ABC Series: Path to 9/11 (dems come unglued)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697413/posts?page=958#958


Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
by John in DC - 9/07/2006 06:02:00 PM

This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.

Read it, then read my analysis of it below:

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney's plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

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.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, "When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right."

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network's representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, "As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission's findings the way that they had." ["9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as "deeply flawed" and said of the program's depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, "It's 180 degrees from what happened." ["9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, "he thought they were making things up." [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. ["9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006]

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, "It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why - so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer."

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan



The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.

This raises the stakes incredibly for Disney.

christ you're a waste of space.

You might want to reconsider the whole question of voting for de-mokkker-rats as an option to cursing the messenger....

I think this is the first time I have posted an article from an outside source, but I think this is a good one. While I believe the outrage from the left is a bit hypocritical, given that most of them turned a blind eye toward the same type of stuff Moore did in F911 that they now accuse the makers of this movie doing, it is still right for all of us to acknowledge that there are errors in this movie that are not necessary to make the point that the Clinton admin. must shoulder a good bit of blame for 9/11 (along with the Bush admin.) So I post this article by Kathleen Parker in order to be fair to the Clinton admin.



"The controversy over ABC Entertainment's 9/11 docudrama underscores the power of information and the lethality of politics.

On the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks that brought down the World Trade Center towers, ``whodunit'' is no longer about Osama bin Laden. The focus as midterm elections approach seems to be on which political party bears the greatest responsibility for intelligence and operational failures leading to 9/11.


This undated promotional photo, provided by ABC, shows actor Harvey Keitel as counterterrorism expert John O'Neill in "The Path to 9/11," the network's five-hour miniseries about the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources. "The Path to 9/11" airs commercial-free at 8 p.m. EDT Sunday and concludes the following evening. (AP Photo/ABC/Peter Stranks) Are the Republicans to blame for failing to connect the 9/11 dots? Or do the Democrats bear the brunt?

``The Path to 9/11,'' a five-hour miniseries airing Sunday and Monday nights, suggests that both administrations are culpable to varying degrees. But the present controversy surrounds implications that the Clinton administration bungled opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

The docudrama, which ABC concedes is fictionalized in parts -- the timeline has been manipulated and some characters are composites -- is based on ``The 9/11 Commission Report'' as well as other sources.

Most controversial is a scene in which the CIA and the Northern Alliance had surrounded bin Laden's house in Afghanistan in 1998 and were about to make their move pending authorization from Washington.

In the miniseries, then-national security adviser Sandy Berger essentially says, sorry, you're on your own. Obviously, bin Laden was not eliminated, and the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were bombed shortly thereafter.

It never happened, says Berger. The CIA was never about to attack, according to the 9/11 commission's report. And, in fact, former CIA Director George Tenet decided the plan wouldn't work.

Inaccurate but true-ish? Dramatic if not quite real?

Dramatizing events and creating composite characters are acceptable practices in a miniseries that doesn't purport to be a documentary. But changing substantive facts in this case is both unfair and untenable, especially as it casts into doubt everything else posited as truth.

ABC apparently felt sufficiently chastened to change the Berger segment after Democratic officials complained. The network said Thursday that the scene would be toned down, according to the Los Angeles Times. Meanwhile, we can't help noting the rich irony of Berger's insistence on honesty. Isn't he the same fellow who ``inadvertently'' lifted copies of classified documents from the National Archives, for which he was fined and placed on probation?

Other objections have come from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who is shown in the ABC series as having warned Pakistan of the August 1998 missile strikes that many considered a ploy to distract Americans from the Monica Lewinsky scandal then in play.

Albright says she never warned Pakistan, though the 9/11 commission reported that a senior official notified Pakistan that missiles crossing that country's airspace would not be coming from India.

Albright's outrage is understandable, and should be shared by fair-minded Americans. These are not minor slights of no importance. They are critical to people's integrity as well as to our understanding of what happened. Surely conversations and events leading up to 9/11 are sufficiently dramatic without the application of poetic license.

