Is this the Beginning of the End of Free Speech in America?

Are high-ranking members of Congress attempting to censor a major media outlet? I guess it all depends on your definition of the word “censorship.” According to Wikipedia :

Censorship is the systematic use of group power to broadly control freedom of speech and expression, largely in regard to secretive matters.

The Democrats are clearly a "group power" who share the same core beliefs and work together to advance a national agenda. In this case, the Democrats seem to be working together to prevent a major media outlet from broadcasting a TV movie, The Path to 9/11. This is censorship.

Most people would agree that ABC is exercising it First Amendment rights under the Constitution by creating and airing an admitted work of fiction. If ABC is not violating the law by airing this mini-series, then it is clear that the Democrats are trying to censor ABC.

In my opinion, it does not matter whether the mini-series is “historically accurate” or not. That’s not the point. The Path to 9/11 is a work of fiction that was created to sell commercial time to advertisers. What bothers me deeply is the overt and blatant attempt by the Democrats to control the media. It smacks of totalitarianism.

Liberals have been quick to point out that a made-for-tv movie about Reagan caused such an uproar among conservatives that it never aired on broadcast TV. Personally, I don’t think the movie should have been “yanked.” That was a mistake. Still, I don’t remember high-ranking members of Congress demanding that the Reagan movie be drastically changed or pulled entirely. I do remember something on the order of a “grass roots” movement amongst conservatives nationwide. And I remember Nancy Reagan was pretty upset. In the case of The Path to 9/11, high-ranking members of Congress, together with the Clintons and their former aides, were not simply responding to the public will; they in fact pre-empted the public will.

What is happening here? Is this the beginning of the end of Free Speech in America?

UPDATE: The quotation marks around the word "censorship" have been replaced to correct a formatting error.

Posted by Chris Rowan at September 8, 2006 10:21 PM
Comments
Comment #179993

Well, whatever happened to that “canceled” Reagan saga miniseries? ABC themselves have made it clear through the press that this is not a true portrayal of events leading up to 9-11 although the content portrays otherwise. Think about it! Imagine that I say Bush has been having sex with his own daughters but then follow the story with a disclaimer that it was all fictional.

Then consider that this is a very decisive election year. Many Senate and House seats are basically teetering on the edge. To release a peice of propaganda just weks before an election is irresponsible at best and downright biased at worst.

I’ve said before and I’ll say again:

Do they have the legal right to release this? Yes!

Do I have the right to complain? Yes!

It basically amounts to ringing a bell that either can’t be “unrung”, or at the very least ringing the bell before the other side has a chance to truly respond to the bell. If they released this in either 2005 0r 2007 I’d have much less of a problem.

It really comes down to two things:
(1) Tell the truth.
(2) Give the other side time to respond in kind.

Pretty simple really, it’s normally called fair play! What’s the problem with that?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 8, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #179997

Just for $hit$ and giggles:

“Executives at television network CBS acted spinelessly this week when they canceled their four-hour miniseries “The Reagans” scheduled to be broadcast November 16 and 18, following protests from the Republican Party and the ultra-right. The program’s liberal producers had dared to include references in the program to Reagan’s well-known indifference to the AIDS crisis and to his wife’s manipulative and demanding behavior.”

Think about it! Is one side better “endowed” than the other? Do Republicant’s deserve more rights than Democrats?

I’d just like to know what the difference is. Are you just better than me? Please, tell me!

KansasDem

Posted by: kansasDem at September 8, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #179999

Oops, I left out the link to my source.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1016593/posts

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 8, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #180001

Chris,

Don’t you know, it’s the “Freedom Of The Left Press” stupid. You really should read your Constitution more often.

The Reagan references are weak. Showtime still ran their glaringly ‘out of context’ movie on Reagan. Slick Willie should get his!

Note: I’m not stupid enough to see a movie and think it’s the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Liberals should be so intuitive.

Posted by: Ken Strong at September 8, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #180004

Chris,
You write that this show was “a work of fiction that was created to sell commercial time to advertisers.” My understanding is that it will be shown without commercial interruption. Please explain.

Republicans control Congress. Democrats cannot pass any legislation affecting this show. In addition, the Disney corporatin is one of five major corporations which control most of broadcast media, and Disney has legislation before the Republican Congress with which it would financially benefit by misrepresenting events in a way that harms Democrats, and helps Bush.

My understanding is that ABC is presenting the show as historical fact, based upon the 9/11 Commission Report. Is this correct?

Letters sent to ABC by Berger & Albright prepare the way for a lawsuit. As we know, free speech has restrictions which include prohibitions against libel, slander.

If what you & I are being told about this show is true, with scenes about Berger, Albright, & Clinton described to us so that we are receiving accurate info, then the show will run afoul of the law. Presenting information as based upon fact, not fiction, and knowingly misrepresenting that information in a harmful manner, even after being informed of the misrepresentation, will certainly land ABC in court.

I would be amazed if ABC televises this as it is being presented to us. Most likely they will edit the erring scenes, & take advantage of the hype to draw an audience.

Posted by: phx8 at September 8, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #180005

No, Chris, it’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

To be quite clear on this, there are legal limits on speech. You can be sued by somebody for misrepresenting actions, for misrepresenting their character. You folks use the words “libel” and “slander” pretty often, so you should know that They represent defamation in print and in speech respectively, and people can file suit on those grounds.

In a media business it is perfectly legal, in fact, for people to sue when they believe the facts have been misrepresented, and when they believe that defames their character.

The main defense is truth, and unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be on their side. They marketed this as a fact-based drama, so facts are unsurprisingly important matters for discussion.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 8, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #180006

Liberal Press, Liberal Press, Liberal Press!

I have looked everywhere in America for this awful “Liberal Press”, including all five major press Mega-Corporations that own this country.

Where the hell, is this “Liberal Press”?

I am sick of the lies and garbage that the real press in this country is spreading, so where is this “liberal press” anyway? I want to sign up!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 8, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #180014

“The Reagan references are weak. Showtime still ran their glaringly ‘out of context’ movie on Reagan. Slick Willie should get his!”

Mr. Strong,

Your argument is WEAK! Showtime does not rely on “advertisers’ to survive. In or near any large city you can still recieve broadcasts of the “big three” with no more than “rabbit ears”.

I’ve already stated that I’d have no problem with this being broadcast either 12 months prior or after an election year. This is an obvious ploy to influence the outcome of the November elections.

Unfortunately for you more and more Democrats are paying attention and calling foul before the end of the game. We don’t like to play dirty, but we’re learning from you.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 9, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #180015
In my opinion, it does not matter whether the mini-series is “historically accurate” or not. That’s not the point.

That’s precisely the point, Chris. If ABC wants to market the movie as fiction, then they shouldn’t call it a “docu-drama”; They should call it a right-wing fantasy. I hope they get the pants sued off ‘em.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 9, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #180016

Tell ABC here:

http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 9, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #180019

“If ABC wants to market the movie as fiction, then they shouldn’t call it a “docu-drama”;”

AP,

In that scenario you also don’t use names of “real” people! This is, or hopefully was, a lame nut ploy to influence the mid terms. There is no end to the GOP BS. Would someone please spell dick-tater for me?

In case you’ve not seen it yet, you can tell ABC what you think here:

http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 9, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #180020

What’s amazing to me is everybody complaining about something they haven’t seen (including the Clintons.) This is just another example of it being all about Bill.

From what I understand from listening to people who have seen the show is that the parts that all the complaints are about is about 5 minutes of the 5 hour show.

This show is not about the Clintons or the Bushes, it is about our enemies. Sure both administrations made mistakes, but it’s not about blame, it’s about people who want to kill us.

Posted by: Keith at September 9, 2006 12:33 AM
Comment #180022

Chris - Well said. The ACLU couldn’t have said it better!

BTW - Is ABC part of the liberal media?

Posted by: Jerseyguy at September 9, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #180026

This story has been heating up recently and I’ve been waiting for somebody on this site to do a post about it.

Here are the facts:

1) ABC originally advertised this film as being based on the 9/11 report, now they are saying it’s a docu-drama loosely based on the report.

2) ABC only allowed sneak previews for regular TV critics and conservative media pundits, but not for liberal pundits.

3) ABC has now stated that they will be editing the scenes which were blatant distortions of the truth.

4) The education publishing company Scholastic has decided to pull material it created for classroom use in conjuction with the film after the uproar over inaccuracies began. (DO YOU HEAR THIS? THEY WERE GOING TO BE TEACHING THIS FILM AS FACT IN OUR SCHOOLS) Read it here.

During this whole hulla-baloo I have heard several Repubs fire back with “Oh yeah, what about Fahrenheit 9/11?” First off F9/11 was never shown commercial free on network television, which means anybody with a TV and some rabbit ears can see. Secondly, F9/11 was never taught in our schools as fact, I’m sure there would be a huge uproar if that happened.

Posted by: bushflipflops at September 9, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #180027

Normally I make an attempt (all though at times feebly) to remain some what non-partisan but isn’t this the same Sam Berger who was caught stuffing classified documents down his pants to keep the 9/11 commission from seeing them?

Anyone who has ever been in those archives knows that, that was no mean feat. No matter what your clearance is you all but get strip searched going in and out. You have to use the pens and paper that THEY provide, hell I’ve been yelled at for not stacking boxes containing the material back on the cart exactly as they put them on there.

Jeff

P.S. and don’t get me started on Madeleine Not-Too-Bright. damn it so much for the non-partisan thing…

Posted by: Jeff at September 9, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #180032

So many times, I’ve wished a conspiracy theory would emerge that would let me off the hook. I wanted so much to believe Michael Moore, but left the theater about half way into “Fahrenheit 9/11” with the thought that the next snarky mouth that spoke to me would get hit.

Mind you that this is not a good look for me.

Within this past week, my 26 year old son suggested I see “Loose Change”, and brought me his copy to watch. Now I found that one very much more easy to stomach, and besides obvious ignorance of physics very pleasant to listen to and entertaining.

SSDD (Same $#|+ Different Day). I realized that, if any of it was true, it was overshadowed by the parts I knew to be constucted, and that as much as I wanted an out, there are those out there prepared to give me that out,

I’m stuck in my head, I’m stuck with my own judgement. I doubt very seriously that ABC would have better luck. The last I heard ABC was owned by Disney. Need I say more.

Posted by: DOC at September 9, 2006 1:16 AM
Comment #180034

Crazy,
To say that the news on T.V. is liberal is to say that Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC, are all owned by the “little folks”; or better yet, “the mythical little guy”. And, that they all get their multi-billion dollar business directives from the ACLU. Anyone that is stupid enough to buy that one, I do not need to listen to, for a credible resource on how to find an actual news source, without a republician spin to it or without republician senture.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 9, 2006 1:18 AM
Comment #180035

And of course, we all know the 9/11 commission got it all factually correct, right?

Posted by: womanmarine at September 9, 2006 1:21 AM
Comment #180036

Bushflipflops,

Yes, I have heard all that. However there is an update. The book, (also full of lies about Clinton) has been pulled from the schools due to public pressure. After a great deal of public pressure, the books were anounced pulled today. The head of the educational department said something to the effect of: “After careful study of the materials and due to certain inaccuracies, we have decided to pull the books”.

Wouldnt you think that they would have actually read and made appropriate corrections to improve the acuracy of the texts, before they planned on using them? Guess not!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 9, 2006 1:28 AM
Comment #180037

womanmarine,

Well at least condi”s part was right, according to republician delusions. All the rest about the facts, of Bush sitting on his thumbs for 9 months prior, and not paying any attention to repeated warnings about Al Quita and Osama? Well of course, all that garbage was complete lies.

:-)

Posted by: PlayNice at September 9, 2006 1:34 AM
Comment #180038

“Normally I make an attempt (all though at times feebly) to remain some what non-partisan but isn’t this the same Sam Berger who was caught stuffing classified documents down his pants to keep the 9/11 commission from seeing them?”

Jeff,

The “feeble” scenario I’ll buy but otherwise……:

“After a long investigation, however, Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence.”

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006521

Please search the site. You’ll find they are pure hell on everyone. At best anyway your defense of ABC releasing this garbage now is, “well you guy’s did bad stuff before”!

Unfortunately our standards have gone to hell in a hand basket. Honor among theives? Doubtful! But more likely than honor among politicians. Least likely among Republican politicians IMO.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 9, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #180042

DOC,

Loose Change is simply a compilation of conspiracy theories regarding 9-11. As “left” as I am I seriously doubt that there was a conspiracy.

OTOH there was a $hit-load of stupidity and ignorance over no less than 30+ years. The greatest problem is that “we” want what we want when we want it and we won’t face the hard fact that “we” must sacrifice to overcome terror.

Don’t get me wrong. This is a “top-down” problem! Unfortunately very few people understand this. Jimmy Carter tried to tell us to conserve but we’re all “hogs at the trough”, and we hate the truth.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 9, 2006 1:56 AM
Comment #180045

“And of course, we all know the 9/11 commission got it all factually correct, right?”

womanmarine,

Of course! I just reviewed what they said about Sudan and Saddam’s connection with Al Quaeda in Sudan and ya-da-ya-da. Our intel sucked then and I’m sure it still sux now.

I’m talking 1998 till 2006! We still have our heads up our arses.

Will we ever get it rite?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 9, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #180050

KansasDem - I’m conservative with my money, centrist with my children, and liberal with my love. “Loose Change” was the most clever and the least beleiveable of all. I have yet to have the post viewing conversation with my son. In a way, I don’t look forward to it.

Posted by: DOC at September 9, 2006 2:49 AM
Comment #180053
Liberals have been quick to point out that a made-for-tv movie about Reagan caused such an uproar among conservatives that it never aired on broadcast TV. Personally, I don’t think the movie should have been “yanked.” That was a mistake. Still, I don’t remember high-ranking members of Congress demanding that the Reagan movie be drastically changed or pulled entirely.

Just because you don’t remember it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Congressman on Reagan miniseries

Posted by: Burt at September 9, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #180054

phx8 - You are absolutely right. No commercials will be shown during the mini-series. But there will be plenty of people watching ABC in the minutes leading to the airing of the mini-series. With all the hype being generated by, well, people like US, I expect ABC’s overall viewership to increase substantially. So this is still about money, in my opinion.

Posted by: Chris at September 9, 2006 8:24 AM
Comment #180055

Burt -

“Just because you don’t remember it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.”

Good point. I have never heard of Eric Cantor, though. What does a Deputy Chief Majority Whip do, anyway?

Posted by: Chris at September 9, 2006 8:40 AM
Comment #180056

Stephen -

I don’t think it’s the end of the world, either, but I’m not at all comfortable with the cozy relationship between mass media and liberal democrats. That’s what really bothers me. I wouldn’t expect you to feel the slightest bit of apprehension. After all, ABC is on your team.

I have heard that in other countries, it is relatively easy to prove defamation of character of a public figure in court. Not so here in the United States.

And this IS a fact-based drama, just as Farenheit 9/11 was marketed as a fact-based documentary.

Posted by: Chris at September 9, 2006 8:52 AM
Comment #180057

Liberals cannot find the liberal media anywhere. They turn on the tv and…
“Bush gave the order to fly the planes into the buildings.”
“Bush used his Camp David weather machine to steer Katrina right into all those black people.”
I dont see anything wrong here. Liberal media, my foot. I dont see anything but the truth. Conservatives must be trying to hide the fact that the media are owned by all their evil corporate friends.

No rich liberals? How about the Kennedys? Ted owns a lot of oil. Is he one of Bush’s big oil friends? Do we know whether media mogul Ted Turner is liberal or not? Many reporters are liberal, and so is the ownership of much of the media.

Clinton hasnt seen the film, but many libs have. The ruckus started right away, as soon as the movie was over. The challenge didnt start with Clinton. It started right there in the private screening. That is what got all the Dems yelling.

Not fair to censor ABC. I hope we wont miss too much. Was there pressure put on ABC or did the libs just ask for a favor from their liberal media friends?

Posted by: JoeRWC at September 9, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #180058
Still, I don’t remember high-ranking members of Congress demanding that the Reagan movie be drastically changed or pulled entirely.

I don’t know about specific members of Congress, but the Republican National Committee was demanding that CBS either edit the Reagan movie or put a warning label on the screen saying it was fiction. I don’t see how you can call what the Dems are doing now censorship without calling that censorship, too.

Censorship is hard to claim when you are concocting fictitious scenes to make individuals look bad. Most people would call that libel.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 9, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #180060

Joe,

I sure hope you have a garden, and if you dont you should start one. I am sure that anything that you grow, will do quite well.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 9, 2006 9:29 AM
Comment #180061

Hey, a little bit of Stalinism never hurt anybody, did it? Oh, wait—I forgot about the 20-30 million the bastard killed.

Bubba is really protesting this thing a bit too much, no? And WHAT did Sandy Berger stuff down his pants? Code black security documents…hmmm…somebody seems to be hiding something.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 9, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #180062

Perhaps this is being presented as a docudrama or fiction, but realize that many people still believe that Saddam caused 911 and had WMDs. Why do they believe this? Because someone told them it was true on TV. You seem to believe that all in the US are as discriminating as you. This is not the case.

Posted by: Oboy at September 9, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #180063

Keith-
As a writer and as a screenwriter, I can tell you that things don’t work that way. The actions of a character are the character. A surgeon who rushes into a burning bus despite the risk to hands that could make him millions in his lifetime is a heroic character. We could understand if they stood on the sidelines and simply rendered aid to those brought out, though, and that’s a choice that delineates character as well.

There’s a scene in this movie where the character representing Madeline Albright warns the Pakistanis that cruise missiles are heading for Osama in Afghanistan.

But she never made any such warning. It was a General who did so, quite independent of her, and for reasons that concerned the Nuclear Standoff between Pakistan and India.

In another scene military forces and CIA agents were on site, waiting to take down Bin Laden, and the order isn’t given. This may be the same scene as the one where Sandy Berger hangs up on the CIA, I don’t know. Those things, though, never occured.

Those scenes reflected negatively on the the people portrayed, and that makes their counterfactuality more than just an issue of being ahistorical, and a rewrite of history. That makes it an issue of Libel. These are scenes that people will remember, and which folks will assume are true, given the factual basis for the story. If they falsely defame folks, then that is an injustice that must be addressed, even if it means that the movie never sees the light of day.

If the account of 9/11 becomes nothing more than a cavalcade of political propaganda, it will do much to detract attention from the real actions of both administrations.

Jeff-
He was putting the notes in his pants and jacket pockets, and documents in his briefcase. He wasn’t walking out with whole rolls stuffed down his legs. That exaggeration is the first factual error in that story.

The other factual error is that he was trying to cover anything up. All documents provided to him were merely copies, and he knew this. The 9/11 commission found nothing missing.

His crime reflects on the handling of sensitive documents. He knowingly and recklessly broke security, probably trying to study the documents in a place he was used to studying them in his days as NSA.

This is one indication of why it’s so important to steer away from partisan exaggerations and innuendo. The fact he broke security is bad enough. Unfortunately for us, some Right-Wing Media figures have to turn this into a conspiracy theory, wherein the Clinton Administration is once more covering up the truth, this time about 9/11.

These media figures have this tendency to deal with the facts by dealing with those who relate them, rather than the facts themselves. Sandy Berger could be telling the truth on each and every detail of what he said, but those figures would paint all he said as suspect because of his actions. Rhetorically its sound technique, but it’s also an unreliable way of judging the truth of what somebody says. Character can indicate trustworthiness, but so can the convergence of what somebody says, and the facts.

Ultimately, if we want to determine what the facts are, we must inspect the facts of Sandy Berger’s testimony and compare them to other testimony and records. For some though, that’s unnecessary. They’re all-wise, all-knowing. They don’t need the facts to figure out what’s going on. At least that’s what they think.

