Free Speech...unless you attack Democrats
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Sunday, September 10, 2006 16:20
VIEWED: 8374
PAGE 4 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadLatin:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Except several members of the Commission say that scenes in the mini are false, or complete.
What members, names please.
Jamie Gorelick, Richard Ben-Veniste, Tim Roemer, Bob Kerrey and even Tom Kean (who advised on the project).
EDIT (based on your edit): I'm not flacking for Berger. I think he was an idiot for destroying documents. I also think he was an incompetent idiot because he didn't get the originals. And I think that he should've spent some time behind bars rather than just getting a fine and temporary loss of his security clearance. But I also don't see him as a linchpin.
EDIT again: Here's a link to all the commission members: http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bios.htm
And here's a link to the statements the five members made about inaccuracy of scenes: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/911-commissioners-abc/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadLatin:Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Funny. 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste called it 'very inaccurate and unfair,' and said it was full of "errors and mischaracterizations."
You might want to let people know that Richard Ben-Veniste has worked for the Clintons and has been hired, on many occasions, by the DNC.
Yeah, and Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer of this propaganda piece is a partisan hack who's co-authored books with Horowitz. Here's an interview with him:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23865
I like how he talks about how there was no response to the bombing of the USS Cole. That was in October of 2000. Clinton had three months left in office. Bush had NINE months in office before 9/11, and he did NOTHING. And somehow it's all Clinton's fault? Gimme a break.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
More generally, there is a difference in my mind between a movie that is shown in theaters, where people have to pay money, and a movie shown on broadcast television.
The real difference is that if you pay for a movie and don't like it you've lost your money. If you don't like ABC watch CBS. If you don't like ABC or CBS then watch Sci Fi. If you don't like any of that watch something you've DVR'd (like the Cleveland Browns 27-13 win over the New Orleans Aints). Or don't watch anything.
Its called choice. The Democrats want less choice in this instance because this particular option is critical of Clinton's failure to respond to Al Queda attacks in the 1990's. Regardless of whether Clinton said a particular line verbatum (it is a dramatization after all) the idea is that we were attacked again and again and the President was too busy hadling other "affairs" to notice. Thats a legitimate point of contention and that was suggested at the time as a possibility.
I note for the record that the drama in question is no kinder to President Bush. I'm certain that there are people here who think that anything less then full blame on Bush is biased, the facts simply do not support such a conclusion. And there is no mention of the attacks being faked or the deliberate act of the American and Iseali govts, so some of you would not have watched anyway. Could Bush in less then nine months have prevented an attack by a force that Clinton had failed to deal with in his eight years? Thats a question worth considering and a drama I'd like to watch.
Quote:
Broadcasters have a responsibility for what they provide free.
Or they lose their license. Thats what the Senate Democrats said. Broadcasts must conform to Democratic standards or you will lose your broadcast license. Free speech...with the fine print.
Well I have something to say about the Democratic Party*********POST DELETED BY ORDER OF THE DEMORATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE**********************
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
FellowTraveler,
...I'm not sure I buy this theory.
Ahhh, why ya' gotta' blow holes in my crackpot theories? I guess I usually chalk this kind of thing up to good, old fashioned, greed instead of a sinister partisan plan. But, you might be right.
Although, ABC wouldn't actually have to change the offending scenes for my fantastical scenerio to be correct. I got that wrong initially, for sure. However, ABC running it with out commercials seems to, in large part, eliminate the profit motive.
But why would ABC, and thus Disney, be shilling for the Republicans? What is their motive if not profit? I understand why Republicans would want to muddy the waters, but what does the big mouse have to gain?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The 9/11 commission is loaded with political hacks from both sides of the isle. I find Jamie Gorelick especially repugnant. I couldn't find direct quotes coming from any of those you listed but I guess they would say something like that anyhow.
I don't care about the movie -no matter what form it might take after editing, its still Hollywood pretending to be objective - what a joke.
Sandy Berger is no idiot and whatever he was after was important enough to risk being caught and prosecuted over. He willingly took the fall for the Clinton team.
Why the staff allowed him to leave with the documents is another question that needs to be answered.
PS: I accidentally cut and pasted Jamie Gorelick into the Dictionary.com word search instead of the Google window - I think someone has been messing with the search engine over there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RAZZA, I disagree, on the grounds that every news organization could and would have had 24 hour news coverage about how farenheit 9/11 was proven false in court. As it was they gave it plenty of press from their constant outrage.
It is pitiful that the American public could be swayed by a fictional movie, I agree. It is inexusable that given that, ABC would outright fabricate facts of our history, which are sure to sway public opinion in a partisan way. This isn't about entertainment.
Nor is this a matter of censorship. Calling ABC out on its misrepresentation isn't a matter of censorship. Asking them not to play a dishonest piece of propaganda is not legislated censorship. It's asking them to remember their responsibility to the public.
Quite frankly, we should be demanding that our networks stay honest.
.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fellow Traveler, Disney is a huge corp - what it makes from its network is not neccesarily the measure to go by. What it makes in tax cuts or deregulation, or any number of other republican politics that favor these guys would well make up for the 40 million dropped into this movie.
- edit - correcting factual error - earlier it said good guys instead of these guys
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
there's another difference HERO. ABC is a beneficiary of our public airwaves. I'm all for partisanship, but the slant of this broadcast is veiled...there's no idiot in a bowtie making up shit as he goes along for everybody to take note.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadLatin:
Why the staff allowed him to leave with the documents is another question that needs to be answered.
PS: I accidentally cut and pasted Jamie Gorelick into the Dictionary.com word search instead of the Google window - I think someone has been messing with the search engine over there.
That's a very good question. Was that ever addressed in the plea deal?
And re: the dictionary.com. You got me curious so I tried it out. Pretty funny result
.Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
But why would ABC, and thus Disney, be shilling for the Republicans? What is their motive if not profit? I understand why Republicans would want to muddy the waters, but what does the big mouse have to gain?
I have no clue. That's the really weird part of the whole story. It's a 40 million dollar (production budget) commercial free gift to a production team that has ties to the ultra-fringe religious right. And, as Think Progress is noting, they're not getting any support from prominent conservatives. Even the guy who wrote the book, "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror" is saying that there's, "zero factual basis" for the letting-bin-Laden-go scene.
I'm reading that Disney's tax burden went down to zero by the time 2003 rolled around but that still doesn't seem enough of a good reason to run GOP propaganda right before an election.
I got no good answers for you. They couldn't have been played this badly, could they have?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Disney isn't shilling for the Republicans. Theres a significant portion of our population that are nationalists and believe that America is still the best place on the planet. Disney wants our money.
Soup: I forget a lot of the Berger stuff - But the anger remains 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME