Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Dems hate ABC's 9/11 Miniseries

Ogami

New member
The entire Clinton team has blasted the ABC miniseries as damaging to them and Clinton's presidency. Pretty funny watching Sandy Berger demand the miniseries be yanked, he yanked classified documents from the National Archives and destroyed them, documents on Bin Laden and Al-Queda.

Does anyone remember Bush and his team demanding that Fahrenheit 911 be censored, altered, or withdrawn? Of course not.

With that in mind, check out the link to CNN. They offer paragraph-by-paragraph links to rebuttals over the content of the series. They'd never do that with Fahrenheit 911! Thanks for confirming your extreme bias, CNN.

Clinton blasts 9/11 film, amid report of changes
POSTED: 7:55 p.m. EDT, September 8, 2006

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton called for ABC to "tell the truth" in an upcoming miniseries about the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

Senior officials and advisers in Clinton's administration have attacked the accuracy of "The Path to 9/11," accusing filmmakers of including "fictitious" and even "false and defamatory" scenes of how they responded to the terror threat.

"I think they ought to tell the truth, particularly if they're going to claim it's based on the 9/11 commission's report," Clinton told reporters in Arkansas on Thursday.

"They shouldn't have scenes that are directly contradictory to the factual findings of the 9/11 commission. I just want people to tell the truth."

The film is scheduled to air with limited commercial interruption Sunday and Monday, the fifth anniversary of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.

The ABC network has rejected criticism, saying the film was not a documentary and no one had seen the final version as it was still being edited.

"No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible," the network said in a statement Thursday.

The New York Times quoted executive producer Marc Platt saying editing of the miniseries was going on and "will continue to, if needed until we broadcast."

The Times, citing Thomas H. Kean, the Republican who chaired the bipartisan 9/11 commission that investigated what led up to the attacks and who has been a consultant to the film, reported that a scene portraying former national security adviser Samuel R. Berger hanging up on a CIA officer at a critical moment is being altered. Two others under review, according to Kean, portray former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright apparently obstructing efforts to capture Osama bin Laden and Clinton being too distracted by impeachment and his marital problems to focus on bin Laden.

An ABC executive, who requested anonymity because the network is making only written comments, said small revisions have been under way for weeks, according to The Washington Post.

"These are people of integrity," The Post quoted Kean as saying of the filmmakers. "I know there are some scenes where words are put in characters' mouths. But the whole thing is true to the spirit of 9/11."

'No such episode ever occurred'
Favorable reviews by conservative commentators who have seen the film have stoked the controversy. On Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh told his radio audience the film shows the Clinton administration was "afraid of failure and what it would mean to their approval ratings" when attacks on the al Qaeda terror network were being planned in the 1990s.

In addition to attacking the reported depiction of events that took place on their watch, Clinton advisers have complained that they have not been allowed to view the film for themselves.

In the past week former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former national security adviser Samuel Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton aide Douglas Band have written letters to Disney CEO Robert Iger to express dismay with the film.

"It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known," Lindsey and Band wrote.

They called the project "a fictitious rewriting of history" and urged it be shelved until "egregious factual errors" could be fixed.

Berger objected to the reported portrayal of him refusing to authorize a strike targeting bin Laden when CIA operatives had the al Qaeda leader in their sights.

"No such episode ever occurred -- nor did anything like it," he wrote to Iger.

Plans to snatch bin Laden in Afghanistan in early 1998 were canceled by then-CIA chief George Tenet before any proposal was sent to the White House, according to the 9/11 commission's final report.

Kean, the commission's chairman, said he told ABC that the scene involving Berger was inaccurate, and he told CNN that ABC informed him it would revisit the scene.

Albright called a reported depiction of her in one scene as "false and defamatory."

She said the scene shows her refusing to support a missile attack against al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden without notifying Pakistani officials, whose territory the missiles would have to cross. She said the film depicts her notifying Pakistan of the attack over U.S. military objections.