You and I, we know we don’t know everything. So if we’re responsible folks, we will choose to examine the facts and build our interpretations and theories on that. This will have the added benefit of giving ourselves a measure of freedom from those who would manipulate us by manipulating what we feel the facts portray.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 9, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #180064

Ihave mostly roses. I borrow seeds and plants from neighbors and friends. Now, I have yellow roses, pink roses, white roses, red roses, small buds and giant blossoming roses. I also have five giant sunflowers that look very nice. Im still trying to perfect the roasting of the sunflower seeds. What makes all the colors stand out is, the green plants that make a great contrasting background.
What I am most proud of, are my 3 children. They are growing so fast and beautiful. The oldest, ten, is very smart and has a 56mph fastball. Next, is my 6 year old boy. Also smart and conquers any physical obstacles in front of him. My 4 year old princess, is not allowed in school yet, but already can read and write. I dont like to see her challenge the boys, but she cant resist wrestling her brothers, as she is also very physically able. They will grow to be very fine conservatives, indeed.

Posted by: JoeRwc at September 9, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #180065

I still do not think this is playing out the way Clinton thought it would. Bullying a network is not going to be a popular move. And we all remember how narcissistic he was about those polls. Whatever legacy he had is fading….

Posted by: nikkolai at September 9, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #180066

Nikkolai,

Most people now regard Clinton as a good president. All the polls show it. You can see here.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm

I don’t see how this documentary flap is going to change anyone’s mind.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 9, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #180069

Stephen -

Those scenes reflected negatively on the the people portrayed, and that makes their counterfactuality more than just an issue of being ahistorical, and a rewrite of history. That makes it an issue of Libel. These are scenes that people will remember, and which folks will assume are true, given the factual basis for the story. If they falsely defame folks, then that is an injustice that must be addressed, even if it means that the movie never sees the light of day.

Farenheit 9/11 contains numerous scenes that reflect negatively on the people portrayed, and Moore marketed the film as a shockumentary to “expose” the evildoings of the Bush Administration. A lot of people watched that film and assumed those scenes were true. Shouldn’t Michael Moore be sued for libel?

Posted by: Chris at September 9, 2006 10:39 AM
Comment #180070

Chris-
My beginning line was meant to deflate your ending line, which I felt was a bit melodramatic. It’s a line from an REM song, a bit out of its context.

This cozy relationship you describe seems less cozy to my eyes. Where was this liberal media when we were running up to the war, when Bush was kicking people out of his press conferences for asking difficult questions? Why didn’t CBS defend Rather to the hilt, the way FOX does O’Reilly, despite his numerous inaccuracies? Why didn’t it hold back on the whole Monica Lewinsky thing, and constantly dig up dirt on the GOP congress? Why is their no ideologically uninhibited liberal counterpart to FOXnews on the air today? And if ABC is so much on our team, why didn’t they stick to their guns and simply air The Reagans?

What you call the Liberal Media seems to me to simply be the media that doesn’t agree with you, or advocate your views. However, from a liberal perspective, it’s not at all what we want.

I think this is a good thing so long as the media is up and about doing something. We partisans can get in over our heads in support our respective causes. It helps to have the media watchdogging both our parties. If anything, my complaint is the lack of in-depth investigation, period. We gone to the age of infotainment, where you have to tune into a PBS series to find out the real interesting stuff. The media’s become a barrier to general knowledge, rather than a conduit for it. Republican or Democrat, we both benefit most from the plain facts. When we’re deprived of them, we’re deprived of our sovereignty over our leaders. Not surprisingly, politicians on all sides lie, so its to our benefit to wrestle back that control. At this point, it’s going to be much harder on your side than mine. The first step is dropping this whole Liberal Media thing, and getting back to reliable facts as your method for determining the truth.

JoeRWC-
You must not watch regular TV much, if the first sentences represent your view of what goes out. You might hear that from a crank or two, but the real issues that get kicked around are policy issues where your president bears real culpability. You folks would be in much better shape with the American people if you quit thinking of this as a media image problem and started realizing that dysfunctional policy itself is what’s creating your image problem.

Yes, rich liberals exist. No, that doesn’t mean that criticisms of policies that favor the rich are hypocritical. In fact, it reflects a certain altruism that rich liberals can talk about giving themselves paycuts for the good of the country.

The ownership of the media, in the same survey that found most reporters were liberal in their politics, was found to tend towards the right. With the concentration of the media, that tendency has become more pronounced.

You do know, don’t you, that many of the people who were portrayed in that film were not given the chance to see it before they aired it. That they didn’t bother to do this refutes much of your claim that ABC and Disney were acting with neutrality or even favoritism to the left. Real favoritism would be picking a liberal screenwriter instead of the libertarian they chose. Real favoritism would not be hiring the son of a man who leads a group dedicated to getting religious conservatism back into the media. real favoritism would be allowing Democrats and not Republicans to see the initial comments, to allow for cuts and revisions to suit the facts.

We haven’t been shown favoritism. Far from it.

Nikkolai-
I believe we were talking about whether broadcasters can freely libel somebody and present them in a false light. Please don’t confuse legitimate restraints on the misuse of our constitutional freedom with totalitarianism.

As for Sandy Berger, he couldn’t hide shit. He was given given copies, and all documents were accounted for. Unless you want to allege a coverup of the coverup , it didn’t matter whether he had a file cabinet down the seat of his pants (the documents were in pockets and in his brief case, not down his legs), all Berger is guilty of is violating National Archive Security.

I wonder why some feel the need to exaggerate incidents like this. We do need more careful handling of state secrets, and better oversight by congress over what’s done under the veil of secrecy to ensure that the black bag doesn’t become a place where nasty surprises grow for the American people.

It would be easier to get back to debating the facts if people weren’t making them up to suit their rhetorical convenience.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 9, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #180072

I believe that all this static raised by the Clinton Clan is a mistake. If the Democrats are worried so much about a piece of fiction, and work at censoring this, what happens to free speech if they ever get power back? Are the American people going to have to listen to this garbage every time the Democrats see or hear something they don’t like? The Double standards of the Democrats is all that the people will see. I think the Democrats should have just let it be and kept quiet about it. This whole episode about this ABC program should be a seperate show by itself, a sit-com of course.

Posted by: George at September 9, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #180073

Joe,
Thought so, I knew you’d find a use for all that BS.

Chris,

If ferenheight 9/11 has slanderous content, then yes, Moore should be sued. But, I dont see that happening, do you?

George,

“If the Democrats are worried so much about a piece of fiction, and work at censoring this, what happens to free speech if they ever get power back?”

We have free speech now? WOW..didnt know that.
Especially when 2 women get kicked out of a speech because of the clothes that they are wearing. And, one a Republician…wow!
Oh, and how many people because of their political voice in opposition to Bushs policies have been put on the no-fly list?

America - Free Speech
Wow, what a concept!
I think we used to have something similar to that.????

“I think the Democrats should have just let it be and kept quiet about it.”

And, I wish that the American people could stop hearing lies about the war in Iraq too.

Dream on.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 9, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #180076

Stephen -

In another scene military forces and CIA agents were on site, waiting to take down Bin Laden, and the order isn’t given. This may be the same scene as the one where Sandy Berger hangs up on the CIA, I don’t know. Those things, though, never occured.

First of all, how do you know those things never occurred? Were you there?

Well, Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson was there, and in an interview with World Net Daily claims that the film is “100 percent factually correct” in its portrayal of the manner in which the Clinton Administration handled its opportunities to nab Bin Laden:

(Patterson) I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur.

As for Albright, it is probably true that she did not phone the Pakistanis herself. But she didn’t prevent the call from being made, either. She also didn’t speak out forcefully after the event. Albright was no “whistleblower.” And the call was made, wasn’t it? The Pakistanis were warned, Bin Laden got away, and it all happened on Clinton’s watch, just another in a long series of scandals.

And why should we believe anything that Sandy Burglar Berger says? The man was caught stealing documents from the National Archives! It doesn’t matter whether the documents were originals or copies. He knew that what he was doing was against the law. If you or I had been caught doing what Berger did, we’d have been tnrown in jail and charged with treason. But Berger got away with it, somehow.

Posted by: Chris at September 9, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #180077

Free Speech in America. That is very very funny.
Hey, someone pick up a phone and tell Joe Wilson that. He should get a big kick out of that one!
(And, he was at least telling the TRUTH)

“Free Speech”, now thats funny.
LOL :-)

Posted by: PlayNice at September 9, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #180079

Chris-
The best defense for charges of libel is truth. defamation isn’t a crime. It’s simply the act of making somebody look bad.

Dave Kopel’s 59 deceits is a sloppy piece of work, often attacking Moore as much for opinions and mistaken impresson that the list’s author made. Even where he may be right, the problems seem to be mistakes, often enough. If mistakes were enough to be deceptions, Kopel’s title would take on a double meaning.

His first deceit is that the rally portrayed at the beginning is a celebration of Gore’s victory. Never mind that Moore clearly gives the impression that this is a dream. there would be no victory party.

Number six is a matter of interpretation, the problem being that Bush did in fact spend a great deal of time outside of Washington. Perhaps he was doing the work of the people to some extent, but this president has a marked tendency to take a lot of vacation time. What exactly was he doing with all that Brush Clearing, Jogging, and campaigning?

Number seven might actually be true, but the truth doesn’t necessarily help your case, as Bush ended the briefing by assuring his briefer that he had covered his ass.

Number seventeen badly neglects published reports and books indicating just how close the special relationship between the Saudi Royals and the Bush family is. Indications of this close relationship are reflected in Bob Woodwards Books, in the fact that Bandar is nicknamed Bandar Bush, and in the fact that the Saudi prince was allowed to see a map marked NOFOR As in No Foreigners are supposed to see this.

Eighteen and Nineteen basically just parrot the Bush position on those things, without considering the suspicious timing of the deals. Number Twenty-Five neglects to consider how common the secret service protection is.

I could go on, but I will allow the man to speak for himself

Moore is the last guy to want to have a successful libel suit brought against him. If he backs up his assertions well, and lets opinion stand as opinion (defamation laws make people liable for misrepresentation of facts. A person’s opinion is another matter).

These guys, though, are attributing negative actions to Clinton officials that never took place. There’s a difference between mistakes and departures of opinions and outright fabrications that defame a person’s reputation. If you want to do harm to a person’s reputation, don’t depart from the facts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 9, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #180080

I Googled this CNN article regarding the incident involving Sandy Berger at the National Archives:

Law enforcement sources said archive staff members told FBI agents they saw Berger placing items in his jacket and pants, and one archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks.

Is CNN also part of this new Right-wing conspiracy that now involves ABC and Disney?

Posted by: Chris at September 9, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #180082

Consumers expressing their opinion is not censorship. Neither are boycotts censorship. Censorship is a court order preventing the airing of the film unless modified.

Those are the simple facts. Consumers can write ABC till the cows come home threatening not to watch anything they produce, and you know what? That is NOT called censorship - that is called FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

They don’t have the power to halt the movie’s display, ergo, they cannot be engaged in censorship.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 9, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #180083

What I find the most interesting about this post is that both sides of the issue accuse the other of the exact same thing. The blessing of this is that this is what freedom of speech is about. The curse is that no one is perfect!!!!! What I have tried to teach my boys about freedom is: Freedom is not the ability to whatever you want because you can, but rather the ability to make a choice considering how it will affect the people, places and things around you. Once we take the consequences of our actions out of the equation, it’s not freedom, but rather individual totalianirainism. Opinions are great things, but opinions are not fact.

Posted by: Brian at September 9, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #180085

David -

Consumers expressing their opinion is not censorship. Neither are boycotts censorship. Censorship is a court order preventing the airing of the film unless modified.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. But what has happened isn’t ordinary. High-ranking members of Congress (as well as the Clintons and various Clintonistas) are pressuring a mass media outlet to either completely revamp an admitted work of fiction or “yank” it entirely.

What’s next? Legislation that - in the interest of National Security - bans the creation and/or distribution of certain types of movies that the government deems dangerous or detrimental to the public good?

Posted by: Chris at September 9, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #180088

Chris Rowen,

Gee how about the Republicans censoring “Counting on Democracy” about the Florida election results from PBS???

http://web.mit.edu/hemisphere/events/pbs-schechter.shtml

Can you say hypocrisy?

Posted by: 037 at September 9, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #180089

Nikolai,

All that poll shows is that the American public has short memories. It also show 61% approve of one of the worst former presidents ever Jimmy “I love Castro and Chavez” Carter.

Posted by: Keith at September 9, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #180090

Stephen -

His first deceit is that the rally portrayed at the beginning is a celebration of Gore’s victory. Never mind that Moore clearly gives the impression that this is a dream. there would be no victory party.

Someone by the alias WildDonkey had this to say about that dream sequence:

Moore deliberately gives the impression that Florida was called for Gore until Fox called it for Bush, and thereafter the other channels copied Fox for no particular reason. The initial calls of Florida for Gore (from a VNS update) were quickly retracted when it became clear (to VNS, the organisation who originally issued the update in Gores favour at 7.52pm) it was in fact too close to accurately call. Quite a few hours after the retractions when VNS issued a more accurate update saying Bush had taken it Fox were quickest off the mark in reporting it.

Within 4 minutes the other channels had responded to it - they were not following Fox’s lead but responding to the VNS report.

Thus it is clear that Moore in fact was being deliberately deceptive.

I can read the Daily Kos, too.

And isn’t it strange how this all goes back to the 2000 election?

Posted by: Chris at September 9, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #180093

This isn’t the beginning of the end of free speech. The media has been lying for YEARS about whatever they disagree with. The Valerie Plame “exposure” is an example. For 2 years, the media knew it wasn’t Bush, but they wanted to continue their favorite game of “Blame Bush.” Katrina is another example. Bush can’t control the weather.

The solution to the problem is that we need some media that is non-partisan.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at September 9, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #180097

stubborn conservative

“Bush can’t control the weather.”

He can’t control the government either. Does he have any control?

Wow about the dog show guy he appointed to be FEMA director, did he control that?

Posted by: 037 at September 9, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #180098

For me, I’ll believe this presentation of 9/11 is full of lies and inaccuracies when it is shown on the AlJerreza (sorry for the spelling) channel.
As for the outrage of Sandy Berger who was convicted of stealing from the archives, and former President Bill Clinton who lied to us all on national TV and under oath and was subsequently impeached…well, I just can’t put much stock in their disclaimers. None of us writing on this blog have seen the film. And…none of us know what in the hell we’re upset or happy about.

Posted by: Jim at September 9, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #180099

Right-Wingers behind ABC’s 9/11 “Story”

Wonder why more hasn’t been written about the people behind this propaganda masquerading as “history”.

Posted by: Lynne at September 9, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #180103

Your side has got so many things canceled it is pitiful. I think that all people are asking is that ABC tell the truth - like maybe add a brief intro - your side routinely gets things canceled that are true because they are true!!!

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 9, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #180104

I guess free speech is only relevent if the Democrats claim it for themselves. If anyone votes againest them they don’t qualify.

Posted by: George at September 9, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #180106

KansasDem

As someone who has worked with DOJ. When you plea-bargain as a high ranking official (no matter what party your with) they make an attempt to keep your public image in tact as much as possible so of course they are going to make it sound as good as possible.

Truth be told, No. Im not fond of the Clinton administration. I don’t have a problem with dems in general however, that being said I sorta have the right to have a lot of hostility toward that administration because I voted for it.

Stephen
The question is.. at the time he was taking those documents did he know that they were copies? There are documents in the archive that are the sole copies and can only be copied under certain circumstances.

With all that I have seen its made me a bit of a pessimist, I have a tendency now and days to assume that there is always an ulterior motive to any actions of that nature. Just for the record though if it was a Republican who did that, i’d be demanding jail time for him, just as I did for Berger

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff at September 9, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #180107

Libel and slander — A HATCHET JOB — is what you are defending here. Rather than free speech, this is taking an event and distorting, fabricating, and lying about proven facts to wrongly blame the entire 9/11 tragedy on Democrats before the election.
Liberals know that this was planned by the GOP, because now the president is asking ABC to interrupt what was to be a non-interrupted movie to make an address to the nation marking the five year anniversary of the attacks before the final portion of the film.
LIBERALS NEED TO WRITE TO ABC AND STOP THIS FILM FROM BEING SHOWN!

I receive E-mail from conservative groups just to keep an eye on what they’re saying, and they’re not hiding what the motive and purpose of this film is to serve. Today I got an e-mail about “The Path of 9/11” and it said this:
“They’ve edited it now because of the whining, but the message of Democrat failure still remains fully intact.”

Republicans should be ashamed at the way their party is tearing this country apart — but too many aren’t. Too many like it and are proud of it, instead. They like it almost as much as they like the Total Idiot who never held a meeting his first eight months in office regarding terrorist threats, and who blew off a CIA warning that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, and who did a photo op, and sat in a daze reading a childrens book while Americans on American soil were under attack.

This is not a movie to mark what Americans of all political stripes experienced on that horrible day. No, it is nothing but an extended commerical for the GOP. A premediated scheme to pin political blame and lies on Clinton and Democrats, and to excuse the complete and total failure of George W. Bush to protect this country on 9/11.

Liberals must stop this film and stop the Republicans. They’ve done enough damage to our elections already haven’t they? And so has the Media done enough damage as well — for are they not the ones responsible for feeding out obvious misinformation which lead Americans to think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11?
I think it’s time that the media begin to hear from Liberals IN DROVES, exactly the way they already do from the always vigilant and pissed-off religious right.

We must write and call, not just because this one film is full of lies and fabrications about former Democratic leadership, but because the media has actually reached the point where they’re assisting the Republicans in trying to tamper with our elections by airing what they know full well is nothing more than a propaganda film.

Kansas Dem already gave us the link to ABC in this thread — please write!

Posted by: Adrienne at September 9, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #180110

I wrote.

This is a disgusting thing to do, to the country and to those directly affected by this tragedy.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 9, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #180116

The original question here is “Is this the beginning of the end of free speech in America,” right? We are getting way off the subject.

It is not the end of free speech. It is the continuation of a liberal biased media. It is painfully obvious to democrats and republicans that the media is biased toward the left.

The movie shouldn’t be changed or yanked. This is another attempt of Clinton to coverup or lie about his stint as President. The only legacy he is leaving is that is ok to be immoral while holding the highest office in the land of the free.

Yes, there are some uneducated people that will believe everything they watch, but that doesn’t mean that ABC should buckle under the pressure. Knowing and obtaining the truth is up to each individual. The loudest sounds that are coming from most of the posts here are coming from liberal democrats.

Posted by: Monica Kirby at September 9, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #180123

A good indicator of how biased the show is that Sean Hannity loves it. He thinks its awesome. Chew on that for a minute. One of the most conservative radio hosts in the country loves the show. I wonder how much we can believe it? Not to much I’d say.

But why should it be pulled? If you think its lies don’t watch it. Tell all your friends not to watch it. If some people want to see it let them. Its called free speech, last I checked. Being near election time is not cool but being a political ploy is not grounds to pull it. I was not aware that liberals oppose campaign ads. Some think this is just another one. I don’t think it should be pulled. People who don’t like it should boycott it.

Posted by: Silima at September 9, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #180124

This just in: Michael Moore to produce docudrama titled “Roadmap to September 11, 2001”, to be aired by NBC on November 4th.

What say you Neocons?

Posted by: mark at September 9, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #180128

“Yes, there are some uneducated people that will believe everything they watch…”

Ya think? Hell, there are still people parroting GOP talking points about a raving Left-wing MSM!

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 9, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #180133

Political ads and fiction should be labeled plainly as such. No “based on the 9/11 commission report” crap.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 9, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #180136

43% of Americans are stupid enough to still think Saddam was involved in 9/11, so there will be plenty of idiots who will believe this piece of garbage. This film is just propaganda to hurt Democrats prior to one of the most important midterm elections in our history. The innacuracies must be removed or the whole film should be pulled.

And for all those idiots who keep bringing up Fahrenheit 9/11 I guess you didn’t read my earlier post so I’ll just repeat what I said before: F9/11 was not shown commercial free on a major network channel! F9/11 was never supposed to be used in our schools like this film was (Scholastic had produced educational materials to go along with the film for students but they had to pull the materials when all the bad press about the lies in the movie came out). F9/11 never used actors to portray real people and make them say and do things that never happened.


