. Pursued Secret Efforts To Catch or Kill bin LadenU.S. Pursued Secret
Efforts To Catch or Kill bin Laden
by James Risen
The New York Times
September 30, 2001
The Central Intelligence Agency secretly began to send teams of American officers to northern Afghanistan about three years ago in an attempt to persuade the leader of the anti-Taliban Afghan opposition to capture and perhaps kill Osama bin Laden, according to American intelligence officials. The covert effort, which has not been previously disclosed, was based on an attempt to work with Ahmed Shah Massoud, who was then the military leader of the largest anti-Taliban group in the northern mountains of Afghanistan, and to have his forces go after Mr. bin Laden. Mr. Massoud was himself fatally wounded only two days before the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, and the C.I.A. believes that he was assassinated by members of Mr. bin Laden’s organization.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:37 pm#204
September 6th, 2006 at 2:39 pmI agree. I will look at the person “commenting” before reading the post. When the initials M.A. appear along with ………………… I completely bypass said post, as I’ve learned early on, nothing worth debating when it’s all just jiberous and irrelevant tangents!
Um, Glad, dude (No. 205), no one is doubting that the CIA attempted to get bin Laden in Afghanistan … no one is doubting that the CIA attempted to work with the Northern Alliance … the problem is, ABC seems to have fabricated that little bit about the CIA and the Northern Alliance calling the White House with Osama all in th’ cross-hairs ‘n stuff, and the White House tellin’ ‘em to stand down.
Kind of a big stretch wouldn’t ya say – from, the CIA was working with the Northern Alliance to kill or capture Osama … to, the CIA and the Northern Alliance had Osama dead-to-rights, but that wimpy Bill Clinton wouldn’t let ‘em carry live rounds, er, I mean, pull the trigger …
See?
September 6th, 2006 at 2:46 pmI’m not sure if this comment will make it before anybody’s eyes, but doesn’t it seem logical that this piece of propaganda is being pushed not to tell a story per se, but to fire up the masses against each other before a contentious election day? That the people start battling out the ideologies a month before voting in this way might be a Republican Get Out The Vote program.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:22 pmCome on, guys! Don’t you know by now that EVERYTHING is Clinton’s fault? The current deficiet, AQ, 9-11, the war in Iraq, gay marriage….it’s all Bill’s fault. Of course.
Comment by Punchy
==
The failures of the Clintonistas to kill or capture bin Laden and disrupt al Qaeda and the lies they tell to cover their failures:
U.S. Pursued Secret Efforts To Catch or Kill bin LadenU.S. Pursued Secret
Efforts To Catch or Kill bin Laden
by James Risen
The New York Times
September 30, 2001
==
I don’t see Clintons name in that post glad dude, nor do I see any facts to support your claim.
You forget that the Cold War gave rise to Al Qaeda well before Clinton came into office.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:44 pmMy previous comment aside, I must applaud many of those who comment here for their maturity, intelligence, and their ability to refrain from the emotional name-calling and nastiness that unfortunately permeates political web sites (to a certain extent I’m guilty of that on my blog at times).
BTW (concerning the thread topic), I agree that contacting local ABC affiliates and voicing our concerns will also help.
Has there been any thought (I wonder) to having volunteers stationed at busy intersections ‘calling out’ ABC’s ‘docufictiondrama’?
I’d bet that the majority of Americans haven’t even heard about the controversy (those that don’t take/make the time to inform themselves as many of us do).
There really needs to be a way to bypass the MSM and get information to their woefully uninformed audience (as MediaMatters.org proves daily).
September 6th, 2006 at 3:44 pmThat the people start battling out the ideologies a month before voting in this way might be a Republican Get Out The Vote program.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:49 pm==
Naw, people are tired of the GOP’s childish antics, this, to me, only makes them look desperate. This to me is meant to ‘frame’ the 9/11 in peoples minds, its actually more of a Psy-ops campaign for more war than a get out the vote campaign.
[See NSD-77]
This program will run for two successive nights, during prime time.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:55 pmWe have written Emails, we have signed petitions, we have alerted others; what more can we do?
The reporter, Brian Ross, who broke the story on Pakistan announcing that they would not arrest OBL if found, also works for ABC.
On one hand they break an unfavorable story about a Bush buddy, on the other hand, they run 6 hours of propaganda, absolving Bush of responsibility for ignoring a year of warning signs before 9/11.
“There really needs to be a way to bypass the MSM and get information to their woefully uninformed audience (as MediaMatters.org proves daily).
Comment by TR — September 6, 2006 @ 3:44 pm”
EDIT: Please add “mis-informed” to “uninformed”.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:56 pm#197 Chris
September 6th, 2006 at 3:56 pmGreat post – direct and factual.
Conservatives have no shame. Re-writing history right before the mid-term election is a new low.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:56 pmMy previous comment aside, I must applaud many of those who comment here for their maturity, intelligence, and their ability to refrain from the emotional name-calling and nastiness that unfortunately permeates political web sites (to a certain extent I’m guilty of that on my blog at times). -TR
==
Well said TR.
“Arguments of opinion have no victors”
And it is all to easy to sometimes fall back into that hate-baiting , we all do. Recognition of that mistake is the way back out =)
September 6th, 2006 at 3:57 pmI am surprised that TP did not take a collective bow with their “we-hate-George Bush-to-the-core†crowd after the President alluded to the manipulations and concert of certain Leftists and anarchists groups.
==
Once again MA has broken out the water colors and started painting people with a very wide, and intellectualy dishonest brush.
I am not a leftist or Anarchist. I do not hate george nor have I ever posted anything to that effect. George is incompetent.
Cmon Admit it MA, if George were your employee you would fire his ass.
September 6th, 2006 at 4:01 pmI am surprised that TP did not take a collective bow with their “we-hate-George Bush-to-the-core†crowd after the President alluded to the manipulations and concert of certain Leftists and anarchists groups.
==
Those tha spew hate are those such as Anne Coulter who wants to blow up kill and poison judges and other officials. I have never asked for, or spoken about blowing up anybody, nor have I prayed for the death of any person.
Pat Robertson apparently does, and that is a very ‘to the core’ type of hatred. A hatred that is so strong as to wish for the death of another person is a sickness.
I don’t even Hate you MA, much to your chagrin =)
In fact MA I love you and that incompetent bush!!
September 6th, 2006 at 4:05 pmI wonder if ABC has considered the possibility that Clinton will sue their behinds?!
September 6th, 2006 at 4:08 pmWe need to take the docu out of docudrama and insert pseudo in its place.
What they are doing with this program at this time is absolutely shameful.
I hope he does sue them.
I just have a severe distaste for those who lump me into a group because I agreed with someone.
I’m sorry it was M.A. I did not know of his/her history. I just noticed that the first thing I saw was her/him being called names for arguing a point. I assumed her intentions were good and also valid.
==
Don’t sweat it Coach, MA has more than one sockpuppet [post names] and is pretty clever. He/She/It used to post much better arguments but over time MA has been reduced to what you see today, and that is not much..Many of the MA types are hermaneutics that write in a very convoluted fashion, once you underastand their method they are easy to topple. Generally they paint with a very wide bias brush and that is the first giveaway; Such as. “All liberals and Progs hate Bush because they are Anarchists that hate America and our patriotic troops, while supporiting the mad mullahs”
MA has grown quite lame..