"Before you air your broadcast, I trust you will ensure you have the facts right," Albright wrote to Iger.

It was Gen. Joseph Ralston, then vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told Pakistani officials that a missile strike was under way against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. The disclosure was made to assure Pakistan that the missiles were not coming from their nuclear-armed rival India, the 9/11 commission reported.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have also joined in calling reported details of key scenes false and misleading.

In a letter to Iger, Reid said the reputation of ABC's parent company, the Walt Disney Corporation, would be "deeply damaged" if the film aired with those scenes intact.

ABC has said it will run a disclaimer four times during the broadcasts that declares, "The movie is not a documentary."

© 2006 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/08/abc.movie/index.html
 
It's not just Dems. And there are other reasons to object to this piece of crap.

As a New Yorker, I'm against any cheap Hollywood outfit trying to "dramatize" events that need no dramatization. The memories are still too fresh in many people's minds. The rationalization on ABC's part that "people shouldn't forget" is ludicrous. Anyone you know forget about 9/11 yet?

It's cheap exploitation, no matter what the politics of its creators. They have no business passing themselves off as historians. The documentaries are dramatic enough, thank you. I don't need hack TV movie producers trying to give it to me in soap opera form.
 
Eggs Mayo wrote:

The rationalization on ABC's part that "people shouldn't forget" is ludicrous. Anyone you know forget about 9/11 yet?

Actually none of the news networks have EVER rerun footage of people falling out of the Twin Towers, or footage of the planes hitting. They say this was because it was "too soon". Yet for these same networks, it's never too soon to run constant footage of IED explosions killing our soldiers.

This miniseries needs to be run PRECISELY because the Democrats would like everyone to pretend that 9/11 didn't happen. Why, Bush created islamic terrorism, don'cha know! There is an enemy out there and they want us dead. They're not satisfied. To forget them is folly.

-Ogami
 
The outcry is almost as the bad as the whining the Republicans did over the Reagan movie.

What makes it really sad is apparently politicians are too stupid to tell the difference between fact and artistic license when it comes to a fucking television program.

I bet they also think Barney was a real walking, talking, purple dinosaur.
 
Ogami said:
Eggs Mayo wrote:

The rationalization on ABC's part that "people shouldn't forget" is ludicrous. Anyone you know forget about 9/11 yet?

Actually none of the news networks have EVER rerun footage of people falling out of the Twin Towers, or footage of the planes hitting. They say this was because it was "too soon". Yet for these same networks, it's never too soon to run constant footage of IED explosions killing our soldiers.

This miniseries needs to be run PRECISELY because the Democrats would like everyone to pretend that 9/11 didn't happen. Why, Bush created islamic terrorism, don'cha know! There is an enemy out there and they want us dead. They're not satisfied. To forget them is folly.

-Ogami
I remember being glued to the television set for about 9 months watching September 11, 2001 play out again, and again, and again.
 
Comments on this post Ogami And the network news won't show that footage again because... why?

Because they've already played it a million times and Paris Hilton got a DUI and barfed on herself.
 
Ogami: Republicans only lie if the country's interests are at stake.
That is crap and you know it. Republicans lie if their own interests are at stake - just like Democrats.

I've always been a centrist with Republican leanings. And, while I still support the concepts of what Bush is trying to do with the war on terror, don't hold him personally responsible for hurricanes, and think Cindy Sheehan needs to be straightjacketed, I won't vote Republican again until there is a reversion to what being Republican means. Of course, I won't vote for the Democrats either. It is time for a third party to get their rears in gear with a viable platform - say, something other than "I vow to make smoking marijuana legal." Like anybody gives a crap if marijuana is legal or not before they light up, again.
 
pope_dickhead_i.JPG
 
Eloisel wrote:

And, while I still support the concepts of what Bush is trying to do with the war on terror, don't hold him personally responsible for hurricanes, and think Cindy Sheehan needs to be straightjacketed, I won't vote Republican again until there is a reversion to what being Republican means.