Posted by: bushflipflops at September 9, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #180140

Great link Lynne — Democrats really need to read that article!
It figures that assh*le Horowitz would be connected with this blatant propaganda.

Hey, maybe Liberals need to bankroll a similar film about the fact that Bush and the Republicans didn’t do one f*cking thing right before OR after 9/11, and then get it out just before the 2008 election.

The film could cover these facts:
1. Clinton had a cabinet level counter-terrorism czar. Bush didn’t, instead he demoted counter-terrorism as soon as he took power.
2. Clinton had regular, routine meetings with the people who were focusing on issues of terrorism for his administration. Bush didn’t have any meetings on that — for eight months.
3. Clinton authorized Clarke to go on heightened security alert in December of 1999 when he received intell about the 15 different planned bombings around the time of the Millennium.
While Bush didn’t do a damn thing in the summer of 2001 but go on another brush cutting vacation at his ranch, even when Condi knew and supposedly shared info with Bush that “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.”. The film could also discuss what we know from the 9/11 commission: That Ashcroft didn’t want to hear anything about Al Qaeda from the acting FBI director either.

It’ll be a great film full of nothing but the truth, and then we can cry “free speech” when the righties try to get it yanked.

Both parties can play at these games, you know. If they want to whine about the Liberal media and Hollywood, then maybe it’s time we REALLY give them something to whine about! If this is the way it’s going to be from here on out, we should just automatically prepare a made for TV movie before every election.
There could be a Lies about Iraq movie. An Outing Valerie Plame movie. An Abramoff movie. A Tom Delay movie. A Randy “Duke” Cunningham movie. A Terri Shiavo movie. etc. etc. etc. Lot’s of dirt to work with — and best of all, we won’t need to lie or fabricate at all! And since that’ll be the case, we can also feel free to cut a deal with Scholastic they way they tried to — but with us, the company won’t have to pull it since it’ll be based on actual facts.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 9, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #180141

Anyone, be it an individual or a corporation, that would use what happened on September 11 for economic or political gain is on the lowest rung of the moral ladder. To make a movie like this and show it on the fifth anniversary of that tragedy is about as crass as you can get in corporate America. ABC and Disney will no longer be recipients of my patronage. I don’t care if they show the movie or not, the fact that they were going to is enough for me to block their channels.

Posted by: mark at September 9, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #180157

I wonder how the Chinese now view these hypocritical dems when they are demanding cencorship of “free market public programming?” What a joke these waffy elitest dems are to the rest of the world. Everyone new at the time the “Good-ol-boy Bill” was more pre-occupied with looking up skirts the fighting terrorist.

Posted by: Everett at September 9, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #180158

Since I fall into some of those percentages of fools, idiots, etc., then my only response will be “Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity”.

How’s that?

Posted by: tomh at September 9, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #180160

Face it. GWB was asleep at the switch. Thinking people will see through this feeble attempt at revisionist history.Nice try though. You can only sell so many lies to Americans before we start seeing through them. Damn education. Now I know why the right is always trying to gut it.

Posted by: BillS at September 9, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #180175

Back to the title of this thread; does Chris mean that if Liberals are not defending any and all speech then the end of free speech is near? That it is all up to Liberals to be the defenders of free speech? If the answer is no then why are ya all so worried? If the answer is yes then thank you, it makes me proud to be a liberal.

Posted by: mark at September 9, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #180181

Weary Willie

Are you gay? I mean,several of the stars of the movies and TV shows are purportedly(were) gay.

Posted by: mark at September 9, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #180183

I don’t care what the democrats say, its what they get away with that worries me.

Posted by: Ed. McConnell at September 9, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #180188

Crazy

Still love you too Crazy.
:-)

Posted by: PlayNice at September 9, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #180189

Weary Willie

Don’t you findit odd that you’re attracted to movies and shows with the “leading men” being of this persuasion?

Posted by: mark at September 9, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #180190

Weary Willie

I don’t want them to not watch it, I want them to know what they’re watching.

Posted by: mark at September 9, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #180194

And where is the WatchBlog Editor when Mark associated my personal behavour with his?

Posted by: Weayr Willie at September 9, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #180196

Sorry Willie, Didn’t mean to insinuate or offend. It just struck me as odd.

Posted by: mark at September 9, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #180199

“Why would a major news network make a movie like this at a time like this?”

My question too. Why did ABC make a work of fiction, as they say, about such a serious subject with such huge political overtones. A documentary I would understand, but why fictonalize it? Not enough drama?

Posted by: mark at September 9, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #180200

I think the Dude said it best when he told Walter, “This isn’t a First Amendment thing.”

Posted by: dbpitt at September 9, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #180202

Weary Willie

It struck me as odd that you would bring up those movie and TV shows when we were discussing “The Path to 9/11”. My apologies. Seriously.

Posted by: mark at September 9, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #180204

Weary Willie

I agree about it being to early. At least too early for a work of fiction concerning this subject.

Posted by: mark at September 9, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #180208

Fine, watch it, but understand some of it is made up, and know which parts are made up, and which parts are not. Don’t judge history on fiction. Judge it on the facts. How do you tell fact from ficton?

Posted by: mark at September 9, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #180210

ABc, by their own admission, has added event to the chain that in reality where not there. What does that do to one’s perspective?

Posted by: mark at September 9, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #180213

Too many typos, getting late….zzzzz.

Posted by: mark at September 9, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #180225

You guys use words like “libel” and “slander” as if there is some kind of standard that the press/media abides by in presenting information to the public. When was the last time The New York Times was sued for libel or slander? I think Americans should be mindful of a basic truth in this United States, “the land of the free”. That truth is that freedom only applies to liberals like Pelosi and Shumer and Kennedy, and those that agree with them. To any that have a difference of opinion with them about anything no freedoms apply. Human beings like Pelosi and Shumer have been and will continue to, in my opinion, sell America and its core values out to the highest bidder. I consider them traitors to this country.

Posted by: Philip at September 9, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #180226

Did I read this thread correctly??

The Road to 9/11 is about homosexual Arabs?

No wonder the Dems are against it.

Posted by: Don at September 9, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #180227

Mark -

Back to the title of this thread; does Chris mean that if Liberals are not defending any and all speech then the end of free speech is near? That it is all up to Liberals to be the defenders of free speech?

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that it’s alarming when the government can coerce a mass media conglomerate like ABC to tow the Democrat party line.

Posted by: Chris at September 9, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #180242

Chris said: “High-ranking members of Congress (as well as the Clintons and various Clintonistas) are pressuring a mass media outlet to either completely revamp an admitted work of fiction or “yank” it entirely.”

I am sorry, I didn’t realize they were not citizens and not entitled to speak their opinions like the rest of us. If it is only name recognition people you have a problem with, then let’s begin with Bush.
Otherwise, as I said, unless a legal injunction is laid against the showing of the movie by the DOJ, this is not censorship. This is citizens exercising their free speech and consumer rights, regardless of station or position in our society.

Just as Republicans in Congress denigrated and belittled and asked (as citizens) for a halt to the showing of Farenheit 911. They were exercising their freedom of speech, which is their right in this country. Now, had Republicans gotten a restraining order or injunction to stop the airing of Farenheit 911, that would have been censorship. What’s good for the goose, should be also for the gander, and what is bad for the gander, should also be bad for the goose, would you not agree, Chris?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2006 1:31 AM
Comment #180247

David:
“Now, had Republicans gotten a restraining order or injunction to stop the airing of Farenheit 911, that would have been censorship.”

I don’t see how the two are even remotely the same. People had to pay to get in to see Fahrenheit 9/11, while this GOP propaganda film comprised of fabrications and lies is going to be free to anyone who owns a television set.

“What’s good for the goose, should be also for the gander, and what is bad for the gander, should also be bad for the goose”

After they had the Reagan movie yanked and shunted off to cable, I can’t believe they’d suddenly start crying free speech about a movie based on an entirely false premise! It’s a truly amazing display of hypocrisy, is it not?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 10, 2006 3:20 AM
Comment #180250

I posted on this yesterday. This is something that we need Sentate and Congressional hearings on; elected officials interfering with the First Ammendment guarantee to protect free expression.

What will be next, the Blogs?

Posted by: The Middle Class Guy at September 10, 2006 7:16 AM
Comment #180255

HardlyHarry

So how does it really feel to have all that animosity about our most recent fairly elected President bottled up inside you all theses years?

Posted by: mark at September 10, 2006 7:47 AM
Comment #180260

David R. Remer -

I am sorry, I didn’t realize they were not citizens and not entitled to speak their opinions like the rest of us.

Congressional liberals are citizens of the United States like members of the Politburo were citizens of the former Soviet Union.

They’re citizens, all right.

Congressional liberal democrats are citizens who just happen to have the political muscle to coerce a mass media conglomerate like ABC into editing a made-for-TV movie to “soften” the spotlight on Clinton’s most glaring failure.

Posted by: Chris at September 10, 2006 8:46 AM
Comment #180261

Although I’m not a Republican, I must agree with HardHatHarry. Liberals must be defeated.
End of story.

Posted by: tomd at September 10, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #180263

All of this ranting about the movie is typical of liberals. What other response can we expect from the people who want to cut and run in the mideast, people who can’t accept an honest election, and who worship the likes of Cindy Sheehan?

I remember the Clintons stealing White House furnishings as they left the White House and I remember the remaining staff even removing the “W” key from computers. How petty can you get? And we are supossed to support people like this?

Posted by: Tom D. at September 10, 2006 8:58 AM
Comment #180268

Dems and Reps need to stand together on this one and insist that facts are not substituted with fiction. Why intentionally distort things the facts about Clinton’s pursuit of terrorists are just as damming. Republicans can’t complain about Michael Moore and the like and stand by and let others do the very same thing. I strongly believe in freedom but those who have access to the mass media have a responsibility to present truth and not blur the lines.

Posted by: politico at September 10, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #180269

Chris
Dems in congress are not the government. They do not even control the government. Members of congress are representitives of “We the People”.
Our government is controled by Republicans and they are doing plenty of censoring on the Boob Tube.

Tom D.
I hope you’re not insinuating that only Liberals rant about the media. Conservatives have made an art form out of it.

Posted by: mark at September 10, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #180278

“Tom D.
I hope you’re not insinuating that only Liberals rant about the media. Conservatives have made an art form out of it.

Posted by: mark at September 10, 2006 09:21 AM”

I’m not insinuating anything. I am stating exactly what think.

I didn’t say anything about the ranting about the media. I said “All of this ranting about the movie” Although they both start with a “m”, movie and media are two different things.

That is another problem I see with the liberals. They tend as a group to read between the lines of things that conservitives and people who don’t agree with them are saying, but they want us to take their words at face value.

Posted by: Tom D. at September 10, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #180284

Tom D

If you think that the Clinton aides were the first ones to pull pranks on the new incoming staff, then you are either very young or naive. Bush Sr.’s group pulled some beaut’s, too, but $200,000 wasn’t spent investigating them.

Chris

When you assert that Democrats are “pressuring” ABC to edit or drop the broadcast, what exactly do you mean? Pressuring, to me, means there will be consequences. Might the word “urging” be a more appropriate term to use?

Personally, I will be watching the Giants-Colts game on NBC. It’s bound to score higher on the “entertainment value.”

Posted by: Tim in NY at September 10, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #180287

David R. Remer -

Just as Republicans in Congress denigrated and belittled and asked (as citizens) for a halt to the showing of Farenheit 911.

I would agree with you if there was a pre-existing cozy relationship between Michael Moore and Congressional Republicans. But there is no such relationship.

There is, however, a liberal bias in the media. That’s why the execs at ABC are falling all over themselves to appease their friends in Congress. Read this excerpt from Hugh Hewitt’s blog entitled Did ABC Edit “The Path to 9/11”:

The story here is the backlash that the Disney/ABC execs experienced was completely unexpected and is what caused them to question themselves and make these changes at all. Had this been the Bush Admin pressuring, they wouldn’t have even taken the call. The execs and studio bosses are dyed in the wool liberals and huge supporters of Clinton and the Democratic Party in general. They had no idea any of this could happen. As I understand this, the lawyers and production team spent literally months corroborating every story point down to the sentence. The fact that they were the attacked and vilified by their “own team” took them completely by surprise; this is the first time they’ve been labeled right-wing, conservative conspiracists.

I’m beginning to think that ABC was caught between a rock and a hard place in the making of The Path to 9/11. They couldn’t fabricate an intricate Clintonesque web of lies that contradicted the 9/11 Commission Report and were forced to steer in the general direction of the truth, which is contrary to the policy and code of conduct established by the Clinton Administration and currently practiced by liberal democrats in Congress.

Posted by: Chris at September 10, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #180288

“Tom D

If you think that the Clinton aides were the first ones to pull pranks on the new incoming staff, then you are either very young or naive. Bush Sr.’s group pulled some beaut’s, too, but $200,000 wasn’t spent investigating them.”

I never said they were the first or the only ones to pull pranks.

My momma taught me that two wrongs don’t make a right.

And since when is stealing household furnishings a prank?

Posted by: tomd at September 10, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #180290

Tom D. -

When you assert that Democrats are “pressuring” ABC to edit or drop the broadcast, what exactly do you mean? Pressuring, to me, means there will be consequences. Might the word “urging” be a more appropriate term to use?

Eh, No. I would not use the word “urging.” I think “pressuring” or even “threatening” is much more descriptive. But don’t take my word for it. Here is an excerpt from the letter sent by Senator Harry Reid to Mr. Robert A. Iger, President and CEO of The Walt Disney Company:

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Hmm. I’m no expert, but it seems to me that Senator Reid is threatening to revoke ABC’s broadcast license unless the film is yanked.

Posted by: Chris at September 10, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #180292

Sorry Chris,

I didn’t say that.

Posted by: Tom D. at September 10, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #180293

Sorry, Chris

I’m no fan of Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, but in that paragraph from Reid’s letter to Iger, nowhere do I see a threat to revoke their license (as if he had the sole power to do so), only a reminder of ABC’s obligation to the public.

Posted by: Tim in NY at September 10, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #180309

Did Sandy Berger nix the CIA plan to capture Bin Ladin, or not? According to the 9/11 Commission, specifically the section in Chapter 4 titled The CIA Develops a Capture Plan, Berger definitely pooh-poohed the idea:

In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy (italics added) and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.

Remember, at the time terrorism was regarded as a legal matter to be dealt with by the courts and the Justice Department.

The CIA went ahead with a rehearsal of the operation to capture Bin Ladin and, according to the report, the rehearsal “went well.” Still, the operation was cancelled. According to the report:

Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.

Clarke and Tenet did not think very highly of the CIA plan to capture Bin Ladin, even though “[m]ilitary officers reviewed the capture plan and … ‘found no showstoppers.’” Also according to the report

No one in the Pentagon, so far as we know, advised the CIA or the White House not to proceed. (italics added)

Berger was definitely involved in the decision to cancel the CIA plan to capture Bin Ladin, be it a half-assed operation or not. Berger certainly knew about the plan and could have presented it to President Clinton for approval. After all, Clinton was the President. The decision whether to go ahead with the CIA plan to capture Bin Ladin should have been made by Clinton himself, not one of this staffers.

Posted by: Chris at September 10, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #180320

Tom D. -

Sorry Chris,

I didn’t say that.

Sorry, Tom. My post should have been directed to Tim in NY. My brain registered Tim as the writer, but my fingers typed Tom D.

Please accept my humble apologies.

Sincerely,
Chris

Posted by: Chris at September 10, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #180323

I find it strangely facinating that those in favor of any enaccuracies in this presentation about the Clinton Administration, can explained away their views by sighting the rights of “free speech” or artistic license; when they are the first to complain about the “Hollywood Crowd” and their liberal “lies”, and bias.

I also find it quite irronic that in blaiming “Clinton” for 9/11 they had to resort to lies. When all they had to do, to cast blame for the real “Road to 9/11” was to look at the plain truth about the part the Bush Administration did play in this tragety.

It continues to evade me, why everything on the face of the planet can be explained away, as to the immorality of the “Clinton Years”. While, at the same time the complete advoidance of any truth about the last 5 1/2 failed Bush years, goes unanswered. The ennormity of the lies, the irresponsibility, the graft, the greed, the corporatism, the partisanship, and the crimes of this Administration, is unequaled in the annals of history. (Or at least within, my history).

If this current Administration is ever defeated, (which I believe is questionable at this point, becausse I believe that my vote no longer counts), then I do believe that “the truth” about this Administration will, “will-out” in the end. And, if that time ever comes, I believe that the people involved in this Administration, will in the future, be held accountable for what they have done to this country and to their fellow citizens. (As well as to people around the world).

Until then, I wait, I hope, and I pray for patience, and that justice will be done, in the end.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 10, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #180327

My main question…why ‘fictionalize’ an event like 9-11? Why not just get the facts straight…what is the motivation? ABC seems to say that this is not a documentary, but why make things up? There is recognition that facts are not correct, but as responsible film makers, why not get the facts correct on what is being billed as an ‘important event’ that will be broadcast without commercials? Sure, ABC has a right to broadcast the program but the initial premise of the blog…’Democrats are reducing Freedome of Speech’ is rediculous. Anyone can report anything, but without the freedom to complain, we certain will be eliminating our freedom of speech.

Posted by: Scott at September 10, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #180329

Chris wrote:

After all, Clinton was the President. The decision whether to go ahead with the CIA plan to capture Bin Ladin should have been made by Clinton himself, not one of this staffers.

Question: Who is the one incharge now, who just cancelled the “search and capture” of Ben Lauden, and disbanded the CIA agency in charge of that opporation? Is that “Bush”???

Posted by: PlayNice at September 10, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #180338
43% of Americans are stupid enough to still think Saddam was involved in 9/11, so there will be plenty of idiots who will believe this piece of garbage.

Do you wonder why?

“Rice, however, maintained “there were ties between Iraq and al-Qaida.”

This as of today.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 10, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #180342

PlayNice -

Question: Who is the one incharge now, who just cancelled the “search and capture” of Ben Lauden, and disbanded the CIA agency in charge of that opporation? Is that “Bush”???

I honestly do not know what you are referring to. You sidestepped the point I was making quite nicely, though. In effect, you’re excusing the Clinton Administration’s repeated failures to capture or kill Bin Ladin by pointing out that Bush hasn’t killed or captured him, either. That is not a very convincing argument, in my opinion. For one thing, Bin Ladin had been offered to Clinton on a silver platter more than once. But if it helps you sleep better at night thinking that Bush was retroactively responsible for the 9/11 attacks, more power to you.

Posted by: Chris at September 10, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #180346

Chris-
They hired people who had obvious agendas. They allowed a script to be written which had great big factual problems. Then they okay as a final edit a movie with factual problems so bad consultants walked off the film, and a lead actor hired his own consultant to rewrite the script with him. I don’t see what justifies your interpretations of the controversy here. This film would not have shown up in this form. There’s plenty of evidence of the conservatism at the house of mouse. If they were such liberals, why did the House of Mouse refused to distribute a number of controversial films, including Dogma, Kids and Farenheit 9/11 itself?

Maybe you explain that by presupposing a complex mixture of cowardice and whatnot. I think the simpler explanation, and the better one, is that there are a number of conservatives in charge there who want to promote their points of view.

HardHatHarry-
Without the fabricated scenes, there would be little or no uproar over this movie.

Meanwhile, your post demonstrate quite a bit of the Right-Wings disregard of the facts. You lionize a cult that fired on federal agents, cops, where elsewhere you would want the book thrown at them. You talk about the unfortunate bombing of an Aspirin factory, probably not realizing that one has to take a Bin Laden associates word for that when one makes that claim. You talk about the Kosovo conflict being useless when it was much more effective at destroying a tyrant that Bush’s war against Saddam was. Tell me you’re not sad to see a butcher like him die in prison. As for former U.S. Allies… Well, Saddam has something in common with him, then. I don’t recall Clinton having to deal with any photos of him getting chummy with Milosevic.

As for Gennifer Flower’s rape accusation? She only said that she had an affair with Clinton. It was Juanita Broaddrick who claimed she was raped. This, however was something she swore in an affadavit during the 1992 campaign had never happened. It’s a story that many reporters doubted.

It surprises me you bring up Flight 800. The scientific evidence of the wreckage doesn’t indicate the kind of damage and death that a missile would inflict. All engines were intact; a heat seaking missile would head straight for them. The nearest naval vessel was so far away, it’s missiles would have been out of range. The standard debunks on that are in this article.

Missiles and bombs explode in a tell-tale fashion, which does not jibe with what investigators found in the wreckage. It is the convergence of evidence that best sorts out the causes, a lesson not always learned by those who rely on suspicion and speculation for support. The pattern of how people died, how the explosion occured did not line up with an external explosion (which would have deformed the metal inwards and killed passengers accordingly) or along the lines of a bomb, which would have exploded through the decks and amongst the passengers in an manner that would have presented a certain signature of destruction.

The Clinton administration wasn’t perfect, but there are some people who are just looking for the explanation for things that fit their prejudices, rather than seeking out the explanations that fit the facts.

Misguided individuals on the right have often taken it upon themselves to correct what they see as erroneous ideas and recollection, even when the facts contradict them, and legitimate countervailing evidence is presented to refute their theories. They feel they have to correct the wrong beliefs of the rest of us Americans, and unfortunately that often means they fail to correct their own beliefs. They could not so forcefully advocate for the supremacy of their own beliefs if they started introducing doubts about what they believed to themselves, not to mention others.

The price of such certainty, though is that it guides behavior towards error, and prevents the individuals from recovering from their state of error.

Not every fact fits what the left would like to believe. There is more than enough that went wrong with the Clinton Administration for people to get on his case about. He had his good qualities as a leader, but those are balanced by obvious flaws. Democrats can accept this. There is no living canonization of Clinton.

There is, though, a certain perception of the Clinton Years as a Golden age, and for good reason, given what followed his departure from office: disaster, war, and dishonesty withint he Bush administration that proved to be far deadlier than anything that happened under Clinton’s watch.

If you wish to combat our real enemies, go ahead, we’ve never stopped you before. Go after Bin Laden. Go after the Jihadists. Stop looking for your enemies among us. It’s only served to blunt the edge of our real fight against the terrorists.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 10, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #180348

Womanmarine,

During an interview last weekend, President Bushs answer to “Iraq was never tied to Al Quida, Sadam never had “terriorist ties”, before our invasion was, “Well, Osama Ben Lauden thought that it did”.

So, now we have yet another, and totally new “truth”, or twist on “The Terrorist Threat”, and who our real enemys are. It is based upon the old axium:

“The enemy of our enemy is our friend”.

Only with the special brand of Bush-whackyness and spin, it has now become:

“The enemy of our enemy is our enemy”.

(And they say that we Democrats are Anti-American and supporting “terrorists”.)

Unbelievable!!!!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 10, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #180350

Stephen -

There is, though, a certain perception of the Clinton Years as a Golden age …

And “perception” is in the mind of the beholder. Maybe you remember the Clinton years as a Golden Age. I certainly don’t. I remember all the scandals.

Stephen, you are clearly one of the most erudite people I have never met (in person). I state this in all sincerity. You are one smart cookie.

But I guess you would have to be very intelligent to be able to convince yourself that Bill Clinton was anything other than barely mediocre as President, almost but not quite approaching the stature of Franklin Pierce or Grover Cleveland.

Posted by: Chris at September 10, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #180351

Chris-
I think we’ve already addressed the Sudan exchange. I think we’ve already also brought up the shared responsibility for the disaster, so your point goes off on a tengent that doesn’t intersect with our main argument: Bush was not sufficiently concerned with counterterrorism, and he hasn’t shown much signs of improvement since then. Clinton at least had the ball rolling. I recall a very evident emphasis on counterterrorism with the Clinton Administration that just dropped off the map with Bush.

It’s an open question whether greater focus could have stopped 9/11, but one thing’s for sure: it was his obligation to be alert. The attack was on his watch, and so even if wasn’t entirely his fault, it was his responsibility. With that in mind, his obligation would be to find out what happened and make sure that the preventable parts of the disaster didn’t happen again. Instead, he opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission and has since failed to implement its recommendations.

The question therefore must be raised: has this president learned anything from the terrible, unimaginable experience of 9/11?

I don’t think he has. I think this fellow in the White House is one of those kind of people who don’t want to change their perspective on things when they get hit by something like this. They entrench themselves in their points of view and try to fit things into them. It’s no surprise then that he brings us into Iraq as soon as he can manage it.

Unfortunately, that was the wrong direction. al-Qaeda simply wasn’t there. Not until the security situation broke down in the country, at least. Now we are fighting terrorists, but only because our invasion, poorly planned in regard to its aftermath, let them in.

There could have been redemption from that if he had admitted the mistake early on, and did something about it. People can accept humanity in a president; they accepted Clinton, despite his flaws and mistakes.

Unfortunately, Bush is just too hypersensitive to criticism and opposition, and too many folks on the right have acquired his bad habit. In a time like ours, its crucial that we focus on the practical nature of things rather than emphasize the political. Unfortunately, the right’s continued defensiveness about its policy and methods has made it difficult if not impossible to focus on what’s important. Instead we’re arguing about each other, which I think is rather tragic, given the impartial nature of the casualties that day.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 10, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #180355

Chris-
I think Clinton was a flawed president. I feel no need to defend him on every count. I disliked his all too cautious approach on military matters. That said, he at least tried to get things right, and if he screwed up, he was less apt than our current president to try and bury the fact under denials and heated allegations of bias.

Clinton at least understood his constituency extended beyond his base. he was more open to satisfying those on the right than Bush has been concerning the left. Clinton would have never alienated half the country the way Bush has. It’s not by accident that Bush has been elected by bare margins twice.

I am very willing to admit Clinton’s errors leading up to 9/11, that he was too willing to let the office politics go on, too entangled in his own scandal, too friendly with certain special interests.

What balances that, and allows me to consider him a decent president, if not a great one, is that he was much more willing to explore different sides of an issue, to use the Jiu-Jitsu of Diplomacy and smooth talk to America’s advantage. He wasn’t trying to sell his point of view to a bunch of people who weren’t buying it, then getting angry when he was rejected.

He acknowledged that events could take a turn that he didn’t necessarily think they would. He pursued investigations that yielded up actual convictions of terrorists, something few and far between for this president. He had counterterrorism as a priority, long before it was politically necessary for him. He anticipated the direction our national security interests would take, where Bush would have to catch up when catastrophe struck. Clinton may not have prevented 9/11, but at least he anticipated the possibility of terrorists striking us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 10, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #180360

Chris,

” To PlayNice -

Question: Who is the one in charge now, who just cancelled the search and capture of Ben Lauden, and disbanded the CIA agency in charge of that opporation? Isnt that Bush??? “

Yes, wouldnt that be Bush, not Clinton?

“I honestly do not know what you are referring to.”

Well, let me explain it to you then. Lets take it one baby step at a time, shall we?

The only people that could have known about the 9/11 plot before it happened is this (Bush) Administration. The outgoing Administration (Clinton), did what all outgoing Administrations have done. They briefed Bush on any dangers to National Security, Osama, terrorism etc, as well as to what they knew about Sadam. At no time, sence or before that time (Jan 21st, 2001), was Osama & Sadam ever tied together. (They are only tied together now, to muddy the waters for the next election, the fact is that Osama and Sadam were always enemys. Sadam a secularist, and Osama is a religious fenatic).

Several reports came into the White House between 1/21/01 and 9/11/01 that would have lead National Security to the conclusion that the U.S. was at risk from Osama Ben Lauden. (Clinton was not president during this time.) RE: Report June 2001. “Ben Lauden slated to attack the United States”. Also various reports from the FAA, CIA, and FBI involving Flight Training Schools. And, seperate communications involving decodeing and foreign intelligence. (summer 2001)

” In effect, you are excusing the Clinton Administrations repeated failures to capture or kill Bin Ladin by pointing out that Bush has not killed or captured him, either. “

And, Clinton was to capture or kill Osama for what? 9/11 had not happened yet. For the attack on the U.S. Cole? It was only known that Osama was behind the Cole attack, AFTER 9/11 even happened!

So, Clinton is supposed to do Bushs work for him, even after he has been releaved from office and even before 9/11 has happened. Gee…, I am sure that there is a terrorist event that will happen between Jan. 2007 and Sept. 2007, lets go out and arrest those that will be responsible for that attack, right now!!!

” For one thing, Bin Ladin had been offered to Clinton on a silver platter more than once. “

Oh, really! I believe that this statement is a myth. However, what is not a myth is:

Bush had a chance to capture Osama at “Tora Bora” so, where is he? Bush had a chance to capture Osama, after 9/11 when he was vacationing with the Saudi family, so where is he? Bush had a chance to capture Osama when he held part of his family at the White House just after 9/11. He could have questioned Osamas brother and other relatives, about Osamas where-a-bouts, before he had them secreted out of the country, (while no other planes were allowed in the air), right after 9/11. So, where is he? Who choose to “cut and run” from Afganistan, to presue a trumped up war with Iraq, thereby leaving Osama to remain free to this day? And, who said in 2003 about Osama, in a public speech in Chicago, “I dont know where he is, I dont spend that much time on him”. And, who in 2006 disbanded the CIA unit that was to search for Osama and “bring him to justice”? Who, could that possiably be? Clinton?

To use a Saturday Night phrase from a few years back, “No, it was George Bush”.

” But if it helps you sleep better at night thinking that Bush was retroactively responsible for the 9/11 attacks, more power to you. “

With the National Security that our President affords this country, it has been a long, long time since I have “slept at night”.

And, I never said that G.W. Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attack. (Although the National Security of this country was soooo inept leading up to 9/11, that some people in this country do wonder about that).

But it IS George Bushs responsibility to do what he promised to do in 2001, about the 9/11 attack. To “ferret them out of their holes, turn over every rock, and bring them to justice”.

I do, expect my President to do THAT. And, so do a lot of other Americans.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 10, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #180370

You dam gay commie liberals should quit bad-mouthing President W while he is bravely leading our troops into battle. W can see the future and that future is only secure with a democatic Iraq. Clinton couldn’t see the future or he would have known Osama was gonna attack the towers.

Posted by: American Idiot at September 10, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #180375

A.Idiot

Is the future secure with a free Osama BinLaden? If not then why did George W let him go at Tora Bora? Why hasn’t he seriously persued him since?(mentioning his name 17 times in the same speech doesn’t count).

Posted by: mark at September 10, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #180376

Wait a minute, Chris. It is the President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense that have been saying for weeks now that speaking out about the war is unpatriotic and aids the enemy.

How can we now say it’s the end of free speech to see the lefties complain about The Path to 9/11?

Posted by: clearwaterconservative at September 10, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #180393

Stephen -

What balances that, and allows me to consider him a decent president, if not a great one, is that he was much more willing to explore different sides of an issue, to use the Jiu-Jitsu of Diplomacy and smooth talk to America’s advantage.

I read your post very carefully. While I don’t agree with most of your conclusions, it’s refreshing to read a post that flows logically from one point to the next without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I couldn’t help but chuckle at your use of the word “Jiu-Jitsu.” All the network news talking heads used the very same word the other day. Talking points? I guess that makes me a “pointee.”

Posted by: Chris at September 10, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #180401

Sorry Chris, It’s long past the begining, fourty years past.

Posted by: Speakup at September 10, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #180404

I just finished watching the first part of the ABC drama. I don’t see why Dems should be upset. They don’t look that bad, just uncertain.

What DOES look bad is our over legalistic environment. We are trying to break a terrorist plot with the same tactics we use against burglers or pickpockets.

I think that this program will not make Dems look particualarly bad, but it WILL make domestic surviellence look like a better idea.

Posted by: Jack at September 10, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #180422

American Idiot,

The following has to be a joke, right? Like a parady of a right wing whacko, of something? If this is a real post, then I dont get it.

” W can see the future and that future is only secure with a democatic Iraq. Clinton couldn’t see the future or he would have known Osama was gonna attack the towers. “

So, “W” can “see the future”, really? Then when he was innogerated on Jan 21, 2001 why couldnt he see and prevent 9/11 some 8 and a half months into the future? Seams like his powers of preception are not very good. And, his intel stinks too.

And, a democratic Iraq will defeat Osama and all the terrorists in the world? So…..When is this supposed to work? When there is an election? When they ratify a constitution? Or, maybe this will come when and if the 3 factions there, can ever be united under one government, after their civil war, that we have caused by our invasion is over. Huh?

And, what does Iraq have to do with Osama? Where is the connection between Osama and Sadam? Even “W” in 2002 said that there was no connection between Osama (Al Quida) and Sadam. (And, this comes directly from your “fearless leaders” mouth.)

And, your remark about: ” quit bad-mouthing President W while he is bravely leading our troops into battle. “

Oh yes, our fearless leader, leading us into battle against “terror”. Have the Osama tapes stopped since we have been in Iraq? Or, do they pop up, ever so conviently, when Bush needs a diversion. (Talk about wagging the peverbial dog!)

It is just a real shame that actual “terrorists” in this unholy “war” have not actually been killed. However, do not lose hope. After all over 2,000 Americans and over 100,000 inocent Iraqis have been killed. (So who knows, our fearless leader may get it right yet — but then, dont hold your breath).

Oh, and Clinton can not “see the future”. Well he could see well enough (in the present) to prevent the millinium attacks. (Bush had 9 months in office to prevent the 9/11 tragety, and has had over 5 years in office to catch the person responsible for it.
Not toooo awfully successful, is he?
(I think someone should jerk his crystal ball).

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 2:31 AM
Comment #180423

Using spellcheck is a good idea.
Just a suggestion. It is hard to accept someones opinion when they don’t even take the time to make sure that their grammar and word usage is correct.

Posted by: Macen at September 11, 2006 2:39 AM
Comment #180424

If that is directed at me, I do not have spell check, and I never claimed to be a good speller. However, it is easy to critize the packaging and ignore the contents.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 2:47 AM
Comment #180446

Wow! Where to start….

1) What short memories you libs have. You are aware that the Towers were attacked twice right? And who was it that claimed responsibility then? And for bonus points can you tell us all who was Prez at that time?

2) Anybody else remeber the bombings of the embassies in Africa in ‘96? How about Somolia?
Any of these ring a bell? They should because it was proven that every ones least favorite Arab was behind these attacks and his buddies in Al-Quida. And anybody remeber who the President was?
Sorry folks, the fact of the matter is this: Billy boy screwed the pooch when it came to defending this country during his terms as leader of this country. What kills me is that the average lib is so quick to blame Bush for everything and yet so blind to your own faults.

Before anyone starts to flame away, I am not a Kool-Aid drinker. I feel that Bush has made mistakes as well, but in all fairness, Clinton did to.

Posted by: Youhavegottobekidding~ at September 11, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #180456

From and libel/slander point of view, how is this movie…er, docu-drama any different from Stone’s depiction of the last days of Kennedy and the alleged conspiracy that took place around that story? Real names were used in this film too. Did anyone sue over this? Were the “facts” presented in this piece outwardly disclaimed in any way? Why are people so up-in-arms over a movie? The timing is not enough. Are the people in the movie up for re-election? Many of them are not even in office anymore. Big deal.

I don’t get it. The Reagan movie should have been shown. Stone’s movie was shown, and this 9/11 movie should be shown. If people are so gullible as to believe verbatim, then we get what we deserve at the polling places.

Posted by: Chi Chi at September 11, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #180458

Kidding,

Yes, the towers were attacked twice.
The first time was in 1993. The people that were behind that were found, procecuted and are serving 250 years in prison, each. It was not found out that Osama was behind it, until years later. (Still, in Clintons Presidency).

And, when the change of watch occured in Jan of 2001, the Clinton Administration, (as all outgoing Administrations do), advised the incomming Administration of terrorist and National Security concerns. (The second attack happened some 9 months INTO BUSHS ADMINISTRATION. Please do not forget that.)

Do I get the bonus points?

And yes, I remember the bombings in Africa. Wasnt that the time that the Republicians wanted to keep the focus on Monicas dress? Isnt that the time, that the old phrase, “Wag the Dog” became so very popular? Seams like the righties were more interested in smearing Bill Clinton, than in fighting terrorism, Huh?

Oh yes and, I am sure that by 1998 our government knew that Osama was a behind a lot of things. (But keep in mind, that it was not until 2002 or at least, after 9/11 when it was found out the Osama was behind the Cole incident.) And, I am sure that as I said, the out-going told the in-coming. And the incoming in 2001, was Bush.

So, do I get double bonus points for that?

I would love to see if this is going to be as inflamitory about Bush tonight as it was about Clinton last night. But, since this is a Republician Dream Piece, I doubt it.

I am sure that there is going to be some glassing over the lax Air Port security (excuse the pun) and I am sure that this has to be because poor Bush was unable to degrade all our civil rights and liberties, in such a short period of time in office. I am sure that the CIA and FBI will look pretty silly that they never let the president in on all the undocumented Arabs in flight schools, so that Bush can again plead “ignorance” of the facts.

And, I wonder what ever happened to that report, “Bin Lauden determined to strike the United States” that was sent to the white house in the summer of 01? Condi sure had to explain that one to the 9/11 Commission. And, she stone-walled like hell, on that one too.

So, we will see. Just who is more culpable on this one. The guy that left 9 months earlier, or the guy in charge for over 3/4ths of a year and should have been on watch. Maybe Bush had enough time to get over “Monicas Dress”, and if he would have spent more time on the threat from Osama, than on the problem of how he could get back into Iraq and finish the job his daddy never did, then maybe 9/11 would have never happened?

But, this is an election year, and since this is a republician dream piece, to win votes in November, I seriously doubt it! Cowboy Bush will obviously come to Americas rescue, and save us from the bad ol terror-wist.

And, they all lived happily ever after.

THE END

P.S. Anyone got a copy of “My Pet Goat”?

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #180464

The first night of the movie was mindnumbing to say the very least; I mean it showed how incompentent and destructive the decisions and indecisions were to combating terrorism. It’s just outrageous.

It’s (also) unfortunate that it took an attack like that to realize this fact.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 11, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #180466

And, before you republicians start laughing at the Clinton Administration too much. I ask you to remember some more things in histroy, besides this selective piece of myopic righ-wing garbage, whos only purpose is to sway the up-comming election, which is less than dispicable.

Some other things going on at the time, with Bill:

1) Janet Renos gastly mistake at Waco that killed men, women and children. Horriable!

2) A 40 million dollar campaign by, the “Special Procecuter” to get the “Clintons” out of office.

3) The grand jury

4) Ruby-Ridge (another baby dead)

5) Travel-Gate

6) White-Water

7) And, of course…Monicas dress (And, whats her name…Jenifer Flowers?)

8) That suicide, that of course, couldnt have been from simple depression; but, had to be some sort of “White House Cover-Up”.

9) The laughs and geers about “He did not inhale”, and all the talk about all his Viet Nam time, was spent in “Russia”. (But, I have heard very little from the left in this Administration about the Bushs alcohol problems - And, speaking of that, where was Bush stationed in Viet Nam?).

10) Then there was this kid in Florida. I cannt remember his name. But, you Republicians should remember his name. You know the one. The one that all the Republicians (you know the “Family Values Party” Republicians, the ones that believe that nothing is more important than the preservation of “The Amerian Family”?
THAT REPUBLICIAN PARTY!
That wanted to keep that boy in Florida away from his father — in Cuba). Even though he was here illegally.

(Looks like they have not changed much, in that area, either. Not in their blatant disreguards for the laws of this land; and, still trying to import illegals as fodder for their large corporate friends, to degrade the American economy and a “living wage” for all American workers, as well as to eliminate collective barganing rights of employees.)

The point being, (for anyone that can still think for him/her self), is that Clinton did have a lot on his plate. And, if he left Osama for Bush, then I guess it is only fair for Bush to leave the mess in Iraq for his predasessor,
(just as he has promised, to do…)

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #180468

Path to 9/11 Part 1 was as boring as watching bread dough rise. Dry and hard to follow.

Hope the docu-drama ABC does on Bush when he leaves office is more interesting (and more accurate).

Posted by: clearwaterconservative at September 11, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #180469

Stop drinking the kool aid people;

You do not have to distroy the law to get justice.

And, when you deny justice to one, you deny justice to all.

You do not have to give up your personal freedoms, rights or liberties to get “protection” from “terrorists”.

All that will accomplished, (when you give up such things), is the loss of your liberties, rights, and freedoms.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #180471

Play,
“So, we will see. Just who is more culpable on this one. The guy that left 9 months earlier, or the guy in charge for over 3/4ths of a year and should have been on watch.”


So, are you saying that what happened for 8 years from one administration is nothing compared to the 8 months from another administration? Are you interested in learning from mistakes or are you so hateful of Bush that you would rather blame him and cover up the mistakes everyone else made prior to 9/11?!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 11, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #180473

Sigh-

Lets start at the begining:

You libs are all about truth? Well, here’s some truth you may have forgotten

1)Billy boy lied. Plain and simple. If he was so eager to look out for this country, why did he lie for a handful of years over his affair and not just come clean so that the media and the Republicans can move on to bigger things like defend the country

2) Truth? Isnt it odd that these libs now screaming for Bush’s head were the same ones not four years ago backing him? They had access to the same intelligence that Bush did. They stood up there and screamed for a Use of Force bill vs Iraq the same way everybody else did, yet now they are backpeddling and blaming Bush.

3)Truth? Lets see if I recall correctly, during the first eight months of Bush’s first term, the Dems would not, could not straight refused to move along with Cabinet confirmations. Like spoiled little childeren, they had to be dragged out so they can do thier jobs

4) Truth? 1998-if the libs at the time knew so much about the impending threat that was Iraq, why wasnt something done then? Oh wait, I forgot, the Republicans were chasing after your beloved adulter while he was lying to the world about his many affairs.

The suicide and all the rest are fluff that shrills throw up to cloud one simple fact about today’s liberal Democrap(no thats not a typo) and that fact is this: You are a bunch of loudmouth cry babies devoid of any ideas of substance and can not win in a debate based on ideas.

Notice I said liberal. In my mind there is a difference between the likes of Lieberman(who libs did a nice job of throwing under the bus because he stood up for what he belived in) and the likes of Howard Dean. If Dean is your Leader and Clinton you God, well, if I were you I wouldnt make any plans to return to power. Ever.

Posted by: Youhavegottobekidding~ at September 11, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #180475

Rahdigly,

No, I am saying that it was not known that Osama was behind the first attack (financing), untill some 5 years after the first attack. That is only after Yusef was caught. I am saying that this intel was passed over to Bush when Bush took office. I am saying that Bush was more interested in how he was going to get into Iraq to finish the job his daddy would not do and should have finished in Iraq, (in my mind, and in Pres. Bushes mind), than in looking at any threat from Osama. (and I cant even ad lib here, what I really think, because I might end up on a “no-fly” list somewhere).

Bush was not concerned about Osama before 9/11. Bush did not want to hear what the Clinton Administration tried to tell him about Osama. Bush did not care about the reports from the CIA, FBI or any other intel agency during the first 9 months of his watch, about Osama. Including the Report that Osama was going to strike at the U.S. that was available to the White House, in the Summer of 2001.

Now, if that makes Bill Clinton culpable, for an event that happened some 9 months after he left office, then I am just talking to a brick wall, here.

That is what I am saying.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #180476

Hi,
I am STILL lurking. I haven’t posted in a while. Been soo busy, besides I am very tired of trying to teach the blind to see.

Chris Rowan:
You wrote:

Is this the Beginning of the End of Free Speech in America?
Are high-ranking members of Congress attempting to censor a major media outlet?
I guess it all depends on your definition of the word “censorship.”

LIBEL AND SLANDER [libel and slander] in law, types of defamation. In common law , written defamation was libel and spoken defamation was slander. Today, however, there are no such clear definitions. Permanent forms of defamation, such as the written or pictorial, are usually called libel.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=Libel
Main Entry: 1li•bel
Pronunciation: ‘lI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Middle French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
3 a Inflected Form(s): -beled or -belled; -bel•ing or li•bel•ling /-b(&-)li[ng]/
intransitive senses : to make libelous statements
transitive senses : to make or publish a libel against
http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Libel&query=Libel
In law, defamation is a right of action for communicating statements that may harm an individual’s reputation or character. The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, esp. speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, esp. writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each which give a common law rights of action.
“Defamation” is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between “slander” and “libel”. Libel is defamation that is published, but can also happen in other forms, such as effigy, a motion picture, or a statue; slander refers to any verbal, unpublished, defamation.
Truth
In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory. Proving to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel. Statements of opinion which cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense. The use of the defence of justification however has dangers. If the defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defence of truth and fails he may be said to have aggravated the harm.
United States law
Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries.
This is because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives strong protection to freedom of expression, which arose from the tradition of dissent in the American Revolution. For most of the history of the United States, constitutional protections of freedom of speech were not considered applicable to libel law. This changed with the landmark 1960s case of New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the Supreme Court of the United States modified the law of libel to be in accord with constitutional requirements. The court held that where a public figure was defamed, the plaintiff had to prove not just that an untruthful statement was made, but also that it was made with actual malice - that is, that it was made knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth. This decision and the ones that followed its lead created a major revolution in the doctrine of libel law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

You wrote:

Most people would agree that ABC is exercising it First Amendment rights under the Constitution by creating and airing an admitted work of fiction.

You don’t honestly think the disclaimers posted during the movie mean people BELIEVE it is a work of fiction do you?

I don’t want to derail this thread by getting off on a whole other subject, but where in the heck was your disdain for censorship and failing to uphold the 1st amendment when all this went on?
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315455.shtml
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/rnc_protestors_gop_police_went_too_far.htm


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/07/sprj.irq.oakland.protest/

http://forums.yellowworld.org/archive/index.php/t-19144.html


http://www.fairandbalanced.us/docs/StoryID2567.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10969-2005Mar29.html?nav=rss_politics/administration

Youhavegottobekidding,
You wrote:

1) What short memories you libs have. You are aware that the Towers were attacked twice right? And who was it that claimed responsibility then? And for bonus points can you tell us all who was Prez at that time?
2) Anybody else remeber the bombings of the embassies in Africa in ‘96? How about Somolia?
Any of these ring a bell? They should because it was proven that every ones least favorite Arab was behind these attacks and his buddies in Al-Quida. And anybody remeber who the President was?
Sorry folks, the fact of the matter is this: Billy boy screwed the pooch when it came to defending this country during his terms as leader of this country. What kills me is that the average lib is so quick to blame Bush for everything and yet so blind to your own faults.

PRESIDENT WANTS SENATE TO HURRY WITH ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS

Now before you say anything else, Look at the date this was published:

July 30, 1996 Web posted at: 8:40 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

“We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue,” Clinton said during a White House news conference.

… The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it’s important to get the legislation out before the weekend’s recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

“The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out — that they give us as much help as they can,” he said.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

… One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives “a phony issue.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, “These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they’re not going to get.”

“If they want to, they can study the thing” already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president’s proposals to expand wiretapping.


PLEEEAASE! Do any of you REALLY believe this is NOT an attempt to try to minimize the HORRENDOUS job this administration has done just before the midterm elections?

PS if you think it is just LIBERALS who are riled over this movie, try Googling the title.


Sassyliberal

Posted by: sassyliberal at September 11, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #180477

PS And what exactly, am I supposed to “learn”? That fighting terrorism, can only be waged successfully, if we give up our rights, as Americans?

Isnt that just what the “enemy” would want us to do?

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #180478

I interrupt this blog for a few words from the founding fathers:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.
-Thomas Paine

When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
-Thomas Paine

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
-Thomas Jefferson

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
-John Adams

Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
-Abraham Lincoln

Our nation is somewhat sad, but we’re angry. There’s a certain level of blood lust, but we won’t let it drive our reaction. We’re steady, clear-eyed and patient, but pretty soon we’ll have to start displaying scalps.
- George Bush

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
-Abraham Lincoln

And on this most somber of days, a little humor:

I’m hopeful. I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington, obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed with success as opposed to failure.
-George Bush

He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas better than any man I ever met.
-Abraham Lincoln


For blue and red on 9/11 - peace.

Posted by: CPAdams at September 11, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #180479

Play,
“No, I am saying that it was not known that Osama was behind the first attack (financing), untill some 5 years after the first attack. That is only after Yusef was caught. I am saying that this intel was passed over to Bush when Bush took office.”

Ok, by that rational, then Clinton did nothing about Bin Laden for 3 years (1998-2000) and Bush did nothing for 8 months. Again, it’s not adding up; remember, All the Presidents prior to 9/11 did a pi$$-poor job (in regards to terrorism) and it took that tragedy to actually get the that point across to everyone.


“You do not have to give up your personal freedoms, rights or liberties to get “protection” from “terrorists”.”

If you watched that program last night, you will clearly see that you do. There’s a quote from the movie where the guy asked “are we serious about fighting this war or are we going to fight it as if it’s a criminal matter rather than a military one”.


And, I’ve been saying this for quite a while now, why (in the name of God) do you grant rights and constitutional justice to people (the terrorists) who want to destroy our constitution and way of life?!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 11, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #180480

CPA, nice quotes. I’m sure the terrorists know them, too; they (probably) know how to “play” our system and “jump” through all the loopholes that exist.

Remember, we’ve never fought an enemy like this; especially not with an anti-war movement (within our own country) like the one we have today.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 11, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #180483


Kidding,

Sigh

Lets start at the present:

(We libs are all about truth)

1) Bushy boy lied. Plain and simple. If he was so eager to look out for this country, why did he “cut and run” from Afganistan in his “search” for Ben Lauden, and why did he disban the CIA unit to search for Ben Lauden recently? And, why did he start a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with Ben Lauden?

2) Truth. No one in their right mind backed Bush in 2000 except the Supreme Court. (Most of whom were appointed by his daddy). So I find it hard to believe that any “lib” could have ever “supported Bush”. And, no…The Clinton Administration did not have the same intel as Bush before 2001. From Jan to Sept 2001 Bush had much more intel, than the out going Administration, on Osama. “They stood up there and screamed for a Use of Force bill vs Iraq the same way everybody else did, yet now they are backpeddling and blaming Bush.” Yes, blaming Bush for lies and false information that got us involved in the war in Iraq. So scream way all you silly “libs”.

3)Truth. “Lets see if I recall correctly, during the first eight months of Bush’s first term, the Dems would not, could not straight refused to move along with Cabinet confirmations.” Cabinet confirmations! COWABUNGA… Dont you remember that in Dec. of 1999, the incoming Bush team rented a hotel room close to DC in order to get their “war plans” together before Jan 21, 2001? The Supreme Court hadnt even made their final decision yet and the Bush team already were prepared to…”Hit the road running”. (God, you republicians have a memory/brain like a sieve, all logical thoughts just drain through).

4) Truth. “1998-if the libs at the time knew so much about the impending threat that was Iraq, why wasnt something done then? Oh wait, I forgot, the Republicans were chasing after your beloved adulter while he was lying to the world about his many affairs.” No, they didnt arrest Yusef right away, so that they could find out who was behind the blind shiek. They did find out who, Osama. And, they didnt get Osama when they could because they didnt want another WACO, only this time in a foreign country that could possiable start a war.

” You are a bunch of loudmouth cry babies devoid of any ideas of substance and can not win in a debate based on ideas. ”

Now thats just plain mean. But equally mean, and very true:

You couldnt hold an intelligent converstation based on facts, if your life depended upon it….and it does! (with the guy your backing in office!)

aww, Liberman, the Republicians friend. Now I wonder just why that is? Could it be that he is just a republician in demo clothing, huh???

If “Clinton is your God, well, if I were you I wouldnt make any plans to return to power. Ever.”

I have no plans or dreams of Democrats ever returning to power, ever. Not with the way you guys fix elections. No, we dont stand a chance. Wake me up when the Hollacost is over. (sorry wrong time in history —- wake me up when arrmogeddon is over then).

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #180484

After watching the first part of the miniseries last night, it became easy to see why the Clinton people wanted it censored.

“This administration wants to treat terrorism as a law and order issue.”

“are there no men in Wahsington?”

And many, many other damning scenes.

At least the actress playing Albright was more attractive than “Madame”. She did not dissolve the camera lens as Madeline would have.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 11, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #180487

Rahdigly,

“Ok, by that rational, then Clinton did nothing about Bin Laden for 3 years (1998-2000) and Bush did nothing for 8 months. Again, it’s not adding up; remember, All the Presidents prior to 9/11 did a pi$$-poor job (in regards to terrorism) and it took that tragedy to actually get the that point across to everyone.”

You mean like “all the Pres”. — Ragan who financed him when we were fighting the “cold war”, or Bush #1 that failed to exercise proper security or intel and relay that, to Clinton in Jan of 93? And, wasnt the first attack in Feb of 1993? Geez, that Clinton,,,,,what a dog!

” And, I’ve been saying this for quite a while now, why (in the name of God) do you grant rights and constitutional justice to people (the terrorists) who want to destroy our constitution and way of life?! “

Well, you see, its not for them. No. It is for us. For us because we are Americans, we believe in America, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Genieva Convention. Just little things like that that make us Americans, and better than our enemy!!!

So, win - loose - or draw? We still retain what we are. AMERICANS!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #180489

Play,
“You mean like “all the Pres”. — Ragan who financed him when we were fighting the “cold war”, or Bush #1 that failed to exercise proper security or intel and relay that, to Clinton in Jan of 93? And, wasnt the first attack in Feb of 1993? Geez, that Clinton…..what a dog!”


Yes! That’s what “All Presidents” means: Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, Carter, Just under 8 months of GWB, and the rest of the Presidents. ALL PRESIDENTS, PLAY!!


You see, this isn’t a partisan issue for me; I’m looking at this as an American issue and what is best for this country. I believe we can all learn from mistakes and there have been many, many (too many) mistakes with these terrorists and the countries that sponsor them.


If you watched the film last night, you would’ve clearly seen that these people had hate for America and they won’t stop until they are dealt with. Also, President Clinton was depicted as “Satan” and he didn’t even do anything in regards to terrorism; the film (as well as facts in history) is very clear on that. As Nikkolai pointed out, the quote in the movie said “This administration wants to treat terrorism as a law and order issue.” That was from an FBI guy talking to the head of the FBI.


Posted by: rahdigly at September 11, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #180491

“The Clinton Administration did not have the same intel as Bush before 2001”

Then how were they able to give the Bush administration the intel warning of bin laden?

You really should give up trying to make this a partisan issue.
Your feeble attempts at doing so, are only pointing out the obvious: party before country! No matter what!

Posted by: kctim at September 11, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #180493

rahd,

Thanks for quoting the docu-drama as truth - I couldn’t think of a better way to highlight the problems of this right wing propaganda piece than your words.

As for fighting terrorism as a criminal matter, I think the British are more effective treating it as a criminal matter than we will ever be by treating it as a military manner.

Thanks for dismissing those quotes by Lincoln and company. Yeah, you’re right…liberty is vastly overrated.

Here’s what I don’t understand, so please explain it to me - do you truly believe that these terrorists can overthrow our nation or cause such a cataclysmic disaster as to effectively end America? I don’t and I’m a NYer. I believe I have more right to believe that they threaten our survival because they attacked my backyard.

I really don’t. And I don’t know any NYers who do. The rest of y’all, especially anyone who lives far away from NY or DC or LA - stop drinking the Kool Aid!

In fact, I don’t know anyone, including the most rabid Islamofasciphobe, who fears for the overthrow of America by 20 terrorists(or 50 or even 1000). Frankly, I can think of a few neighborhoods in NYC where even OBL would be afraid to walk around at night.

So I am left with this question:

What is the gravest threat to the American way of life? - terrorists or the Bush administration’s hostility to the Constitution and our liberty?

The choice is obvious - tyranny. And you are right rahd, those quotes are silly.

Abraham Lincoln certainly did not face a threat as grave as terrorism. He could never have justified resorting to tyranny to defend the union at the expense of the Constitution.

It’s not like he faced daily plots on his life.

You’d think he had a hostile army waiting for him within walking distance from the White House.

[DRAMATIC PAUSE]

I’m sorry - that must be sarcasm I’ve dripped all over your shoes.


“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

“For a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Or in our case, where 47.9% can take the rights from the other 52.1%.

Posted by: CPAdams at September 11, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #180496

Play,

PS And what exactly, am I supposed to “learn”? That fighting terrorism, can only be waged successfully, if we give up our rights, as Americans?

Isnt that just what the “enemy” would want us to do

YES IT IS!!!!!! and NO…you don’t need to “learn it” it seem you’ve GOT it!

You misunderstood my post. I was just trying to show that the VERY SAME Conservative Party who today is pushing for the erosion of our constitutional rights, pushing to EXPAND ILLEGAL wiretapping, etc. etc. etc. …The ones shooting off about how it is ALL the fault of the Clinton Administration are the very same ones who “poo poo-ed” some of the same ideas under Clinton.

NO I agree with you, play, I am totally AGAINST illegal wiretaps or any thing else to further erode our constitutional rights, ESPECIALLY the 1st amendment

sassyliberal

Posted by: sassyliberal at September 11, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #180498

Thats probably the gist of it all CPA.
The left is at war with their own President and fellow Americans.
And the rest of us know we are at war with terrorists who wish to destroy our country.

Posted by: kctim at September 11, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #180502

CPA,
“do you truly believe that these terrorists can overthrow our nation or cause such a cataclysmic disaster as to effectively end America?”

Yes, I certainly do. I’m (also) not going to give them (terrorists) any of my liberties or freedoms; the same liberty and freedoms that our four fathers (some of whom you’ve quoted), not to mention service men and women (including myself), have fought so bravely for us to keep. The terrorists change tactics all the time; why some don’t want us to change is beyond comprehension. We will change and we will win this war no matter what some people believe.


By the way, “Give me liberty or give me death” by Thomas Payne, was a war cry; he’d rather die than live under the British rule. The same applies to many Americans about the islamofascists; we will not placate to those “muslanimals”. Never!!


KCtim,
“The left is at war with their own President and fellow Americans. And the rest of us know we are at war with terrorists who wish to destroy our country.”

Sad, yet so(oooooo) very true. Good point.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 11, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #180504

kctim,

You are right. But the right, not the left nor the center are the ones who are aiding the terrorists(you forgot - the center doesn’t agree with you either).

The real target of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred.

The people terrorists kill are not the targets. The real targets are the rest of us. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.

And we’re doing exactly what the terrorists want.

Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The implausible plots and false alarms actually hurt us two ways. Not only do they increase the level of fear, but they also waste time and resources that could be better spent fighting the real threats and increasing actual security.

It’s time we calm down and fight terror with antiterror.

Our job is not to panic every time two Muslims stand together checking their watches. Our job is to think critically and rationally, and to ignore the overwhelming noise of other interests trying to use terrorism to advance political careers or increase a television show’s viewership.

Our job is to recognize that terrorism is just one of the risks we face, and not a particularly common one at that.

And our job is to fight those politicians who use fear as an excuse to take away our liberties and promote security theater that wastes money and doesn’t make us any safer.

Posted by: CPAdams at September 11, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #180509

CPA
I mentioned nothing of anybody “aiding” the terrorists. I stated a fact: The left wants to bring down their own President and the evil Christian Republicans that support him and the rest of us want to bring down the terrorists.
While the left is busy proclaiming Bush is a Nazi and is hellbent on taking over the world and must be stopped at all costs, the rest of us are pissed off at those who want to destroy our fellow Americans.
Its all about priorities and ours are different. No biggie to me.
You all fear a fellow American and I fear an enemy who wants to lop off our heads.
You all fear a fellow America who you BELIEVE wants to turn America into a theocracy and I fear an enemy who has actually said that was their intention and has killed fellow Americans to support their views.
You all fear Republicans, based on your opinions.
I fear American hating terrorist, based on what they have actually done.
To each, his own I guess.

“And our job is to fight those politicians who use fear as an excuse to take away our liberties and promote security theater that wastes money and doesn’t make us any safer”

Glad to see “some” of you lefties are finally starting to believe in the 2nd Amendment again.
Myself, my righty friends and a few of my “real” Dem friends have been shouting this for about 10+ years.

Posted by: kctim at September 11, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #180514

two differences about Moore’s movie.

a. it was not shown on TV, it was on the movies.
b. Disney, ABC’s parent company, did not publish it because it was too political.

big difference between movies and free tv.

Posted by: Sarantos Soumakis at September 11, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #180518

Part 1 was great. As I heard it, ABC/Disney edited very little and did not cave to pressure from democrats. If there was any bias, you would expect ABC/Disney to be biased for left. If not, kudos to them for journalistic integrity. The protests of dems was why I believed it was a “must-see” versus the CBS program.

I hope that dems file lawsuits. That will keep the interest alive and help to sell unedited DVD’s.

ABC should run once-a-week right up to November elections.

Posted by: Jimmy at September 11, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #180530

Lieberman a Republican in Deom clothing huh? Wow that’s a good one. And a perfect way to bring this full circle while returning to the topic at hand censorship. You might remeber a little group called PMRC? You know the good folks who raised hell a while back about the lyrics one might hear on a CD. Well that was a Lieberman/Gore creation through and through. Hmm, censorship anyone? The reason I have respect for the man is he took a stand and stood by it. Unlike say John Kerry who voted for the war before he voted agaist it.

As far as fixing elections, explain how dead folks can vote? Kennedy can’t, but to hell with it right? Its all good and fair when you boys do it right? How about segergation? Senator Bird anyone?

Part of the reason we are having the problems we are having is that Clinton did nothing for EIGHT years. By your own admisson he knew what was going on and did NOTHING. Dont hand me that Wag the Dog BS either,beacuse all that really is is another excuse, which is all Im hearing from the left these days.
Clinton was the leader of the most powerful country in the world, and yet he wanted to talk to these countries that wanted to kill Americans for no other reson then because. Talk to fanatics has never worked. Ask France. Ask Iseral. Hell ask any normal citizen that ever talked to a Dean-lib. You get no where when you present the facts or make them face little things like the TRUTH. And the Truth in this matter is Clinton screwed the pooch,plain and simple. Did Bush Sr. screw up during the first Iraq war? Hell yes, if we had cleaned that mess up then we wouldnt have the crap going on today in that cesspool, that too is plain and simple.

It goes back farther than that. When the hostages were taken during Carter’s term. Here we had citizens kidnapped and about to be executed and what did Carter want to do? Talk! For days on end. Then with bad intelligence he launched a half ass rescue that made us look incompetent at best and cost the lives of some of the rescuers themselves.

BTW who was it who said “Speak softly yet carry a big stick?” Well, that big stick is not just for show. Once in a while its ok to swing for the fences and prove why we are the most powerful country in the world. And that’s exactly what Bush is doing now. Clinton never stepped up to the plate.

Posted by: Youhavegottobekidding~ at September 11, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #180536

kctim,

let’s be clear. I am opposed to terrorism. More so, I am offended that as an American and as a New Yorker I would have to justify that opposition to another American.

But this is a framing issue and I’m not buying your frame. I am against terrorism and against the actions by Bush - you seee, these two points of view co-exist quite well together.

I am against terrorism and against torture.

I am against terrorism and against secret CIA prisons.

I am against terrorism and in favor of FISA.

I am against terrorism and against the politization of terrorism by the Bush Administration.

I am against terrorism and against bankrupting the treasury in the pursuit of oil in Iraq.

I am pissed off that extremists want to attack us and disgusted at how Bush tries to exploit that anger for political gain at every opportunity.

You see, I don’t have to support many of Bush’s actions and still be strong on terrorism.

I’ll give you an example of how I can resent Bush’s failures and demagogary and still be opposed to terrorism.

One of the consistent complaints from Democrats is that the Bush has not done enough to make airline travel safe(and ports and containers).

My wife just flew to and from S.Fla this week. She went through two detection machines - one x-ray and one to find hidden explosives. They had four lanes for security, only one of which was set up to search for explosives.

Which lane you chose was entirely voluntary. They only had one bomb detection machine because they were too expensive and besides, as she was told, most cities, INCLUDING NY and LA, hadn’t gotten one yet.

Smoke and mirrors, kctim. Politics. Talking about all the containers you are searching and bomb detection machines installed around the country does not make for exciting sound bites nor mobilize the base and it does not make people come to Dubya’s $1,000 a plate fundraisers.

But it makes us safer.

We can’t kill (or torture)everyone who hates us:

- because decentralized terrorist cells don’t sue for peace;
- because every tortured or dead terrorist resurrects through multiple replacements;
- because it makes us an international pariah;
- because doing so will destroy our ideals and us as a nation faster than OBL could hope for in his wildest virgin laden dreams.

I’m not soft on terror - I just don’t buy into a policy that is only designed to enrich Haliburton (perpetual war is their wet dream) and fear Americans into not thinking for themselves.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
- FDR

Posted by: CPAdams at September 11, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #180554

CPAdams:

The problem with the democrats, in and out of the government, is that they are just like you.

They and you want to TALK it to death, but not DO anything about it. As the movie portrays, that is just what we got from Clinton: just talk.

I have never defended Bush on anything, and he and Republicans have certainly made many mistakes.

I just don’t believe the democrats are any option at all.

The choice is Republicans, warts and all, or nothing; ‘cause the democrats got nothing.

Posted by: Jimmy at September 11, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #180561

Hey Rahdigly, are you sure there weren’t more than four fathers of our country?

Posted by: ray at September 11, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #180563

Posted by: Chi Chi at September 11, 2006 12:21 PM

” then we get what we deserve at the polling places. “

No Chi Chi, we do not get the government we deserve. What we do have however, is the best damn government, that money can buy!

******************
Posted by Sassyliberal at September 11, 2006 02:27 PM


” PS if you think it is just LIBERALS who are riled over this movie, try Googling the title. ”

Sassy Liberal, Nice post!

***********************

Posted by rahdigly at September 11, 2006 03:06 PM


” This administration wants to treat terrorism as a law and order issue. That was from an FBI guy talking to the head of the FBI.”

Terrorism is a “law and order problem”. Re: See the recent attack plot spoiled, in the UK. Also see the U.S. attack plot spoiled, in N.Y. New Years Eve 12-31-2000, and the boarder crossing from Canada to Seattle depicted in the movie last night.

***********************
Posted by: rahdigly at September 11, 2006 04:00 PM

” If you watched the film last night, you would have clearly seen that these people had hate for America and they won’t stop until they are dealt with. “

Correct, that is why it is a “Law and Order problem” rather than a “war” problem. See, when you bomb peoples countries, and occupy them, they have a tendancy to hate you, and want to see you dead. But when you get only the ones that are really doing the “crime”, (i.e. terror) then the others respect you for doing your job. (It is not just Americans that are killed in terrorist attacks). War doesnt work here, any more that it worked in Viet Nam. “

It is a lot easier to start a war, than it is to preserve the peace”.

********************

Posted by: kctim at September 11, 2006 04:09 PM

” The Clinton Administration did not have the same intel as Bush before 2001 “

” Then how were they able to give the Bush administration the intel warning of bin laden? “

If you are going to quote me, quote all of me. I said that the Clinton Administration did not have the same information that the Bush Administration was privy too. Yes.

Then I went on to explain that the Clinton Administration, (as was the custom) briefed the incomming Bush Administration on what they knew. Therefore, Bush not only had what Clinton had, but Bush had more! Namely all the intel that was gathered or at least should have been gathered by the FBI, CIA, FAA, and many many more sources both Domestic and InterNationally, from 1/21/01 to 9/11/01. So, no!!! Clinton did not have the same intel as Bush. He had much - much LESS, ON 9/11!

” You really should give up trying to make this a partisan issue. Your feeble attempts at doing so, are only pointing out the obvious: party before country! No matter what! “

No! I am not making this a “partisan issue”. You are! Doesnt have anything to do with how much I hate Bush or how much you hate Clinton. It just has to do with the truth. If Clinton should have gotten Ben Lauden before 9/11, then what about your fearless leader, shouldnt he have been about to stop him too? And, he has had 5 years sence then, should he be able to catch him in 5 year? Wasnt he president then? On 9/11? Is he President now? On the 5th Anniversary of 9/11? Didnt he have more intel after 9 months in office than Clinton had, with the additional 9 months of data compiled by his own Administration?

Well then, how can you say that this is a “partisan issue”?

DO NOT REDUCE THIS TO A WAR OF WORDS, SO THAT YOU CAN AVOID THE FACTS!

****************************************

Posted by: CPAdams at September 11, 2006 04:15 PM

” What is the gravest threat to the American way of life? - terrorists or the Bush administrations hostility to the Constitution and our liberty? ”

WOW, CPAdams, Excellant post!!! Thank you!

**********************************************

Play,

PS And what exactly, am I supposed to learn about fighting terrorism. That fighting terrorism, can only be waged successfully, if we give up our rights, as Americans?
Isnt that just what the enmy would want us to do?

” YES IT IS!!!!!! and NO…you don’t need to learn it it seem youve GOT it!

You misunderstood my post. I was just trying to show that the VERY SAME Conservative Party who today is pushing for the erosion of our constitutional rights, pushing to EXPAND ILLEGAL wiretapping, etc. etc. etc. …The ones shooting off about how it is ALL the fault of the Clinton Administration are the very same ones who poo poo-ed some of the same ideas under Clinton.

NO I agree with you, play, I am totally AGAINST illegal wiretaps or any thing else to further erode our constitutional rights, ESPECIALLY the 1st amendment “

sassyliberal

Posted by: sassyliberal at September 11, 2006 04:23 PM

Yes, I know. But my PS was to rahdigly from the post, two before your last post. Sorry I should have put “rahdigly” on the forward, but I never checked if there were posts between my last and the current posting. Sorry, but nice post, anyway! That is why I copied it in its ntirety here.

*****************************

Posted by: kctim at September 11, 2006 04:24 PM

” Thats probably the gist of it all CPA.
The left is at war with their own President and fellow Americans.
And the rest of us know we are at war with terrorists who wish to destroy our country. “

No KC you continue to get it all wrong. The right is at war with the terrorists, (at any costs) the left is at war with an Administration that would be far worst, in the long run, as any terrorist group ever could be for this country. See, all the terrorists want to do, is just to kill us. What this Administration wants to do, is to end all the under-pinnings of the American Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the protections against Illegal wire tapping, and illegal search and sesure laws, and to bring the Amnerican way of life, down to a level of a Hitlerian Germany of the 1930-40s. No! The very best way to fight terrorism in the United States, is to keep our American way of life.!!! We need to keep our American way of life and our ideals and fight terrorism. We can do that. We can do both. WE MUST; OR, WE ARE NOT AMERICANS!!!!

************************************

Posted by: rahdigly at September 11, 2006 04:46 PM

” Yes, I certainly do. Im (also) not going to give them (terrorists) any of my liberties or freedoms; the same liberty and freedoms that our four fathers (some of whom you’ve quoted), not to mention service men and women (including myself), have fought so bravely for us to keep. “

Then why do you goose-step to the Bushs policies. Illegal wire taps. Warrentless searches. Prision without due process? The list goes on and on and on. Especially when the same results can be accomplished, in the war on terror, within legal means. More effectively and without breeding future terrorists!

” The terrorists change tactics all the time; why some don’t want us to change is beyond comprehension. We will change and we will win this war no matter what some people believe. “

Well, a very good start would be to beef up intelligence. Something that this Administration has no interest in. Look at the recent port deal. Look at the flood of illegals from Mexico. Look at the Arab interpretures that they let go “because they were gay”. Maybe if this Administration were doing its job LEGALLY, it wouldnt have to resort to illgal tactics, and thereby helping the terrorist groups to distroy us, and our Democracy, from WITHIN!

**********************************************

Posted by: CPAdams at September 11, 2006 04:51 PM

EXCELLENT POST, THANK YOU!

*******************************************

Posted by: kctim at September 11, 2006 05:11 PM

CPA
” The left wants to bring down their own President and the evil Christian Republicans that support him and the rest of us want to bring down the terrorists. “

Your logic is illogical. We want to take care of the terrorists too, but at the same time protect not only American lives, but the ideals that America stands for as well. Attacking all Arabs just breeds more terrorists. Like it of not, American ideals are just as important as American life is.

IT IS AMERICAN LIFE! IT IS THE REASON WE FIGHT AND DIE…FOR AMERICA!

And when you distroy that, you have distroyed much more, than one little American.

*****************************************


Posted by: Jimmy at September 11, 2006 06:00 PM

” Part 1 was great. As I heard it, ABC/Disney edited very little and did not cave to pressure

from democrats. “

Actually if you had seen part 1 you will note that it was 15 minutes short. So something got cut somewhere, and that something(s) was probably that which ABC was afraid that they could not defend, in a court of law.

*******************************************

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 11, 2006 06:06 PM

” My point is it hasnt changed your minds in the least. Your minds were made up before this movie aired and you saw in it what you wanted and expected. “

The problem with this is not that it has changed some peoples mind but that it represents a very bias slant. Many in the country will be caught up a furror against Clinton and completely miss the problem with Bush. Clinton is not our president now, Bush is.

And, the very fact that this can create a Republician furror to save some seats in the House this November for this President, is just so problematic, that I cannt even tell you! What will it be in November 2008? At the way that this Administration is going, with the refusal to even talk to Iran and as some say, “We are already at war with Iran, its just that we dont know it, yet”. So, what will it be in 2008, to save the Republicians? Probably, Marshall Law! Now you think terrorism is scarry, just think how a permenant Republician Presidency and a permanent U.S. lock down, would be, huh?

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #180573

Posted by: Youhavegottobekidding~ at September 11, 2006 06:35 PM

” The reason I have respect for the man (Liberman) is he took a stand and stood by it. Unlike say John Kerry who voted for the war before he voted agaist it. “

Oh, so you respect a man that thought that there was good reason to go to war, and stood behind his President, fine. And then he learned that his President lied in order to get us into a war, and he still stood behind his President. Well, if you respect a man that respects a lier? I can not help you. But, you do not respect a man who went along with the President when he thought is was the right thing to do ( to go to war). But, when he found out that the President lied about the reasons for going to war, he stopped supporting a lie, and his President. And, just who is pulling partisan politics here???

” As far as fixing elections, explain how dead folks can vote? “

And you can explain how in 2000 the election was decided by the supreme court and not the people or how in Ohio in 2004 the machines (republician built and operated), broke down 13 times and each time that they came back on line the results were different than when they went down? Dont ask me about dirty voting tricks, you guys have had 40 years to perfect them.

” Part of the reason we are having the problems we are having is that Clinton did nothing for EIGHT years. “

OH that is a hot one! I wish I could say the same for Bush, but his crimes are too numerous to go into here. But, we were talking about doing something about OBL. Dont you think 5 years is long enough to “hunt him down and bring him to justice”? Maybe Bush can ask his first business partner for OBLs number. You know, Osamas brother?

” Clinton was the leader of the most powerful country in the world, “

So, what is Bush, a duck?

” Ask France. Ask Iseral. “

Well, he (clinton), was sure not like this guy, who can taste WWIII. Anyone see the drull?

” Clinton screwed the pooch, plain and simple. “

Bush doesnt have time to screw the pooch. Hes too busy, screwing us.

” Did Bush Sr. screw up during the first Iraq war? Hell yes, if we had cleaned that mess up then we wouldnt have the crap going on today in that cesspool, that too is plain and simple. “

My God, the first sane statement you have made so far. BRAVO! But, just ask yourself why daddy Bush didnt. Maybe it was because HE KNEW, that we shouldnt start another war in a country that we could not win, like maybe…..Viet Nam?

” It goes back farther than that. When the hostages were taken during Carter’s term. Here we had citizens kidnapped and about to be executed and what did Carter want to do? Talk! For days on end. Then with bad intelligence he launched a half ass rescue that made us look incompetent at best and cost the lives of some of the rescuers themselves. “

Oh, I thought you were upset that he didnt “do something”? Well, too bad for Carter, screwed if you do, screwed if you dont. But, the hostages were released. And, the day Carter left office for a Republician President, after over 100 days. Ever seam a little too cozy, that?

” BTW who was it who said Speak softly yet carry a big stick? “

That was Teddy Roosevelt! Rossevelt was my favorite Pres. of all time! That was part of the Monroe Doctrine. Had to do with Cuba. Totally Awsome!

” Well, that big stick is not just for show. Once in a while its ok to swing for the fences and prove why we are the most powerful country in the world. And thats exactly what Bush is doing now. Clinton never stepped up to the plate. “

Well, I dont have any problems with big sticks. Actually I am quite in favor of them. But, if you want to use that stick to beat up a whole nation instead of the people that are the real problem, and if you want to use that stick to beat the hell out of the U.S. Constitution, then…

YOU KNOW WHERE YOU CAN PUT ….. THAT STICK!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #180575

Play nice:

This board is called “Republicans and Conservatives.”

You are NEITHER.

If you are going to MONOPOLIZE this board as you have, how about going somewhere else to: PLAY NICE.

If you were really going to PLAY NICE, you would stop posting “book size” posts, so we can see what others have to say.

I know that you are impressed with your brilliance. Maybe, some of the rest of us are not.

Posted by: Jimmy at September 11, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #180576

Posted by: CPAdams at September 11, 2006 07:07 PM

Amazing post! If you ask me? It is the best post on this blog!!!! BRAVO!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #180577

Posted by: Jimmy at September 11, 2006 08:02 PM

CPAdams:

The problem with the democrats, in and out of the government, is that they are just like you.
They and you want to TALK it to death, but not DO anything about it.
******
Well, why dont we just nuke Iran, then? I mean that is something that the Rep. are chomping at the bit for. And, that is something!

What a way to “win friends and influence people”!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #180579

You know I used to be only on the Demo, lib, blog. But then all these REp and Conserv. kept comming over and calling us names. So I figure if our board is ok for them to post there stuff on, then this board is ok for me. Sorry you are offended.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #180732

Play
“No! I am not making this a “partisan issue”. You are! Doesnt have anything to do with how much I hate Bush or how much you hate Clinton. It just has to do with the truth. If Clinton should have gotten Ben Lauden before 9/11, then what about your fearless leader, shouldnt he have been about to stop him too?”

YES!!! That is what people have been trying to tell you. This has been a problem for a long time and many people are guilty of falling short.

“The right is at war with the terrorists, (at any costs) the left is at war with an Administration that would be far worst, in the long run, as any terrorist group ever could be for this country”

That is why I said it was about priorities. You fear your own President and fellow American more than you do real terrorists. It is the same train of thought the right used throughout the 90’s against clinton and the main reason militia membership grew so large.

“We want to take care of the terrorists too, but at the same time protect not only American lives, but the ideals that America stands for as well.”

I believe most lefties feel this way too. I have not questioned anybody’s love of country.
We have different priorities concerning our country. Many, like myself, put America and her people above all else.

“Attacking all Arabs just breeds more terrorists.”

Who has attacked all Arabs?

“Like it of not, American ideals are just as important as American life is.”

Yes they are. But without our American way of life, there are no American idea’s.
You view it as a Republican problem, I view it as a terrorist problem. It is sad that you all cannot tell the difference between the two.

Posted by: kctim at September 12, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #180743

kctim,

The problem with the democrats, in and out of the government, is that they are just like you. They and you want to TALK it to death, but not DO anything about it.

Are you sure you want to talk about doing nothing? OK. As a simple reminder - you have controlled the Presidency, House and Senate for more than 5 1/2 years. In that time,

-airport security is only marginally better than it was pre-9/11;
-port security is unchanged;
-containers inspections have not increased;
-the dept of homeland security is diverting funds from the Statue of Liberty and LAX to protect obscure attractions in Idaho or Wisconsin;
-we stopped pursuing OBL to spend more than half a trillion dollars in Iraq.

If you want to blame Democrats for doing nothing, then explain to me how the Democrats caused any of the security failings listed above.

Two last quotes, both which leave me rather awed at our inability to learn from history:

“Preventive war [against the Communist powers] is ridiculous, unthinkable and impossible. Preventive war, by definition, is ridiculous. It is simply war. When people come to speak to you about preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it.”

“The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.”
-Dwight D Eisenhower

Posted by: CPAdams at September 12, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #180754

CPA
“Are you sure you want to talk about doing nothing? OK. As a simple reminder - you have controlled the Presidency, House and Senate for more than 5 1/2 years. In that time”

First, I don’t think it was me who stated that. I looked back and couldn’t find that I had. But I still would like to offer my two cents:

I have controlled nothing and neither has the person whom I voted for in the last election.

“If you want to blame Democrats for doing nothing, then explain to me how the Democrats caused any of the security failings listed above”

This is where yourself and Playnice are confused. I do not blame Democrats for everything having to do with the terrorists actions. I also do not believe all of the blame lies with the Republicans either.
Both parties have been in power and have had the chance to fix security issues. Both parties did not do enough but hopefully both parties are learning. That is where I stand.

I did not support the decision to invade Iraq and I also do not favor preventive wars unless total annihilation is the goal.

Refusing to cast all blame onto a particular party or person does not mean one blindly follows that person or party. Refusing to see all sides of every issues does.

So where does that leave us as a country?
One side says we must fight those who have declared war on us and have killed our fellow Americans and one side says we must fight our fellow countrymen because they do not think as they do.
I’ll take country over party any day.

Posted by: kctim at September 12, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #180763

kctim,

I apologize. You are right, you did not make the comment. It was Jimmy’s post, not yours.

One side says we must fight those who have declared war on us and have killed our fellow Americans and one side says we must fight our fellow countrymen because they do not think as they do.

kctim,

I’m all for pursuing Al Qaeda (I did support the attack in Afghanistan), but I have a question - did the Iraqi’s declare war on us? Did Saddam?

We invaded Iraq as a preventive measure, as part of Bush’s pre-emptive war doctrine (to fight them ‘over there’ instead of ‘here’. We invaded Iraq because, in sequential order of justification:

-Saddam had WMD and the willingness to use them (it does stretch all credibility to believe this and yet Iraq had not used WMD(you know - the ones we sold him) since his war on the Kurds a decade ago;
-Saddam was directly supporting Al Qaeda (I’m not going to bother with listing all the posts that refute this - they are too numerous to mention);
-to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqis.

Anyway, after four years and as many American casualties in Iraq as 9/11, questioning the insanity of this exercise is a valid response.

Demanding accountability from an administration that is just beginning to admit its errors is putting country over party - why won’t you?

As a Democrat I am charged with being a thoughtless, spineless peacenik (because I won’t ‘stay the course’) who is more interested in blaming Bush than supporting the country and our soldiers.

I think that is a fair characterization of the Republican position on the matter - don’t you?

I think only lemmings don’t reconsider their positions in the face of failure.

I supported Bush after 9/11 for being steadfast, not stubborn. Inspite of his partisanship and his being a divider(yes, his actions were obvious even then). I did put country over party.

But now Bush’s policies are not in the best interests of our country.

And I am sick of hearing that because I’m not a Republican my disagreement with Bush is partisanship, not patriotism.

Shouting fire in a crowded movie theater is not protected speech -

except when the theater is on fire.

Posted by: CPAdams at September 12, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #180785

Play:
“Well, why dont we just nuke Iran, then?”

I think it may eventually come to that.

History shows that weakness encourages the enemy.

In the end, massive defensive force becomes the only alternative.

We have the track record of the Clinton admininstration since 1993, as shown by “The Path to 9/11” and the 9/11 Commission.

I believe that Iran’s intentions are to nuke us and Israel, although they may try to duck responsibility by using terrorist surrogates.

Hypothetical:

Democrats are in power and terrorists nuke 3 U.S. cities killing hundreds of thousands and injuring millions.

Everybody knows that Iran provided nukes to the terrorists, but the justice department cannot assemble emough legal evidence for a conviction, and they have been unable to arrest anyone as they are all out of country.

What would the Democrats do? Nothing (but pursuing a criminal investigation to arrest suspects).

(Sounds like a good screen play.)

Posted by: Jimmy at September 12, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #180793

“I’m all for pursuing Al Qaeda (I did support the attack in Afghanistan), but I have a question - did the Iraqi’s declare war on us? Did Saddam?”

Nope.

“-Saddam had WMD and the willingness to use them”

We were not the only ones to believe this either. I believe bad intel is responsible. The idea that Bush wanted a war for revenge, oil or because he is dumb, is nothing but opinions.

“-Saddam was directly supporting Al Qaeda (I’m not going to bother with listing all the posts that refute this - they are too numerous to mention);
-to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqis.”

Saddam supported terrorism. I still do not believe that is reason enough to for the war, but it is true.

“Anyway, after four years and as many American casualties in Iraq as 9/11, questioning the insanity of this exercise is a valid response.”

Yes it is. But believing any and all information given by the administration is a lie, is not.

“Demanding accountability from an administration that is just beginning to admit its errors is putting country over party - why won’t you?”

Demanding accountability is fine. Doing so in a way which splits your country, belittles its leader and shows us as weak, is not.

“As a Democrat I am charged with being a thoughtless, spineless peacenik (because I won’t ‘stay the course’) who is more interested in blaming Bush than supporting the country and our soldiers.”

And Republicans are charged with being brainwashed, racist warhawks who blindly follow their President. Its a two-sided game that both sides play and both sides feel they get the worst of.

“I think that is a fair characterization of the Republican position on the matter - don’t you?”

No I don’t. Most Republicans I know, realize that there is a difference in how people think is the best course.

“I think only lemmings don’t reconsider their positions in the face of failure.”

Calling something a failure before it is completed, is wrong.
Labeling people who believe their own leaders over that of the terrorists and who love their country as “lemmings” is no different than your peacenik reference above.

“I supported Bush after 9/11 for being steadfast, not stubborn. Inspite of his partisanship and his being a divider(yes, his actions were obvious even then). I did put country over party.”

clinton and the dems partisanship was also obvious and it still is today. Where has all this led us? We are a divided country. Nothing has changed that and saying Bush is responsible for it does nothing but further promote that division.

“But now Bush’s policies are not in the best interests of our country.”

Because you do not agree with those policies. Millions of others do agree with them and made Bush President. If the people have had enough of those policies, they will vote the Republicans out of office.
Won’t matter much though. The Dems blew their chance too and will do so again.

“And I am sick of hearing that because I’m not a Republican my disagreement with Bush is partisanship, not patriotism.”

It is not the lefts disagreement that people have a problem with, it is their actions.

“Shouting fire in a crowded movie theater is not protected speech - except when the theater is on fire”

The theater has been on fire for years. If you would not listen to others then, why do you feel as if they should listen to you now?
Were those not the same people, who just a few years ago, that the left was calling right wing loonies, nuts etc… who were conspiracy theorists?
You ignored their warnings then and now they ignore yours.

Is this the beginning of the end of free speech?
No! It is the continuation of the end of all our rights and Bush is just a part of its onward movement.

Posted by: kctim at September 12, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #180840

Play:

Every war has sparked a debate between national security and constitutional rights.

We had that debate in WWII, in Cold War, in Viet Nam War, etc. Every time there have been over reaching excesses, that were corrected.

The Republicans in Congress have been effectively challenging and criticizing Bush. The question is: What do we need the Democrats for? Answer: Absolutely nothing! The “defeatocrats” add nothing to the debate.

Libs, if you had the chance to get ONLY ONE guy that you libs consider bad; either:

(a) Osama
(b) Bush

Which ONE would you get? Be honest, now.

Posted by: Jimmy at September 12, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #180845

Jimmy,

I said this before and I’ll say it again.

I am opposed to terrorism. More so, I am offended that as an American and as a New Yorker I would have to justify that opposition to another American.

Much of the criticism might not have occurred if Bush had stayed after OBL.

You call me a defeatocrat. And I think your need to defend your leadership’s infallibity is suspect.

kctim,

the lemming comment was rhetoric. It reflects a frustration over an unwillingness to see that Iraq is a failure.

Right now I see only two options on Iraq. The first option is civil war. The other option is Iran as Iraq’s best buddy. From today’s CNN:

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) — Iran’s president — hosting a visit from Iraq’s prime minister and expressing support for his country’s beleaguered war-torn neighbor — says the Islamic republic supports a “united” Iraq and will help the nation “establish full security,” an Iranian news agency reported.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at a news conference with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki after private talks were held on Tuesday, the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported. It is al-Maliki’s first visit to Iran since he became prime minister earlier this year.

“Iran will provide assistance to the Iraqi government to establish full security. We believe strengthening the Iraqi government is tantamount to promoting security, peace and friendship in that country,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

The reason I call Iraq a failure is that neither of these options serves our interests. Pick your poison, but both are bad options for us.

For me, the only question that remains is how much more American blood and money must be spent on this exercise in futility.

Posted by: CPAdams at September 12, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #180859

“the lemming comment was rhetoric.”

Yes, I know how the game is played with two different sets of rules. Your lables are the “truth” and their lables are “wrong and mean.”

“It reflects a frustration over an unwillingness to see that Iraq is a failure”

I do not see Iraq as a failure yet and only time, not your opinions, will tell if I am right or wrong.
Rather than trying to get everyone to believe all the doom and gloom fantasies, I prefer to wait for the actual outcome before I come to my conclusions.

I am however, very frustrated at the lefts unwillingness to see anything favorable about the job our troops are doing.

Posted by: kctim at September 12, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #180877

kctim,

I am however, very frustrated at the lefts unwillingness to see anything favorable about the job our troops are doing.

You misunderstand me. It’s not about the troops. I think the troops are doing courageous and heroic work. I don’t question the troops - their patriotism, their commitment, their sacrifice.

The failure is not tactical - it is strategic.

My observation is that we can’t win this because the political outcome is unwinnable.

If our troops fail or are pulled out prematurely (an option I am not entirely against for reasons below), then Iraq will likely descend into even worse sectarian violence than exists today.

In this scenario above, the worst case is an attempted genocide of the Sunnis by the Shiites in retaliation for Saddam’s oppression. A best case scenario after civil war is three separate states - one Kurd with oil, one Shiite with oil, and the Sunnis, impoverished, with Baghdad and no oil. Both of these options virtually guarantee resistance by the Sunnis who fear for their lives.

Regardless, Iraq’s military is neutralized and Iran is emboldened in their ambitions to dominate the region.

If our troops are successful and an orderly transition to a stable government occurs, then a Shiite majority Iraq will befriend Iran and another religious state under Sharia law will exist in the Middle East.

In today release about the meeting between Iraq and Iran, Iraq agreed to not allow any bases on its soil that could be used to attack Iran.

I guess the three bases that Haliburton has been building in Iraq will be handed over to them when we leave. I’m sure that was what Rumsfeld had in mind when authorizing the projects.

Regardless, in this scenario as well, Iraq’s military ceases to be a threat to Iran and Iran is emboldened in their ambitions to dominate the region.

It’s lose/lose because no scenario leaves us with people who want us there.

Why? Primarily because we’re Americans. Until the Middle East moves away from a Middle Ages interpretation of Islam, because we’re Americans will be enough of a reason.

However, whatever chance we had to break through to the silent, moderate voices has been trampled by all the insanity this administration has perpetrated.

Posted by: CPAdams at September 12, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #180879

Posted by: kctim at September 12, 2006 09:43 AM

” You fear your own President and fellow Americans more than you do real terrorists. It is the same train of thought the right used throughout the 90’s against clinton and the main reason militia membership grew so large. “

And, just why were Republicians so hysterical about Clinton? Monicas dress? How does a sex stain hurt anyone with the exception of Bills wife? Any of your business? What were they so scared of? Some money on a stock deal, a shady land deal, or were they terrified in their boots that Bill might have inhaled 2030 years ago? Your point is ludacrus on the face.

We liberals, us Democrats have ample reason to fear Bush. Did you watch that pile of garbage on ABC? Well, I did. What was the “lesson learned” from that stinking pile of republician propaganda, anyway? I’ll tell you.

IT was to say that Clinton was inept. But, Bush was inept too, but he didnt actually “know” about Ben Lauden it put most of the blame on underlings. It did not show him reading “My Pet Goat”, no. It showed a allert and confident Bush making a public speach even before the Pentagon was attacked. (Anyone got a time line problems here?) And, the massive point of all this complete fantasy land blow is that we cannt spy on people in the U.S. enough. We are too confined by the “Law” to protect this country. The AFL CIO ACLU is so strong for liberal and person rights that it is tying the hands of the government to do its job.

It is not enough that most of them are guilty of criminal offences but out of republician partisanship they are protected, it is not enough that they already violate the FISA laws, the constitution, the bill of rights and the Genieva convention with impunity….OH NO!

Now its us, bloody liberals fault, that THEIR HANDS ARE TIED UP with all these Pre 9/11 rediculous baggage that is no longer appliciple. So, lets just do away with all this nonscence and go get the bad guys and figure out the paperwork later, HUH?

Well, heres why bucko, It is un-American, that is why. WE are AMericans and that intitles us to certain rights. We also have certain ways that we must act and treat other countries, even in a time of “war”. I am terribly sorry that this is keeping Bush from doing his job. Other presidents in the past, didnt seam to have a problem with actually finding solutions, “getting the - bad guys - AND UPHOLDING THE LAW, (as it is already written!)

“Who has attacked all Arabs?”

We have invaded an Arab country, waged war on them, (not liberated them from anything) caused a civil war, distroyed their infrastructure, and the Arabs in that country are supposed to “love” us? You dont see how this is attacking the who country, not just one group? You do not see how this does not make friends, but is just a recruitment poster to grow more terrorists???
*******
(My post)
Like it of not, American ideals are just as important as American life is.

” Yes they are. But without our American way of life, there are no American idea’s.
You view it as a Republican problem, I view it as a terrorist problem. It is sad that you all cannot tell the difference between the two. “

Because it is a “Republician” problem. The problem is a republician “Problem”. Meaning that the republicians are having a very hard time with understanding how to solve the problem, outside of nukeing it of course, so that is the problem….THE REPUBLICIANS.

Now us Democrats, terrorism is not a problem with us. Not because it doesnt exhist, but because it does, and because it always will, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO OR TRY TO DO ABOUT IT!!!

Your not going to “distroy” terrorism with bombs and an Army. Terrorism is in the heart of the beholder. Its not a Muslim, or a Turk, or an Irish Protesian. The act of terror requiors the distruction of ones self or others to cause terror or panic to make a political point. You think that that is ever ever going to just “go away”? We will always have terror.

But if we are not careful, we will not always have “America”. If we give up our freedoms for a “false peace”, what does it gain us? If we give up our moral standards of treating prisoners of war fairly, then in the next war how can we not expect the same, by others? If we barge in and devistate a whole country for no good reason, or for not better reason that we did not like their leader? Then watch out Bush, your not that popular around the world either.

Where does it stop? How much America do we have to give away….to be free from terror?

For an answer to that, you just might ask Isreal.
But Isreal is not being asked to give up their religion, something that they believe in, the essence of their exhistance, Isreal is just being asked to give up some small scrap of land. Should American principals to us, be any less dear to us, than their land?

Posted by: PlayNice at September 12, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #180890

Posted by: Jimmy at September 12, 2006 01:06 PM

Play,

…” Hypothetical:

Democrats are in power and terrorists nuke 3 U.S. cities killing hundreds of thousands and injuring millions.

Everybody knows that Iran provided nukes to the terrorists, but the justice department cannot assemble emough legal evidence for a conviction, and they have been unable to arrest anyone as they are all out of country.

What would the Democrats do? Nothing (but pursuing a criminal investigation to arrest suspects).

(Sounds like a good screen play.) “

*******

Jim,

Here is another hypothetical for you, only it is not so hypothetical:

Say it is 2001

We have a Republician President that has been in power for 9 months.

He has done nothing about repeated warnings about terrorists being the #1 threat to America. He has done nothing to over-see intel about terrorism, nor has he corrdinated Security or emergency efforts, or the CIA, FBI or made bridges with the Mousade, Interpol, or other world wind intel agencies, he has done noting to help protect his country.

Now say there is a terriorist attack and almost 3,000 Americans are killed. Does he cooperate with a commission to see how things can be improved or does he stone wall and send a flunkie to stand tough to the dogma while the bricks of hatred are being flung by the 9/11 survivors?

Then does he set out to capture and prosecute the ones responsible, as he promised the American people? No. When he screws the pooch at Tora Bora, he “cuts and runs” to attack and occupy a country that has never attacked us, (on the basis of false info, and outs a CIA agent to discredit her, for her husband going public to say that the reason for this war, was false).

Well, I dont know about you, but I think that this could be a Michael Moore Mini-Series!!!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 12, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #180893

I have said it before and I will say it again:

I have never defended Bush on anything.

On Iraq, I said from the beginning that a 3-way division would have been better with an agreement to share the oil revenue.

We could have put a permanent base in the Kurdish area (if Kurds agreed) right on the Iranian border.

However, I respect the right of the president in office to do it his way, as 20-20 hindsight is always better.

I believe all Americans should support the policy, and that it is un-American to publicly criticize in time of war (especially if purpose is for opposition to regain political power).

I consistently had the same opinion about Viet Nam (a Democrat war). I thought the anti-war protesters were treasonous.

That’s my “free speech.”

Posted by: Jimmy at September 12, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #180909

Jimmy,

You are wrong, but you have a right to be, and my permission.

I too was behind our President(s) with the Viet Nam war, and I was a Republician at the time. I believed that we were “saving the world from communism” and any one not behind the President was against the United States, and against the Millitary.

I was wrong. I was an Idiot. But that was my right.

Since then I have grown up some. I realise that to question the President is not being a trator. To be against a war is not to be against its millitary. And to protest a war is not protesting American values, or is it being “Anti-American”.

The founding fathers made contingencies for almost any senerio in the bill of rights and the constitution. It is made to be questioned, and it is made to withstand the test of time. It is made to withstand the eyes of scrutany. To continue to question our leaders and hold them to these most highest ideals, that makes America great (it is not our military might). And, we are to continually be vigilant in order to protect it, from those that would distroy it for their own gain, and for reasons of tierany over the people of the United States of America. It is there to protect us from such subversion.

It is not us questioning our leaders that is treason. For us to sit by, and to see our Constitution, our rights, picked apart piece by piece, until we are overtaken by a theocracy, … now, that would be treason!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 12, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #180956

Hey Play, how you doing
“And, just why were Republicians so hysterical about Clinton?”

You really don’t know do you?
Bosnia/Kosovo? Our troops were sent to fight against a force which did not threaten the US and was based on lies? That doesn’t ring a bell?
What was it? Somalia? US troops were massacred? Generals were denied body armor by their CIC. We cut and ran and looked weak.
Innocent American women and children were tortured and murdered? Ring a bell yet?
Um, lets see? 2nd Amendment violations? The President used fear to convince people to give up their rights and used that same fear to take away rights of others. A right guaranteed to them in something called the Bill of Rights. Anything yet?
Corruption? Selling secrets? Personal favors? Ineffective govt agencies during national disasters? Any of that ring a bell?

“Monicas dress? How does a sex stain hurt anyone with the exception of Bills wife?”

It doesn’t. The lying part was wrong though. No matter how bad you all want all the focus to be on that, many people didn’t really care about that dumb stain.

“Any of your business?”

Not until he lied to me about it.

“What were they so scared of? Some money on a stock deal, a shady land deal, or were they terrified in their boots that Bill might have inhaled 2030 years ago?”

Awful reasonable of you to give clinton the benefit of the doubt for the crimes he committed. Why is only your opinion needed to convict Bush?

“Your point is ludacrus on the face.”

Yes, I know. Republicans=bad; Democrats=good.
Yawn.

“We liberals, us Democrats have ample reason to fear Bush.”

Really? If Democrats have a reason to fear Bush, they had a reason to fear their god. The difference of opinion is what you fear and the fact that the voters wanted no more of your crap is what pisses you off.

“Did you watch that pile of garbage on ABC?”

Most of it. I fell asleep once or twice.

“Well, I did. What was the “lesson learned” from that stinking pile of republician propaganda, anyway?”

Um, I usually don’t try to learn lessons from TV, but what I got out of what I saw was that our govt ignored signals all the way up to 9/11.

“I’ll tell you.”

Ok.

“IT was to say that Clinton was inept.”

He was.

“But, Bush was inept too,”

Uh, yes, he was too.

“but he didnt actually “know” about Ben Lauden it put most of the blame on underlings.”

Bush didn’t know something? That really a surprise to you?

“And, the massive point of all this complete fantasy land blow is that we cannt spy on people in the U.S. enough. We are too confined by the “Law” to protect this country.”

I happen to be against warrantless spying on Americans.

“The AFL CIO ACLU is so strong for liberal and person rights that it is tying the hands of the government to do its job.”

Liberal and personal rights? Now thats funny, using those words together like that. Liberal and special interests agendas would be more like it.

“It is not enough that most of them are guilty of criminal offences but out of republician partisanship they are protected, it is not enough that they already violate the FISA laws, the constitution, the bill of rights and the Genieva convention with impunity….OH NO!”

As I said, the spying on Americans thing bothers me. Violations to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is nothing new and the Geneva Convention is worthless because WE are the only ones who ever follow its guidelines.

“Well, heres why bucko, It is un-American, that is why. WE are AMericans and that intitles us to certain rights.”

Even our 2nd Amendment right? Kudos to you.

“We also have certain ways that we must act and treat other countries, even in a time of “war”.”

Yes we do and I seem to remember us treating the Iraqi soldiers who surrendered pretty well.

n ideals are just as important as American life is.

“Because it is a “Republician” problem. The problem is a republician “Problem”. Meaning that the republicians are having a very hard time with understanding how to solve the problem, outside of nukeing it of course, so that is the problem….THE REPUBLICIANS.”

I see. The fact that we are all Americans and that the country we share is at war with terrorists means nothing to you, because you would rather blame the Republicans instead of the terrorists. Gotcha.

“Now us Democrats, terrorism is not a problem with us. Not because it doesnt exhist, but because it does, and because it always will, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO OR TRY TO DO ABOUT IT!!!”

Nothing but differing opinions on how to handle the situation. You view terrorism as a crime and prefer to do nothing about it. Others view this as a war and want to fight fire with fire. We are all entitled to our opinions.

“Your not going to “distroy” terrorism with bombs and an Army.”

You won’t destroy it with hugs and kisses either.

“Terrorism is in the heart of the beholder. Its not a Muslim, or a Turk, or an Irish Protesian.”

Right now, at this time, it IS a muslim problem. They refuse to deal with it so we must.

“The act of terror requiors the distruction of ones self or others to cause terror or panic to make a political point. You think that that is ever ever going to just “go away”? We will always have terror.”

Yes we will, but that is no excuse to just roll over, pretend it doesnt exist and do nothing about it.

“But if we are not careful, we will not always have “America”. If we give up our freedoms for a “false peace”, what does it gain us?”

As I said throughout the 90’s, it gains us nothing.

“If we give up our moral standards of treating prisoners of war fairly, then in the next war how can we not expect the same, by others?”

First of all, no matter how well we treat prisoners of war, others will always treat us worse.
And secondly, our worst treatment still does not even come close to how we are treated now.

“Then watch out Bush, your not that popular around the world either.”

Bush will only be President for 2 more years, he cannot run again. I seriously doubt any country is planning on declaring war on us because of Bush.
If they do, they deserve what they get. I would put our military up against any military in the world.

“Where does it stop? How much America do we have to give away….to be free from terror?”

Judging from past occurrances, the people will be willing to give alot. 2nd Amendment? 4th Amendment?

“For an answer to that, you just might ask Isreal.”

Why? I don’t care what Israel or any other country has to say about the US.

Posted by: kctim at September 12, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #180986

Hi KC,

I dont have any trouble with most of your ramblings, after all it is your opinion and you are intitled. So, lets start here:

” As I said, the spying on Americans thing bothers me. Violations to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is nothing new and the Geneva Convention is worthless because WE are the only ones who ever follow its guidelines. “

Looked at Abu Grab or Guantonomo lately?

” Even our 2nd Amendment right? Kudos to you. “

Yes, I am really thinkful that Republicians believe in personal defense, and you will have to “pull this gun out of my cold dead fingers”, theology. Maybe this will really come in handy when we find ourselves at war right here at home. Because of Bushes policies of invasion and permanent occupation of other countries. And, I truely do hope that this is the case (us only having to defend our selves from an outside threat), and not us, having to defend us, from the government, itself.

” Yes we do and I seem to remember us treating the Iraqi soldiers who surrendered pretty well. ”

Well then, go to cuba and talk to those guys. Eternal incarsaration, just like the eternal war in Iraq.

And, speaking about the war in Iraq, against “terrorists”? You mean the Iraqui people, dont you? There were no terrorists there, except supossedly Sadam. And, now he is out of power. So, what terrorists? Who are exactly the terrorists in Iraq, except Iraquis?

And, did they ever attack us? NO. How about The Saudis? Have they trained Al Quita? Yes. Have they financed Al Quita? Yes. How about Syria? Do they support Terrorism? Yes. Have we attacked them? NO.

It is really great. (sigh) Bush has a hard on against Sadam and we have a hard on against Osama, so now all of a sudden the:

Enemy of my enemy is —- what? My friend? NO!

You got to use Bushco logic here!

The real enemy of my enemy is, MY ENEMY!!!

(Well, then I am confused???? That means that we are distroying a country who was Osamas enemy so are we not supporting Osama by distroying HIS enemy(?) and if we are, that would make US…..
Our enemys …friend….? So, we are the friends of our enemy, because we distroy his enemy?

OH NO,,,,THE BUSHCO HEAD ACHE….!!! Im getting dizzy! (Wasnt there a star trek episode like that?)

” I see. The fact that we are all Americans and that the country we share is at war with terrorists means nothing to you, because you would rather blame the Republicans instead of the terrorists. Gotcha. “

What bloody terrorists? We are not at war with Osama. I wish we were…But we are not! Wipe the propaganda out of your eyes. We are at “war” (not really it was an invasion and a never ending occupation, for oil), with the people of Iraq, that have never, ever done us any harm at all. They wanted to be “like us”. They wanted freedom, like us. We walzed in, and tore that country apart, and now who is going to put Humpty Dumpty back together again? Your President, with an obvious testosterone problem?

” Nothing but differing opinions on how to handle the situation. You view terrorism as a crime and prefer to do nothing about it. Others view this as a war and want to fight fire with fire. We are all entitled to our opinions. “

Oh, no, you dont. It is not just an honest difference of opinion here. No way!

There is a gang see. That is terrorizing my neighborhood. (Osama) So my answer to the problem is to not go after the gang that is causeing the problem; but, my answer is to … burn my neighbors, (Sadams) house down.

YEA…FRICKEN EXCELLENT LOGIC … THAT!

Im not asking Bush to fight a terrorist organization with “hugs and kisses”, but it would be refreshing if he would at least fight a real war against real “terrorists”, without his head up his…

Or, at least fight the real terrorists! Is that asking too much? Just when you start to fight terrorists, do not take a lunch break and go somewhere else to take over a peaceful country, one that has never attacked you, one that was already contained, and take it over, for its oil…

Thats all. Is that asking too much? Ya think!

” Right now, at this time, it IS a muslim problem. They refuse to deal with it so we must. “

Good Lord. How soon we forget our own special brand of home-grown terrorists. Timothy Mc Vay. WACO, RubbyRidge. The Klan. And that flippen Jonestown mess. Whats ya gonna do? Just go to the Middle East and indiscriminately start shooting, blast em all? Hell, why dont we start here? Why dont we just go down and nuke Texas for that Waco mess????

(Oh, sorry, have to use Bushco logic…so should have said, Why dont we just go invade Oklahoma, for that Waco mess?)

” Yes we will, (always have terrorists) but that is no excuse to just roll over, pretend it doesnt exist and do nothing about it. “

I dont mind doing something about it,,,just for Gods sake, QUIT MAKING DECISIONS THAT MAKE US THE POSTERBOY FOR TERRORIST RECRUTMENT!

” First of all, no matter how well we treat prisoners of war, others will always treat us worse. And secondly, our worst treatment still does not even come close to how we are treated now. “

Really? Remember the Neurenberg Trials after WWII? Ever get out much? Ever listen to the real news, the current news, that is? Did you know that most of our torture is carried out by private contractors? And, that many of them are now buying liability insurance policies? Just a thought!…A little sidebar, Ill continue.

” Bush will only be President for 2 more years, he cannot run again. “

DREAM ON MC DUFF
1) (what do you think all the warrentless spying is all about?)
And,
2) (You do not remember 2000 and 2004 do you?)

” I seriously doubt any country is planning on declaring war on us because of Bush. “

That is not the point. And, you know it. (I am not as nearly concerned about what other countries can do to us, as much as I am concerned, as to what we are doing, to ourselves).

” I would put our military up against any military in the world. “

Then why not put them up against a real enemy instead of have them be fodder, and baby sitters, for big oil interests?

” I don’t care what Israel or any other country has to say about the US. “

Well, you should take notes from Isreal. They have been fighting the same terrorists for years.

(And, they never once did it by attacking a foreign country and deposing its leader.)

Posted by: PlayNice at September 13, 2006 5:18 AM
Comment #181611

“Looked at Abu Grab or Guantonomo lately?”

Yep. So what country’s soldiers are being treated bad?

Heard of Nick Berg?

“Yes, I am really thinkful that Republicians believe in personal defense, and you will have to “pull this gun out of my cold dead fingers”, theology.”

Sadly, the left thinks the 2nd Amendment is all about personal defense or hunting. Try reading some of the founders documents, you should be able to figure out what its really for.

“Maybe this will really come in handy when we find ourselves at war right here at home.”

Your getting warmer.

“Because of Bushes policies of invasion and permanent occupation of other countries.”

Are the muslims mad because we beat them in
Iraq or because we help them in Bosnia? Or is it the billion of dollars we give their countries?

“And, I truely do hope that this is the case (us only having to defend our selves from an outside threat), and not us, having to defend us, from the government, itself.”

Dream on. There is not one country that can defeat us. War will come from the inside.

” Yes we do and I seem to remember us treating the Iraqi soldiers who surrendered pretty well. ”

“Well then, go to cuba and talk to those guys. Eternal incarsaration, just like the eternal war in Iraq.”

Are ALL the Iraqi soldiers who surrendered in Cuba? Or is Cuba filled with terrorists? You know, the guys who killed 3000 Americans and whose own countries won’t claim them?

“And, speaking about the war in Iraq, against “terrorists”? You mean the Iraqui people, dont you? There were no terrorists there, except supossedly Sadam. And, now he is out of power.”

You really need to read into things some. AQ may not have been that big in Iraq, but there were some terrorists. But we didn’t go into Iraq to stop all the terrorists now did we. We went in to stop saddam, which we did.

“So, what terrorists? Who are exactly the terrorists in Iraq, except Iraquis?”

There are terrorists in Iraq. The lefts talking points even say that: There are more terrorists in Iraq than before the war.

Iraqi’s fighting against us are called insurgents. And, since they are fighting against us, they are our enemy.

“And, did they ever attack us? NO. How about The Saudis? Have they trained Al Quita? Yes. Have they financed Al Quita? Yes. How about Syria? Do they support Terrorism? Yes. Have we attacked them? NO.”

Actually, Iraq did attack us on numerous occassions. Ever hear about saddam firing at our planes who were enforcing the no-fly zones?
As far as the rest of your misinformation, none of that matters when talking about the war in Iraq.
If you are bringing them up to somehow justify that we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq, fine. I didn’t support that endeavor either. But it has no bearing on the war that is going on as we speak.

“(Well, then I am confused????”

Well, confused and trying too hard to blame everything on the US and Bush.

“That means that we are distroying a country who was Osamas enemy”

No, they may not have been friends, but they weren’t enemies either. Did OBL order planes to fly into saddams tallest buildings? Was OBL behind numerous attacks on Iraq and its people? Nope.

“OH NO,,,,THE BUSHCO HEAD ACHE….!!! Im getting dizzy! (Wasnt there a star trek episode like that?)”

Hmmm? Not a Star Trek fan, but I don’t recall ever hearing about an episode where half the Enterprise crew supported the Klingons more than they did Kirk.

“What bloody terrorists? We are not at war with Osama. I wish we were…But we are not! Wipe the propaganda out of your eyes.”

We aren’t at war with terrorists? Talk about propaganda! I’ll bet the taliban, AQ and OBL, who is wiping his butt with rocks, would disagree with you on that.
The left needs the people to believe we are doing nothing about terrorism. It is laughable that you believe we are doing nothing to fight terrorism.

“We are at “war” (not really it was an invasion and a never ending occupation, for oil)”

Yeah, I’ve heard that OPINION too.

“and now who is going to put Humpty Dumpty back together again?”

Probably the same country that put Europe and Japan back together, US!

“Im not asking Bush to fight a terrorist organization with “hugs and kisses”, but it would be refreshing if he would at least fight a real war against real “terrorists”, without his head up his…”

Show me where we are doing nothing to fight terrorism?

“Good Lord. How soon we forget our own special brand of home-grown terrorists.”

BIG difference between someone like McVey and OBL dont you think?

“WACO, RubbyRidge. The Klan. And that flippen Jonestown mess.”

Psst. Waco - Jonestown - or the Klan have not declared war on the US.
Waco: Religious sect who wanted to be left alone. Rather than using the “diplomacy” you lefty’s only talk about, your idol attacked them. Any idea what the Branch Davidians had to say about the warrant they read?
Ruby Ridge: A lone individual who had anti-govt feelings. FBI agents wanted him to testify against racists, so they befriended him and asked him to saw off a portion of their shotguns. Being a friend, he did as they asked. Unfortuantley, it was a few short of what was legal. Entrappment?
Anyway, he did not show up for court, so they went to get him. But rather than having the local sheriff go up there, the FBI donned their black gear and tried to sneak up on him. His son saw them while he was out walking the dog and when he turned and ran to tell his father, the FBI shot him in the back, killing him. Then they turned their attention on the shack Weaver lived in. They killed his wife, infant son and best friend. You should ask Weaver what he thought about the warrant he was never served too.
The klan: Dumb racist group who hasn’t declared war on US. Besides, they are yesterdays news. When a guy in a white sheet hi-jacks a plane and fly’s it into a building, then yeah, we can hunt for them too.
Jonestown: Religious sect who killed themselves.

“Whats ya gonna do? Just go to the Middle East and indiscriminately start shooting, blast em all?”

Nope. The only people saying that is what we should do are the those on the left trying to scare up votes.

“I dont mind doing something about it,,,just for Gods sake, QUIT MAKING DECISIONS THAT MAKE US THE POSTERBOY FOR TERRORIST RECRUTMENT!”

Yeah yeah, I know this OPINION too. But guess what? The war in Iraq is already on, nothing can change that.

“Really?”

Yes, really.

“Remember the Neurenberg Trials after WWII? Ever get out much?”

Um, yes. In fact, I spent about 8 years of my life in Germany and Europe.

“Did you know that most of our torture is carried out by private contractors?”

Yes. In foriegn countries too.

“And, that many of them are now buying liability insurance policies? Just a thought!…A little sidebar, Ill continue.”

Insurance policies are available to anybody who wants to pay for them.

“1) (what do you think all the warrentless spying is all about?)”

At this time, it is about catching terrorists. Unless you can show me where it has been used to capture innocent Americans.

“2) (You do not remember 2000 and 2004 do you?)”

Yes I do. Oh wait, your talking about how Bush stole those elections right? I see now. LOL!!!
Don’t worry, nothing evil has been proven with facts.
And besides, the left will win in 06 and probably 08, you all will then forget about the rigged voting scam and it will be the Republicans complaining about the voting machines.

“That is not the point. And, you know it. (I am not as nearly concerned about what other countries can do to us, as much as I am concerned, as to what we are doing, to ourselves)”

Hey, we agree on something. How long have you been caring? Since the mid 90’s like me? You know, when it started getting really bad.

“Then why not put them up against a real enemy”

We did and they kicked their ass.

“instead of have them be fodder, and baby sitters, for big oil interests?”

Again, prove with facts that this was all about oil and take it to the closest media outlet. They will pay you well for it and you can stop what you believe is true.

“Well, you should take notes from Isreal. They have been fighting the same terrorists for years.”

No, they have been treating terrorism as a crime for years. That is the wrong way to do it.

“And, they never once did it by attacking a foreign country and deposing its leader.”

So.
You seem to think that my refusal to accept the lefts propaganda means that I supported our decision to go into Iraq. You are wrong.
You seem to think my refusal to blame everything in the world on Bush means that I support everything he does. You are wrong.
You seem to think the Dems are the answer to all the worlds problems. Well, they have already proven that isn’t true, so you are wrong on that too.

Posted by: kctim at September 15, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #181810

kctim

Facts you can not escape;

In the current news, Pres. Bush is asking for more deffinition in prisioner treatment. The reason that he is planning to pass such legislation is because if he doesnt many persons now in charge of prisioner torture will be found legally guilty of war crimes according to the “Genieva Convention”, (nice legacy to leave our children about what kind of people, what kind of America, i.e. Americans, we have become). This is outrageous and unthinkable.
And as promenent Republicians have pointed out, it will set a future precidence of how our military is treated by other countries, if they ever become prisoners of “war”. This is the lowest that American has sunk, in reguards it efforts of humanitarian and benevilent treatment of the rest of the world, in its history of over 200 years.

The policies of this Administration has done much more to create terrorism than it has to curb it. In its reaction to a small band of zealots that attacked us on 9/11, it has invaded a country, who’s people once admired us and who wanted to be “like us”, and has turned it into any internal struggle of neverending civil war. True accounts from actual soilders in the field, seam to confirm what the current leader of Iraq stated. That our actions in his country was tandamount to “butchery”. We said that if they wanted us “to leave”, we would. However when we were asked “to leave” this summer, their request was summarily ignored.

President Bush said out of his own mouth that, “I dont know where Osama is, I dont spend that much time on him.” That was said some 6 months after his flowery speach to the American people that promised to “ferret them out of their holes, turn over every rock, and bring them to justice”. He was never concerned about 9/11, he was only concerned about takeing over Iraq. Period. And he has done that. And that has created more terrorists than pre-9/11, and more hatered for America in the muslim world. And it does not take a country with a stronger more effective army to defeat us or attack us. As 9/11 taught us, it only takes a small band of dedicated individuals. And, in this Administration, we have created these individuals and have increased their ranks.

There were no “terrorists” in Iraq before the “war”. All there was was Iraquis who were under Sadams thumb. Sadam was a secularist not a religious leader. And to let in Osama or any other religious zelot would have been against Sadams policy. The only “terrorists” in Iraq, is the Iraqui people. They are now plunged into a civil war which we have created. The results of this instability because of our invasion and lack of rebuilding their infrastructure and actually helping them to be a viably country, has created much hatred against America and Americans, yes. This is because we went in with too little men, too little money, and a complete inept program or plans for reconstruction and no exit stragedy. We do not need an exit stragety, especially when our government has no plans to “exit”,,,,,ever! (there is just too much dam oil there, and private no bid contractors are haveing too much fun rapeing our treasury).

” There are terrorists in Iraq. The lefts talking points even say that: There are more terrorists in Iraq than before the war.”

Yes, I have just explained this. There are muslums there, that now hate us. And WE CREATED THEM, NOT OSAMA.

You say that “who will put Iraq back together again, us”. (Just like we did Japan and Germany). Well, isnt that special!!! We attack Iraq, for “crimes” that they did in the 1980s under another president, and it costs billions a week, and then we “put it back together again”, and it costs trillions, and isnt that just fine with millions and millions of Anmericians, who know that Sadam never attacked us, but Osama did. We depose Sadam and let Osama go free….. BRILLIANT POLITICS!!!

Continued….

Posted by: PlayNice at September 16, 2006 11:10 AM
Post a comment