Welcome aboard coach =)
September 6th, 2006 at 4:16 pm[...] Top Bush Counterterrorism Official: ABC’s Path to 9/11 Is ‘Shameful,’ ‘Straight Out of Disney and Fantasyland’ [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 4:29 pm[...] SCARBOROUGH: But at the same time, doesn’t history show that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to go after bin Laden, but the President and his cabinet were afraid to do so because they may offend some people in the Arab world? CRESSEY: Actually, Joe, that had nothing to do with it. If you read the 9/11 Commission report, it makes it very clear. In most of those cases, George Tenet, the Director of the CIA, said because there was single source intelligence it was his recommendation to the President not to take the shot. There was never a case where we had a clear shot at Bin Laden and the decision to take it wasn’t made. (Transcript courtesy of Think Progress) [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 4:36 pmI don’t hate George either MA, I hate the job he is doing. Actually, I have said before, at least 2 times in here, that George would be fun to party with.
September 6th, 2006 at 4:37 pmI could have sworn it was Nixon who was responsible fo 9-11. Now ABC has the straight facts, it was Clinton Eastwood, AKA dirty Harry. Now things are beginning to make sense. For a minute there I thought I was crazy or worse, George Wills reporting the news.
September 6th, 2006 at 4:43 pmHas anyone here ever succeded in changing one of these trolls minds?
They don’t come back after a while..So I guess that in a way it does change their minds when they find out that the democrats progressives, and moderates are pretty much like them and not anything like what the Pundits and media would have them believe..
September 6th, 2006 at 4:51 pmI remember you Dem’s calling “the Day after tomorrow†the movie George Bush doesn’t want oyu to see. So let’s call this movie the one “Bill Clinton doesn’t want you to see!â€
September 6th, 2006 at 4:52 pm==
Im not a democrat Coach, put that paint brush away plz thx =)
Juan C – thanks. Sorry for the bungled spelling, but you got the drift anyway. (Perhaps I was thinking, subconsciously, of the drink with champaign and orange juice? No, that’s a Mimosa. Oh, well.)
September 6th, 2006 at 4:59 pm[...] Though the piece criticizes President Clinton, former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, and Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, ABC has refused to provide any of their offices with copies and has apparently distributed over 900 copies to right-wing bloggers. Even Bush counterterrorism official Roger Cressey has decried the film as “shameful” and inaccurate. [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 5:24 pmMany are making a comparison between ABC’s mocumentary and other films not so favorable to Bush. The main point in my mind is that ABC is free to the public, a network available on all TVs – no cable or dish needed. Everyone who owns a TV, who might never watch the news, who is woefully uninformed, will be drawn toward this propaganda and believe it is factual. (That is surely the goal of ABC and this film producer.)
September 6th, 2006 at 5:30 pmThe other films being mentioned all required the purchase of a DVD or a theater ticket, someone had to leave their couch, spend $ and deliberately intend to see the film.
A crass and brazen partisan, political move by ABC.
#221 paid for in crack cocaine and Iranian cash.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:45 pmCORPORATE FASCISM AT WORK………DEEP POCKETS AND AN AGENDA TO KEEP THE RICH THAT WAY AND THOSE THAT WORK FOR THEM DEPENDANT WAGE SLAVES WITHOUT A VOICE……CORPORATIONS WHITTLE AWAY AT UNIONS WITH PROPAGANDA AIMED AT NEWER WORKERS TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING…..THEY HELP GET CORPORATE FRIENDLY POLITICIANS ELECTED…..IN ORDER TO GET CORPORATE FRIENDLY JUDGES APPOINTED….SO THEY CAN WRITE LAWS THAT BENIFIT THEMSELVES WITHOUT WORRY OF A JUDGE RULING THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL……THEY WORK ON YOUR FEARS….AND THEY LIE TO YOU WITH HALF TRUTHS TO MAKE IT LOOK GOOD…..BUT ITS STILL A CONTINUATION OF THE CORPORATE GREED AND FASCISM THAT HAS BEEN TRYING TO TAKE OVER OUR FREEDOMS……THEY ATTACK OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM….BY ATTACKING LAWYERS…..BUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS TAKING OUR “WE THE PEOPLE” OUR GREATEST RIGHT OUR GREATEST POWER TO FIGHT THEM…..THE JURY SYSTEM….BECAUSE AS IT TURNS OUT THIS SYSTEM MAKES WE THE PEOPLE THE ULTIMATE JUDGE OF NOT ONLY DEFENDENT ON TRIAL BUT …..THE LAW ITSELF……THIS IS OUR TRUE POWER IN THIS SYSTEM…….. AND FASCISTS DO NOT LIKE THIS POWER IN THE HANDS OF THOSE THEY WISH TO CONTROL…….SO CORPORATE FASCISM IS AT WORK……TO TRY AND KEEP THIER LACKYS IN POWER COME ELECTION TIME
September 6th, 2006 at 8:06 pm#135 – “As for the likes of Fraudite and co, what drives these trolls to keep coming back to this site day in and day out? Nothing better to do? Mental affliction to keep going back to something you fundamentally disagree?”