In these fragile times, when Americans are subjected to so much information and disinformation -- and when the consequences of ignorance are so potentially lethal -- we can ill afford to play loose with the facts.

That said, Americans are smart enough to know that what happened on 9/11 was in the works long before the Bush administration took office. No amount of protest will change the fact that some of the dots now clearly visible were available for connecting during the Clinton administration.

Meanwhile, we are proving the overarching point of this film, which is that while we're busy squabbling over political scraps, our enemies are busy plotting our demise. They don't care who sits in the Oval Office -- or which political party prevails in November.

They do care that they were enormously successful on Sept. 11, 2001, and are surely inspired by our weak attention to their goals.

The 9/11 commission determined that Clinton's 1998 missile attack was not, after all, a wag-the-dog attempt to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal. But the commissioners also said that the intense partisanship of the time ``likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against bin Laden.''

To our great peril, nothing much has changed. "

time for some balance

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1867405,00.html

And you expect who exactly to take the word of a lying piece of **** like Sandy Burgler on something like that??

Better yet, where are the Republican threats to put CBS out of business over memo-gate which was a real and provable case of a network trying to throw a presidential election their own way with a fictitious claim, which nothing but the blogospher and God's grace prevented from succeeding??

More commentary (this is a very big story):

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71989

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1697413/posts?page=1

Some more "balance" (commentary from FR):

To: Mo1

They don't like freedom of speech a lot, do they?

3 posted on 09/07/2006 4:14:33 PM PDT by darkangel82 (Higher visibility leads to greater zottability.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: darkangel82

Sure doesn't look like it

4 posted on 09/07/2006 4:15:07 PM PDT by Mo1 (Think about it .. A Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be 2 seats away from being President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1

During the election cycle, I seem to remember when the skerry camp made similar threats.

5 posted on 09/07/2006 4:16:42 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand; but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1
They have now threatened REAL 1st amendment violations. People talk about censorship without knowing what it means. Well... here is the real thing, governmental intimidation against speech they do not like.
6 posted on 09/07/2006 4:16:47 PM PDT by Texasforever (I have neither been there nor done that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~; ~Vor~; 1Mike; 1stMarylandRegiment; 3catsanadog; A CA Guy; A Citizen Reporter; ...

This is just damn amazing.

They sure are desperate, aren't they?

I wonder why.

7 posted on 09/07/2006 4:17:32 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1

What's so delicious is that none of these people have any power in a Republican-controlled Congress.

Let them eat their words.

8 posted on 09/07/2006 4:17:49 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Texasforever

Stabenow may lose her election over this.

9 posted on 09/07/2006 4:18:18 PM PDT by darkangel82 (Higher visibility leads to greater zottability.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1

and here is a hard copy of the letter


Senate Democratic Leadership Urges Disney CEO to Cancel Misleading 9/11 Miniseries

9/7/2006 6:10:00 PM


http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71989

10 posted on 09/07/2006 4:18:24 PM PDT by Mo1 (Think about it .. A Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be 2 seats away from being President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1

I saw former Gov. Keane (sp) Chair of the 9/11 commission. He was a consultant to ABC's movie and said that every suggestion or correction he made to the producers was made in making the movie.

11 posted on 09/07/2006 4:18:47 PM PDT by Vermonter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Texasforever
Well... here is the real thing, governmental intimidation against speech they do not like.

Exactly.

Let's see if anybody can find a letter like this to Michael Moore.

Anybody?
12 posted on 09/07/2006 4:18:59 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Howlin
I wonder why.

That is the million dollar question
13 posted on 09/07/2006 4:19:02 PM PDT by Mo1 (Think about it .. A Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be 2 seats away from being President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1

I love the sound of squealing pigs.

14 posted on 09/07/2006 4:19:28 PM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: darkangel82

Do you think so??

15 posted on 09/07/2006 4:19:40 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Howlin
The term "peeing in your mess kit" comes to mind.

Love it that the DimBulbs are giving the Stupid Party a run for the money.

Passing out ammo to those who are "shooting" at them.
16 posted on 09/07/2006 4:20:08 PM PDT by don-o (Proudly posting without reading the thread since 1998. (stolen from one cool dude))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: shield

You're right .. he did

17 posted on 09/07/2006 4:20:09 PM PDT by Mo1 (Think about it .. A Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be 2 seats away from being President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Howlin

Breathtaking, isn't it?

18 posted on 09/07/2006 4:20:32 PM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet-prayers for the kidnapped Israeli Soldiers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Howlin

Hopefully.

19 posted on 09/07/2006 4:20:43 PM PDT by darkangel82 (Higher visibility leads to greater zottability.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1; Admin Moderator

can you put this in news please. There is a confirmation of this from the U.S. newswire not just a blog

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71989

20 posted on 09/07/2006 4:21:32 PM PDT by hipaatwo (Vote for your life. Every vote for a Democrat is a vote against victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: tioga

I don't know...until this thing airs...I don't believe anything anyone says about it. I wouldn't be surpried for a minute if this thing gets changed at the last minute to make us look stupid.

21 posted on 09/07/2006 4:21:47 PM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: shield

Exactly!

22 posted on 09/07/2006 4:21:57 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! www.irey.com and www.vets4Irey.com - Now more than Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1

"Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation."

Where was this outcry over Farenheit 11????????????????

23 posted on 09/07/2006 4:22:22 PM PDT by Integrityrocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Howlin
It will be interesting to see if ABC caves. If it does then I never want to hear them complain of "chilling effects on free speech" again . This letter should be grounds to have governmental personnel that wrote it brought up on charges.
24 posted on 09/07/2006 4:22:25 PM PDT by Texasforever (I have neither been there nor done that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Howlin; Mo1

25 posted on 09/07/2006 4:22:32 PM PDT by NautiNurse (Katherine Harris for U.S. Senate. It is lazy to assume that nothing in the media is fabricated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1

Isn't former Senator George Mitchell Chairman of Board of Disney?

26 posted on 09/07/2006 4:23:03 PM PDT by paudio (Universal Human Rights and Multiculturalism: Liberals want to have cake and eat it too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Howlin

They bought a bunch of Disney stock and are looking to bump up the rating.

27 posted on 09/07/2006 4:23:18 PM PDT by RS ("I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Howlin

Well, now if they don't succeed in getting it stifled, huge numbers of people will watch just to see what the fuss is about. What I have to really wonder about though is the fact that, apparently, this film creates a hugely negative feeling toward the terrorists, i.e., the islamofascists. How much of their heft is behind all of these squeals, I wonder.

28 posted on 09/07/2006 4:23:19 PM PDT by Bahbah (Goldwasser, Regev and Shalit, we are praying for you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Howlin
Paging the ACLU, Hello, are you there??? Hello.....
29 posted on 09/07/2006 4:23:39 PM PDT by mware (Americans in armchairs doing the job of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Howlin
"I wonder why."

I want to see their internal polling. These aren't the actions of a gang of politicos who are confident about their chances in November.
30 posted on 09/07/2006 4:24:05 PM PDT by A Citizen Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Howlin
I wonder why.

Rhetorical question.....right?
31 posted on 09/07/2006 4:24:05 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! www.irey.com and www.vets4Irey.com - Now more than Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Howlin
They sure are desperate, aren't they?

They do squeal after a successful game of pin the blame on the donkey, don't they?
32 posted on 09/07/2006 4:24:30 PM PDT by dirtboy (This tagline has been photoshopped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1

They should be lying coaches ... they're so good.

33 posted on 09/07/2006 4:24:42 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Hildy
I believe Rush about the parts he saw, but as he said today - he has no idea how much he didn't see. Rush said it was pretty damming to the clintonistas. Time will tell.
34 posted on 09/07/2006 4:25:25 PM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1
Funny, I don't recall these same senators threatening sanctions against CBS for their blatantly false 60 Minutes episode so close to a presidential election.

Man, they are just shooting themselves in the foot with a .50 cal on full auto.
35 posted on 09/07/2006 4:26:12 PM PDT by dirtboy (This tagline has been photoshopped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: tioga

A few libs at IMDB have seen it and they're LIVID. So I take it as a good sign. But, again, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets changed before Monday.

36 posted on 09/07/2006 4:26:59 PM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: NautiNurse
My feelings exactly. This week has been extremely fun.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
37 posted on 09/07/2006 4:27:04 PM PDT by soccer8 ("Never let the enemy pick the battle site." - Gen. George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1

Reid is Senate Minority Leader, not Senate Democratic Leader ... why would his sign anything that way? I am not sure this is legit. Have we seen anything to confirm that this letter has been sent by these Senators ? Not that I wouldn't put something like this past them.

38 posted on 09/07/2006 4:27:28 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: ConservativeMind
these people have any power in a Republican-controlled Congress.

ROTFLOL! Oh yeah.....outstanding vote on the UN Ambassador today, huh?
39 posted on 09/07/2006 4:28:29 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! www.irey.com and www.vets4Irey.com - Now more than Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: EDINVA

o: National Desk

Contact: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939; both of the Office of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Urging him to cancel the grossly inaccurate upcoming miniseries "The Path to 9/11," the Senate Democratic Leadership today sent the following letter to Disney President and CEO Robert Iger. Disney's subsidiary ABC erroneously claims the misleading miniseries is based on the 9/11 Commission report and is planning to air it on Sept. 10 and 11. Shockingly, the network is also planning to use the program as a teaching tool through Scholastic, potentially misinforming thousands of children about the most important event in recent American history.

The text of the letter, signed by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, and Senators Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, and Byron Dorgan, is below.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71989

40 posted on 09/07/2006 4:29:31 PM PDT by hipaatwo (Vote for your life. Every vote for a Democrat is a vote against victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Clinton/Burger/Albright/Reid/Pelosi, etc....all threaten Mickey Mouse!!!!!

41 posted on 09/07/2006 4:30:37 PM PDT by hnj_00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1

Tim Roemer just said on CNN that "Bin Ladin was NEVER in someones sights"....

That sure doesn't sound right...I have heard they had him in their sights several time...

42 posted on 09/07/2006 4:31:27 PM PDT by Txsleuth (,((((((((ISRAEL))))))))) Steve and Olaf have been released...pray for the release of the Israelis..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1
Now, whether the movie is aired or not, the Dims have done damage to themselves. Those who signed the letter will always be haunted by this. Unless, of course, Republican or conservatives are stoopid enough not making this an issue of free speech.
43 posted on 09/07/2006 4:31:55 PM PDT by paudio (Universal Human Rights and Multiculturalism: Liberals want to have cake and eat it too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: EDINVA
Reid is Senate Minority Leader, not Senate Democratic Leader ... why would his sign anything that way?

He signed it as the leader of the dem party

It makes him sound more important then he is
44 posted on 09/07/2006 4:32:04 PM PDT by Mo1 (Think about it .. A Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be 2 seats away from being President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: dirtboy

"Man, they are just shooting themselves in the foot with a .50 cal on full auto."

The Dems are so out of control right now that this thing is going to totally backfire on them big time.

45 posted on 09/07/2006 4:32:40 PM PDT by seawolf101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Txsleuth
Tim Roemer just said on CNN that "Bin Ladin was NEVER in someones sights"....

We've got Bubba on tape saying otherwise
46 posted on 09/07/2006 4:32:48 PM PDT by Mo1 (Think about it .. A Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be 2 seats away from being President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Integrityrocks
Where was this outcry over Farenheit 11?