I'm not sure what in particular Bush has done that is anti-Republican. He's not a conservative, he has greatly increased all forms of social spending. That's the go-along attitude Bush has, but he doesn't get any credit for it from the Democrats. To them, power is everything. And their lust for power is far more worrisome than anything Bush does.
___________________________

Eggs wrote:

And you are their target market: the easily brainwashed.

That's not very nice. I could say the same about the multitudes of liberals who swallow any kook conspiracy theory about Bush that's ever been floated. Oh wait, I have made fun of those people, haven't I?

-Ogami
 
Ogami said:
Eloisel wrote:

And, while I still support the concepts of what Bush is trying to do with the war on terror, don't hold him personally responsible for hurricanes, and think Cindy Sheehan needs to be straightjacketed, I won't vote Republican again until there is a reversion to what being Republican means.

I'm not sure what in particular Bush has done that is anti-Republican. He's not a conservative, he has greatly increased all forms of social spending. That's the go-along attitude Bush has, but he doesn't get any credit for it from the Democrats. To them, power is everything. And their lust for power is far more worrisome than anything Bush does.
-Ogami
Nothing in particular anti-Republican. Except Republicans have always been for individual as well as corporate entreprenuership. Economic Development is a good thing when not abused. Social spending in and of itself is not anti-Republican or anti-conservative. The Republican policy has always supported social spending, just with tighter controls on who collects taxpayer money. The idea is to provide a safety net for those who can no longer help themselves or to give a person a hand up, not a hand out that inevitably keeps them in poverty. However, I want the religious wing out of my party. It is no skin off my nose if people of the same sex wish to marry. Granted, I'd perfer they call it a civil union instead of a marriage, but the basic concept is the same - two people committing to each other, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health - we could use alot more commitment like that in the world. I don't want junk science taught in school. Creationism is on its face flawed because of the time frame factor. The welfare of the population at large should not be left to the mercy of faith-based initiatives.

The Democrats are ineffectual because the best they can be is anti-Bush. No plans to resolve the current issues other than to chunk Hillary up there with her "give illegal Mexicans a free college education" speeches to pander to Luac and LaRaza. "I'm not Bush" is not a plan. And, saying one has a plan is not the same as actually having one. Will be interesting to see who Bill supports - Kerry or Hillary - as the political scene heats up for the next presidential election.
 
Oh, and Ogami, in the future, please let me know if you are pos repping or neg repping me. Thanks.
 
Eloisel wrote:

The Democrats are ineffectual because the best they can be is anti-Bush. No plans to resolve the current issues other than to chunk Hillary up there with her "give illegal Mexicans a free college education" speeches to pander to Luac and LaRaza. "I'm not Bush" is not a plan. And, saying one has a plan is not the same as actually having one. Will be interesting to see who Bill supports - Kerry or Hillary - as the political scene heats up for the next presidential election.

All true. Serious competition for Bush would not be difficult, but it's hard to see how the various strategeries of the Democrats have been at all serious. They're still refighting election 2000.

Oh, and Ogami, in the future, please let me know if you are pos repping or neg repping me. Thanks.

How should I know? Sarek or somebody went and super-negatived my reps a month ago. Now it's just a mini-messaging system for me, quite neutral.

-Ogami
 
Bush is out of it. Jeb doesn't stand a chance. The Democrats need to realize they aren't fighting Bush this time around. The majority that voted Bush in the last two elections aren't going to suddenly turn into Democrats.

Who are your current favorites - all parties?
 
Eloisel wrote:

Bush is out of it. Jeb doesn't stand a chance.

I didn't know Jeb was running. (Although he does speak better spanish of the two)

The Democrats need to realize they aren't fighting Bush this time around. The majority that voted Bush in the last two elections aren't going to suddenly turn into Democrats.

You're quite right, fortunately the Democrats will never listen to you or I and heed this advice.

PREDICTION TIME: The Democrats have made a terrible mistake in not simply saying they would do a better job in the War on Terror. Instead, they have gone out of their way to appear as the party of defeat, retreat, and surrender. Worse, they have NATIONALIZED this perception, it's a uniform impression they give, whether liberal or moderate. Their mistakes are all tied around the delusion that the rest of the country hates Bush as much as they do. The GOP had that delusion in the 1996 election, and they paid the price.

How wonderful the Democrats now repeat that mistake. Even if you tell this to them, they remain oblivious to the doom awaiting them.

-Ogami
 
So Ogami, All I seem to be understanding is that You'll believe anything that comes out of a repubs mouth, even if it's mostly bullshit. Why? Because you seem to not be understanding perfectly acurrate points people are making.

The main reason Clinton and his Group were pissed about this is because It's being portrayed as truth when in reality, most of it never really happened. It's like Michael Moore and his retarded half assed twisting of people's words, only taking it one step further.

Ogami said:
Actually none of the news networks have EVER rerun footage of people falling out of the Twin Towers, or footage of the planes hitting. They say this was because it was "too soon". Yet for these same networks, it's never too soon to run constant footage of IED explosions killing our soldiers.

How about not showing it out of respect for the families of people that died. The people that fell or jumped, those on the planes, and the plethora of Firefighters and Police... Those were peoples Son, Daughters, Mother, Fathers, Sisters, Brothers, Etc. To have to continually relive the moment where families were shattered, especially for the children who would never see those family members again...

Ogami said:
This miniseries needs to be run PRECISELY because the Democrats would like everyone to pretend that 9/11 didn't happen. Why, Bush created islamic terrorism, don'cha know! There is an enemy out there and they want us dead. They're not satisfied. To forget them is folly.

To think something like that is truely close-minded. But then again, Fear mongering is what keeps the sheep in line to vote for people like Bush.
 
Dark Link wrote:

So Ogami, All I seem to be understanding is that You'll believe anything that comes out of a repubs mouth, even if it's mostly bullshit. Why?

Because the Democrats only pay lip service to fighting the War on Terror. 99.999999999999999999999% of the time, they are doing everything they can to badmouth our country's efforts, reveal secret programs, and attack our troops. Democrat-appointed judges rule on the rights of Islamic terrorists, when such people are trying to kill as many westerners as they can and to hell with our rights.

You complain about bullshit, Dark Link? What about the bullshit Democrat lies that Bush wants to listen to our phone calls or see what library books we check out. He wants to monitor ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, you clowns, and the recently FOILED British airline plot was taken down by British and American intelligence precisely along the lines that the Left spends their time complaining about.

The BULLSHIT is Bush fighting the War on Terror SINGLE-HANDEDLY, while Democrats tell the world that Bush can't be trusted, that he stole the 2000 election, and that he's a liar. Well guess what, assclowns on the left, the world hears what you've said about Bush for SIX FUCKING YEARS, and a good chunk of it believes it. If America is hated more around the world these days, if American credibility is lower around the world these days, it's because of the non-stop negative acid and bile that has been dumped on Bush and our country since 9/11 by the American Left. Your words and statements do not stay hermetically-sealed at our country's borders, the world hears what you say. And a good lot of them believe what the Democrats say every day about Bush and how our War on Terror is a lie for Halliburton, and other such bullshit.

The only war the Democrats have declared is against Wal-Mart. We're living in two fucking separate worlds, Dark Link, and it's time people like you stopped carping from the sidelines and do something pro-active besides whine about how you don't like Bush, neocons, FoxNews, or the other quixotic windmills the lunatic left foams at the mouth over. Grow up, and figure out that there are islamic terrorists in the world who want you DEAD, and they don't give a FUCK whether you like Bush or not!

-Ogami
 
I love this board. I could never say what I mean at Ex Isle. Even if I'm the only damn person here who defends Bush or our policies on a day to day basis. There's no other board like it.
 
Top