********Perhaps you’re new, dear. When asked the same question repeatedly, I have only one answer to offer. Compassionate conservative trolls who visit this sandbox do so in a spirit of charity and public service. Unfortunately, without us to liven this place up, Think Progress might be a snooze. Can you imagine all the heads plopping down on their keyboards in offices and homes across America due to repeticious boredom brought on by Leftard Talking Points and the drone of the Blame-America-for-Everything crowd? Employers might actually get a days’ work out of the clockwatchers they employ. Perhaps you should thank a troll…..
September 6th, 2006 at 8:13 pmOf course Ma is just performing a public service, spreading murder, torture, stealing civil rights, advocating killing women, children, families, like her father Adolf…
September 6th, 2006 at 8:41 pm[...] You’ve probably heard about the ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11, which has been criticized by the people portrayed there as inaccurate and biased. ABC has distributed advance copies to conservative pundits and bloggers, but not to liberals. [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 9:59 pmDixie Blood – you forgot I-Right-I:
here’s a sample of his best
I hate the French, they pretty much invented the Filthy Left.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — October 1, 2005 @ 10:28 pm
Hey, what does a Mexcian know about ethics anyway?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 25, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
I think the lesson here is that if you can’t say something nice about the Negro in New Orleans, don’t say anything at all.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 7, 2005 @ 9:43 am
[Mexican corruption] is a problem but nothing a little Puritan Fundamentalist Christianity couldn’t cure. Ever notice that everything the Catholics touch turns to shit?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — September 22, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
Left wing non religious Jews are the problem. Period. I wonder if the Germans had the same problem with y’all?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — October 20, 2005 @ 4:04 pm
There’s nothing wrong with the South that a few thousand dangling from the nearest light pole Leftists wouldn’t cure.
September 7th, 2006 at 12:14 amComment by I-RIGHT-I — September 4, 2005 @ 1:08 pm
We need more women in the kitchen cooking dinner.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — November 1, 2005 @ 2:47 pm
[Women should NOT vote] Because they f e e l , they don’t think. There are exceptions to the rule and they all agree with me.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — November 2, 2005 @ 5:39 pm
That’s right. The Negroes (not all) still have a problem with that civilization thing and they (not all)aren’t worth a shit at picking leaders.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — February 8, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
It was the Republicans in congress that moved the American Negro out of the era of Jim Crow and into the Super Bowl.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — February 8, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
I’d be willing to give up sneaky black professional victims, disease spreading homosexuals and stupid lazy people. Who wouldn’t USA! USA!
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — February 15, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
ABC so called docudrama is a shameless cheap attempt at shifting the blame from the evil Bush administration to the Democrates through Clinton. I am wondering how much they paid the ABC to prepare this piece of filthy propaganda close to the midterm elections!
Having said this, the fact that 9/11 took place on Bush’s watch must not be overlooked. In fact, whether the 9/11 was an outside enemy operation or an inside job is still a debatable matter in light of the lack of facts and serious investigation. However, I am a strong believer that it would not have happened without Bush and gang in control.
Sure there was no lack of hatred towards the U.S. government by groups such as Al-Qaida even before Bush and his gang stole the election. However, the way the transfer of the political power took place and the controversy surrounding it, provided both internal and external motivations for the 9/11 attacks.
The fact that Al-Qaida did succeed in carrying out conventional operations requiring high-powered explosives to blow up American embassies in foreign countries is one thing, however, to believe that people living in caves and constantly on the run can plan and carry out such a sophisticated operation, as the 9/11 was, on American soil certainly defies logic, common sense and even science. Simply put, Al-Qaida did not have, and will never have, the know-how to plan and carry out such high-tech operation, eluding all the layers in the security apparatus of the one superpower of the world and its auxiliary the Israeli Mossad, unless one believes that the heavy-weights in that security apparatus were bribed to look the other way; a situation, if happened, confirms the conspiracy theory and does not contradict it.
The real question about the 9/11 should be, “Who stood to benefit most from these tragic events?†All evidence points to the neo-Nazis of the world bent on achieving world control and the power of a militaristic supported empire. It is here where a serious investigation of the 9/11 should begin!
September 7th, 2006 at 1:31 am[...] As further proof of the miniseries deception Roger Cressey, counterterrorism official to both Clinton and Bush was on MSNBC and blasted the innacuracy as well. It’s amazing…how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong†and “then they got the big stuff wrong.†He added that a scene where the Clinton administration passes on a surefire opportunity to take out bin Laden is “something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.†ThinkProgress.org [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 1:51 amFadel, your idle speculation without any credible eveidence to back any of it up is pointless. Take your ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ crap elsewhere.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:51 am245 comments, and you can count the level head comments on two hands, with a few fingers to spare. Why all the hate and bile? Americans can think for themselves, and have to sort through a lot of error and distortion, everyday, no matter what their news source. Let’s just wait and actually SEE the movie, before all the ‘true believers” of either side climb on their bandwagons and beat their partisan drums of war.
September 7th, 2006 at 7:47 amThis drama is just throwing raw meat out to the wing nuts for sweeps week.
I think it would be wonderful if we could force them to pull it, or be given equal time to refute it.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:15 am[...] ABC will soon air the “docudrama” Path To 9/11, which even the film’s producers admit includes made-up characters and dialogue, uses debunked right-wing claims, and strays badly from the 9/11 Commission Report. Even a former Bush (and Clinton) counterrorism official, Roger Cressey, called the docudrama “shameful.” [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 12:04 pmDisney has just re-released their docudrama about the American Revolution— Mickey on snare drums, donald on fife, — what I didn’t understand was how they got a dog to ride a horse– but i was surprized to learn that Goofy did ride from house to house spreading the word that the british were on the way.
September 7th, 2006 at 12:57 pmAnything that happens 6 months before a general election should always be considered propaganda.
September 7th, 2006 at 3:37 pmI haven’t viewed the docudrama Path to 911. I plan to watch it though. I enjoyed the movie Titanic. It was historically accurate although it was mixed with a fictitious love story. The fiction didn’t subtract from the Titanic story. The previous 911 drama (Fahrenheit 911) didn’t suffer from all of its fiction.
September 7th, 2006 at 4:49 pm[...] A lot of people have been getting all worked up about ABC’s “The Path To 9/11” $30 million RNC contribution docudrama, claiming that it makes shit up in order to blame everything on Clinton. True, some of the people who are criticizing the miniseries were high-level counterterrorism officials in the Bush administration, and some wrote the official report on which the show claims to be based, and one was a terrorism expert hired to work on the production, but have any of them actually seen the show they are criticizing? Of course not – only Rush Limbaugh and right-wing bloggers have been allowed to see it! As ABC/Disney says: No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible. [...]
September 7th, 2006 at 8:24 pmPossibly good information dramatized to show political errors that may have turned out to be very costly. Have an open mind. Question- why did Sandy Burger remove papers and destroy them….what needed to be covered up after 9/11 by Sandy for the Clinton Admin? Answer that and you may actually find some truth.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:01 pmWhy did Bush originally want to block a 9/11 Commission? Why would he only answer questions with Cheney and off the reocrd. Answer than and you may actually find some truth.
September 8th, 2006 at 8:56 amI think in extreme right-winger land single-sourced intel is solid gold. In their minds those instances where Tenet said they only had single-sourced intelligence on matters of Bin Laden they figure Clinton should’ve had no problem acting on it. After all, they’re using Bush Jr. as a comparison…
September 8th, 2006 at 9:34 amI cant believe the search engines will pop up this crap blog site when I search for ABC path to 9/11. It seems that the internet gives your wildly opinionated comments the same credence as any other mentioned text.
How is a guy supposed to research somthing when he gets all these hits like this one.
by the way, Go Bush, RNC, and Kill the commies on the left, (figuratively in the elections of course) .
September 8th, 2006 at 10:35 amAs a self-described liberal, I have to oppose prior censorship of any work of fiction. If I choose, I will watch and draw my own conclusions. Just give me that choice.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:41 pm[...] Een kleine maar niet onbelangrijke PS bij het 9/11 itempje in het gedrukte exemplaar: op zondag 10 september zendt BBC2 om 21:00 THE PATH TO 9/11 uit, een ABC miniserie met oa Harvey Keutel en Stephen (I Want My Stapler!) Root die tegelijkertijd in de USA in premiere gaat. Big deal? Zeker wel, want the shit has hit the fan . Het eindproduct blijkt namelijk totale Bush/Cheney propaganda geschreven door een neo-con en dat was te verwachten, maar ze hebben de feiten niet echt op een rijtje. De Bush regering komt lelieblank uit het docudrama te voorschijn terwijl de Clinton adminstratie er -onterecht_ van langs krijgt. Maar Clinton getrouwen kwamen in actie en op dit moment is het zover dat ABC bekijkt wat te doen. De schaar er in? Uit- of afstellen? Voor meer info kijk hier of hier of google gewoon abc path to 9/11 primetimemagazine @ 20:44 [opgeslagen onder film, algemeen [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 2:35 pm[...] Roger Cressey, a top Bush and Clinton counterterrorism official, denounced this account as “something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.” Richard Clarke, a leading counterterrorism official under Clinton and Bush I, says that this scene is “180 degrees from what happened.” Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Advisor, calls the story “a total fabrication. It did not happen.” [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 3:29 pm[...] Top Bush Counterterrorism Official: ABC’s Path to 9/11 Is ‘Shameful,’ ‘Straight Out of Disney and Fantasyland’ Listen Now: [...]
September 8th, 2006 at 3:30 pmI’m going to TIVO the movie just to find the commercials, then never buy those products again. I hope som
September 8th, 2006 at 4:54 pmething I really like dosen’t sponsor. I will really miss buying there goods.
Marc, there are no sponsors, no commercials. (Someone) is laying out heavy bread to screen this “docu-drama.”
September 9th, 2006 at 6:59 amI too used google to check out this movie when I found this blog. I love the name…”Think Progress.” It reminds me of how the old Soviets used to say the wanted “peace” meaning a communist dominated government; the word “gay” meaning two males who are pretending to find happiness by having sex with as many males as they can. “Think Progress” I assume means taking the first amendment, tossing it in the trash can, and hoping few people notice if you can call it hate speech or libel. Boy, how can I too become one of these “progressives?”
September 9th, 2006 at 9:16 amEven liberals like JFK would flip in his grave over what his little brother believes.
263 / Eric:
On the First Amendment:
If these same producers made a TV Docudrama about your life and portrayed you as sexually molesting your children – which, I am assuming would be completely untrue – would you defend the producers by claiming that the First Amendment gives them the right to say anything they want about you?
I didn’t think so.
By the way, when the right-wingers pounded on CBS until they pulled the miniseries on Ronald Reagan, none could site any specifics that were inaccurate. They just didn’t like the tone and thought that the historical record was cherry picked for (accurate and truthful) events intentionally to make Reagan look bad. CBS pulled the program and put it on cable.
In this case, ABC is claiming this to be a dramatization of the 9/11 Report – which is a claim that it is factually accurate. But, they have composite characters and actual persons in scenes that never happened, saying things that were never said and which run contrary to the historical record. That’s a problem.
I do not expect – nor have I heard anyone calling for – sanitizing the program by deleting content that is historically accurate in content and tone.
Everyone from the left I have seen discussing this has called for historical accuracy and clearly stated that accuracy applies to both the Bush AND Clinton administrations. I have not seen nor heard of any lefty calling for sanitizing the program.
As for hate crime legislation – the conservative Chistians and talk-show hosts were raising holy Hell about sexual orientation being included in hate crimes laws. Then, some guy went into a Christian church, mouthed off about how much he hated Christians, pulled out a gun, shot and killed several congregants, and wounded some more. When they realized that the hate crimes legisltation also applied to this guy, they stopped complaining about the hate crimes laws.
Thanks for the new information on gays. I didn’t realize that Soviet Communists protected promiscuous gay men. The next time I find myself in bed with multiple male sex partners, I’ll mention it. I’m sure they’ll all be impressed with how informed I am.
I must say that I was taken aback when I read that you wanted to become one of these “progressives”. Up until that point, I thought you were expressing your oppostion to those you characterized. I didn’t realize you were actually explaining why you wanted to become a Soviet Communist propagandizing, promiscuous homosexual.
Geoff
September 9th, 2006 at 3:24 pmOver the past five years, I have come to the conclusion that there are three groups of people that support this administration and this president: the greedy, the vicious, and the completely uninformed. The first two are going to love this movie, because they’re presently getting away with murder anyway. That leaves the uninformed, and they generally get their news from sound bites here and there on Fox news, or on the local christian-right news station. The problem is, that if the movie airs in it’s present form, the uninformed will believe it word for word. These are the people who still believe that Saddam had a nuclear program and 50,000 artillery shells filled with anthrax and poison gas. These are the people who believe that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden of Eden in 4,004 BC, and into the land of the living and breathing Tyrranosaurus Rex. If anyone is going to put the 9/11 story on film, they must be completely and utterly accurate with the facts. Calling it a “docudrama” doesn’t make a pack of lies acceptable in any way shape or form!
September 9th, 2006 at 9:50 pmIsn’t it funny how people on the right don’t understand concepts like propaganda. I mean you hear them talk and what do you hear? Their talking points. How can any Republican sit with a straight face and tell us that they have made America better? Even more sad is these phonies in the military who support the Republican party. Your scum, sorry. Go read meinkampf and leave America, pronto you taitors. You are supposed to defend the constitution not the Republican party. Also you forgot, defending America means defending the first America. I wish Liberals would just get off their asses and start whipping the snot out of these bullies. Enough with the destruction of our country. Someone has to bring change, because it definitely isn’t going to come from the fourth reich. Oh and for you Republitards to be hear typing just proves once again that you hate our soldiers, because obviously if you were behind Bush, you would be in Iraq serving (and age and prior service won’t stop you- nice try!) Enough, I want America back not Germany circa 1933.
September 10th, 2006 at 3:42 amLiberals only cry censorship, when it makes them look bad. When a conservative looks bad, it’s “we must tell this story”
“Liberals, educated beyond their intelligence.”
September 10th, 2006 at 10:05 amIn 1998 Mr. Clinton was impeached for perjury (that’s lying under oath). Now he isn’t under oath. He is just trying to protect his image. I can’t believe anything spoken by a man who lies under oath. When Mr. Clinton says the Path to 911 contains lies, you can believe it’s all very true. He needs to abandon the protection of his image and give some thought to his destruction of the image of the American Presidency.
September 10th, 2006 at 2:33 pmfiction or non-fiction, historically acurate or not can we all not see that radical islamics will stop at nothing to destroy the USA. it does not matter whether we do nothing and act peacefully or fight for opportunities to opress and take out terrorist. all of you need to stop with the name calling and realize the unfortunate situation the world is in because of the breading hatered they have toward us. it will take world wide commitment to solve this problem, but we shouldnt wait on any of them to help.