Republicans/Conservatives are above all this type of thing doncha know. We take the "high road" while the commies are digging tunnels under us and everyone thinks it's funny.
47 posted on 09/07/2006 4:33:30 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! www.irey.com and www.vets4Irey.com - Now more than Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1
bttt
48 posted on 09/07/2006 4:33:59 PM PDT by DocRock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: hipaatwo

BTTT......

49 posted on 09/07/2006 4:34:23 PM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet-prayers for the kidnapped Israeli Soldiers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Mo1

Why would ANYONE beleive Clinton or his adminstration now after 8+ years of their obfuscation and lies?

50 posted on 09/07/2006 4:34:28 PM PDT by sirchtruth (No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

This one just keeps on getting better:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LorieByrd/2006/09/08/thwack!_will_democrats_never_learn

Thwack! Will Democrats never learn?
By Lorie Byrd
Friday, September 8, 2006

On September 11, 2001, this country woke up from a decade in which the President and the media had led them to believe that everything was just fine, and they experienced outrage as reality intruded. Not only were Americans outraged at murderous terrorists, but they were also outraged that their government had not taken the threat more seriously and had failed to connect the dots. Today, almost five years after the unprecedented attacks, there is new reason Americans should be outraged.

Following September 11 there was an outpouring of unity from those in government. Even the most partisan of politicians realized we faced an enemy that required them to work with their political opponents to mount an effective fight. Many congressional Democrats, and other leaders in the Democratic party, have not only abandoned that commitment to unity, but have chosen to put short term political gain ahead of the long term goal of national security. Americans should be outraged by this.

On the Fox News program Hannity & Colmes this week, David Limbaugh debated host Alan Colmes about the way Democrats have conducted themselves on matters of national security and on the issue of the war in Iraq. Limbaugh argued many of the points from his book, Bankrupt, saying that Democrats have not been honest brokers in the debate. Even more important though, he displayed a passion and outrage over the issue that has been sorely lacking. That may be about to change though, as Democrats are beginning to reap some unwanted results from their partisan strategy.

One point Limbaugh made is that over the past few years we have seen Democrats engage in behavior never before seen by a major political party during a time of war. He was outraged that, as he said in his book, "It was almost as if they were rooting for America's defeat and humiliating withdrawal in Iraq, just for the deliciousness of discrediting President Bush."

Democrats who voted for regime change in Iraq in 1998 because they believed Saddam was a threat with WMD and voted again in 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq based on intelligence they saw personally, changed course. When it became politically advantageous they decided to deny all they had said before about the threat posed by Saddam, and rather chose to accuse the President of "lying us into war." They did so with no regard for the impact their statements would have on the success of our mission there. For a while, the Democrats' strategy worked, but recently the truth has begun to catch up with them.

• It was Joe Wilson's claim that Bush lied about the "16 words" that started the "Bush lied" mantra in the debate over Iraq. Democrats invested a lot in Wilson's story of an administration so consumed by a desire for vengeance that they would sacrifice national security by outing a covert agent. Those in the media ran with Wilson's version of the story.Thwack! Over the summer Robert Novak broke his silence about the matter revealing the information he had given the independent counsel which contradicted Wilson's story. Later it was reported that Richard Armitage was the original leaker, not someone in the White House or a supporter of the war in Iraq. Democrats who had invested so much in the story were left looking like dupes.

• Democrats invested a lot over the past few years in their opposition to the Patriot Act and to the NSA surveillance program. Many in the liberal blogosphere, and even the Democrat congressman who would be the chairman of the judiciary committee if the Democrats retake the House, argued the case that Bush's use of the NSA Surveillance Program and his supposed assault on civil liberties were cause for impeachment.

Thwack! In August a massive terrorist plot involving over a dozen planes was uncovered in the UK. Cited as playing a key role in the discovery was intelligence that MI5 and Scotland Yard obtained using 'sneak and peak' warrant, as well as U.S. intelligence intercepts of the group's communications.

• Democrats treated the 9/11 Commission Report as a sacred document. Information from the report was used over and over again to beat up on President Bush. Opponents of the President quoted commission findings frequently and they scored some political points.

Thwack! An ABC mini-series based on the commission report, and even blessed by commission chairman Thomas Kean, is planned to air next week on the September 11 anniversary. Clinton administration officials and liberal bloggers are outraged by the portrayal of the Democratic administration, which is based on information from the same report they loved so much to selectively quote.

• Earlier this week, to counter the upcoming speeches President Bush had scheduled to make about national security and the War on Terror, Democrats made a media blitz across the cable spectrum. Their theme was how much less safe America is after five years of George W. Bush.

Thwack! On Wednesday the President gave a speech in which he detailed information that had been collected from some of the most notorious terrorists in the world, who had been held in secret CIA prisons. He explained with specificity how that information had prevented terrorist attacks and had led to the capture of additional terrorists. He then, just two months before the mid-term elections, charged Congress with the task of passing legislation to create military commissions to try terrorists for war crimes.

Just a word of advice to those Democrats who choose to continue putting partisan politics over national security in their upcoming pre-election debate over the legislation, don't be surprised when (either this November or in 2008) that strategy backfires with a big, loud "thwack" over the head.

Apples and oranges. Fahrenheit 9/11 was an unabashedly polemical work. Although it relied on objective facts as its basis, its conclusions were entirely subjective -- and Moore never said otherwise nor did he pretend to be making an even-handed, objective documentary. In contrast, this "docu-drama" that Disney/ABC is producing apparently claims to be a truthful, unbiased retelling of the events leading up to 9/11. If the movie had been entitled Ann Coulter's "9/11!" I don't think we'd be hearing the same criticisms (instead, we'd be hearing entirely different criticisms).

The fact that conservatives who may have been skewered by Fahrenheit 9/11 think that it was supposed to be a nonpartisan documentary says nothing about F9/11, but rather suggests that conservatives, as a group, cannot easily comprehend irony.

I think if anyone here needed to gain some "balance" by reading the spittle-stained ravings of the barely-literate right, they could go to Free Republic themselves (here, I'll even provide a link for those who lack the opposable digits to type in the URL themselves). Posting an entire comments thread from Free Republic in an A2K post is as objectionable as posting an entire comments thread from A2K in a Freeper post.

I don't know Joe. Moore presented his movie as a documentary. That is the only way I ever heard it referred to. ABC on the other hand is presenting this as a docu-drama. I don't think that excuses the inclusion of something they know is non-factual, but I do believe it makes their drama less than a documentary. In the many discussions of F911, I don't remember seeing anyone from the democratic persuasion here on A2K saying that the movie should be pulled from theatres because it contained distortions or whatever. Nor did anyone claim it was anything less than a documentary, thus implying that the movie was factual. That is the basis of my comment you highlighted.

But just so I am clear, there were plenty of mistakes made by both administrations. ABC, Michael Moore and anyone else wanting to do a movie about it should not have to make things up.

So now both ABC and Disney are part of the "vast right wing conspiracy", huh?

The truth really hurts you guys, doesn't it?

Coastal Rat: You're not complaining that Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't factual (it was), but rather that it wasn't objective. Now, it's true that Fahrenheit 9/11 was a documentary, but I'm not sure why you think that documentaries are necessarily objective. I can't think of any documentary that didn't follow the documentarian's point of view. Some documentarians try to maintain a more objective stance than others, but that's a personal choice, not one dictated by the nature of documentaries.

Who said that?


No, not really.

What about this organization? They part of the vast right-wing conspiracy too??


http://www.cpusa.org/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14702957/




Doesn't really sound like a description of a right-wing propaganda piece, does it? Near as I can tell, dems are coming unglued mainly from guilty consciences and knowledge of what MIGHT be in such a program.


I mean, I could understand threats of lawsuits, but these threats to shut ABC down from govt. agencies??

Seems obvious enough to me that if the rats should ever regain power in this country, you could forget worrying about things like the second ammendment or abortion rights, we won't even have freedom of speech.