September 08, 2006
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 PMWell, 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 PMJust 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 PMOops, 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 PMChris,
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 PMChris,
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 PMNo, 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 PMLiberal 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“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 AMIn 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 AMTell ABC here:
http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc
KansasDem
Posted by: KansasDem at September 9, 2006 12:23 AM“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 AMWhat’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 AMChris - 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 AMThis 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 AMNormally 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 AMSo 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 01:16 AM
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.
And of course, we all know the 9/11 commission got it all factually correct, right?
Posted by: womanmarine at September 9, 2006 01:21 AMBushflipflops,
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 01:28 AMwomanmarine,
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 01:34 AM“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
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 01:56 AM“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
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 02:49 AMLiberals 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 08:12 AMphx8 - 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 08:24 AMBurt -
“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 08:40 AMStephen -
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 08:52 AMLiberals 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 09:22 AMStill, 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 09:27 AMJoe,
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 09:29 AMHey, 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 09:42 AMPerhaps 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 09:44 AMKeith-
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 09:46 AMIhave 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.
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 AMNikkolai,
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 AMStephen -
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 AMChris-
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 AMI 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 AMJoe,
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 AMStephen -
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.
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 :-)
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 AMI 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 AMConsumers 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 AMWhat 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 PMDavid -
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 PMChris 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 PMNikolai,
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 PMStephen -
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?
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 01:11 PMstubborn 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 01:28 PMFor 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.
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 01:32 PMYour 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 02:05 PMI 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 02:27 PMKansasDem
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 02:34 PMLibel 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 02:43 PMI 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 03:04 PMThe 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 03:23 PMA 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 03:53 PMThis 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 03:57 PM“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 04:18 PMPolitical 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 04:23 PM43% 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.
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.
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 04:59 PMI 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 07:09 PMSince 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 07:12 PMFace 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 07:12 PMBack 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 08:47 PMWeary 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 09:35 PMI don’t care what the democrats say, its what they get away with that worries me.
Posted by: Ed. McConnell at September 9, 2006 09:40 PMCrazy
Still love you too Crazy.
:-)
Weary Willie
Don’t you findit odd that you’re attracted to movies and shows with the “leading men” being of this persuasion?
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 09:53 PMAnd where is the WatchBlog Editor when Mark associated my personal behavour with his?
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“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 PMI 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 PMWeary 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 PMWeary 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 PMFine, 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 PMABc, 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 PMYou 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 PMDid 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 PMMark -
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 PMChris 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 01:31 AMDavid:
“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 03:20 AMI 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 07:16 AMHardlyHarry
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 07:47 AMDavid 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 08:46 AMAlthough I’m not a Republican, I must agree with HardHatHarry. Liberals must be defeated.
End of story.
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 08:58 AMDems 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 09:21 AMChris
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.
“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 09:40 AMTom 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 AMDavid 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“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 AMTom 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 AMSorry, 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 AMDid 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 PMTom 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
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 PMMy 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 PMChris 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”???
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 01:56 PMPlayNice -
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 02:26 PMChris-
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 02:50 PMWomanmarine,
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 02:59 PMStephen -
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 03:25 PMChris-
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 03:29 PMChris-
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 03:41 PMChris,
” 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?
T