September 10th, 2006 at 10:48 pmEnjoy more fictionalized accounts of 9/11!
September 11th, 2006 at 11:10 amRe No. 265 – As I recall, the perjury charge was completely spurious. The main charge was “obstruction of justice,” which is kind of weak under the circumstances.
Note to Republicans: “Lying under oath” does not necessarily equal perjury. The lie has to be an outright lie, as opposed to a deceptive statement that might be technically true; and, more importantly, the lie has to be germane to the case. The case involved alleged sexual harassment of Paula Jones back when Clinton was governor of Arkansas. The lie, or deceptive statement, was about an consensual affair with an intern several years later. And, how would that be germane?
(Recall, too, that the trial judge actually dismissed Paula Jones’ case, though it was settled on appeal so we don’t know whether the dismissal would have held up.)
September 11th, 2006 at 2:35 pmOkay, I watched the movie. I thought it was interesting. Maybe all that was in the movie was not “correct”. I don’t know the entire story behind what happened on 9-11. I read the 9-11 reports, all nine hundred and some pages. I do know this though. My husband was aboard the USS George Washington when the USS Cole was bomed. The USS Cole is part of the USS George Washington battle group. I was scared to death that something would happen to my husband while out to sea. I went to the USS Cole memorial service for the sailors that lost their lives. Held in Norfolk VA. President Clinton was there. I listened to him, believed him and waited for action to be taken. NOTHING. I am a voter. Whether the person I vote for wins or loses, I believe in my President. That being said, let’s see, Clinton was in office 8 years, Bush 100 days when 9-11 occured, it took, they estimate, 5 years to plan the attacks, you do the math.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:26 pmAll this talk about Disney. What really is cartoonish, is the lack of bi-partisan scope that 98.8% of these posts have. If it maligns Clinton its seen as untruth, if it maligns Bush its truth. How about taking this film with a grain of salt by saying, “Hey there were errors made during the Clinton administration when it came to handeling intelligence and opportunities to act on intelligence regarding Bin Laden and Al Queda. But, thats only the tip of the 9/11 iceberg”. Then step outside of the box (ie: this film) and acknowledge the fact that during the Bush 1 and Bush 2 years blunders were made and will more than likely continue to be made in handeling Al Queda. Doing just that will certainly put us a step closer to being a bi-partisan state on the 9/11 issue.
September 13th, 2006 at 9:35 am269. At Weatherbee:
“That being said, let’s see, Clinton was in office 8 years, Bush 100 days when 9-11 occured, it took, they estimate, 5 years to plan the attacks, you do the math. ”
LOL, last time I checked the 8 months Bush was in office is roughly 240 days. Maybe YOU should do the math. Go back to elementary school while you’re at it. How can you expect anyone to take you seroiusly with such a distortion of the truth? It’s either that or raw stupidity. Now, if Bush is such a rough and tough president why was he unable implement his awe-inspiring changes in 8 months? It’s 6 years on and he still hasn’t been able to catch Bin Laden. You my dear, are an ass-clown.
Un-American at best. Leave my country you manipulative traitor!!!
September 13th, 2006 at 12:50 pmAt 269. Weatherbee:
“That being said, let’s see, Clinton was in office 8 years, Bush 100 days when 9-11 occured, it took, they estimate, 5 years to plan the attacks, you do the math. ”
Sorry @$$clown, last time I checked the 8 months Dubya was in office is roughly 240 days. Seriously how can you expect any body to take you seriously. Also, if Dubya’s so rough and tough, how come it’s six years on and he hasn’t been able to catch Bin Laden.
Un-American at best. Leave my country you traitor!!!
September 13th, 2006 at 12:55 pmI LOVE… KEVIN… LOL… eek!!
February 14th, 2007 at 12:23 pm