Enough with the right-wing propaganda! [Archive]

Yerdaddy

09-07-2006, 03:44 AM

Top officials of the Clinton administration have launched a preemptive strike against an ABC-TV "docudrama," slated to air Sunday and Monday, that they say includes made-up scenes depicting them as undermining attempts to kill Osama bin Laden.ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes." But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission's report, although that report contradicts several key scenes.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Marc Platt, the film's executive producer, said that although it "does contain composite and conflated scenes and representative characters and dialogue, we've worked very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously of concern. We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view."The former Clinton aides voiced their objections in letters to Robert A. Iger, chief executive of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., but the network refused to make changes or to give them advance copies of the movie. They were not interviewed by ABC; it hired as a co-executive producer Thomas H. Kean, the Republican who chaired the Sept. 11 commission, but no Democratic members of the panel."In an undertaking this gargantuan," Platt said, "it's impossible to interview every single person available, and we didn't believe we needed to." He said that "maybe I'm naive" in thinking that hiring only Kean would not prompt criticism of a political slant.Not interviewed!!?? These people give interviews to Ceramic Dog World magazine when they call. The idea that a major television network would make a movie about 9-11 without actually interviewing the public figures you're going to portray is unheard of. This is a right-wing hatchet job being conducted with the help of the television network that knows that right-wing propaganda will make it tons of money.[QUOTE]Among the scenes that the Clinton team said are fictional:· Berger is seen as refusing authorization for a proposed raid to capture bin Laden in spring 1998 to CIA operatives in Afghanistan who have the terrorist leader in their sights. A CIA operative sends a message: "We're ready to load the package. Repeat, do we have clearance to load the package?" Berger responds: "I don't have that authority."Berger said that neither he nor Clinton ever rejected a CIA or military request to conduct an operation against bin Laden. The Sept. 11 commission said no CIA operatives were poised to attack; that Afghanistan's rebel Northern Alliance was not involved, as the film says; and that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet decided the plan would not work.· Tenet is depicted as challenging Albright for having alerted Pakistan in advance of the August 1998 missile strike that unsuccessfully targeted bin Laden."Madame Secretary," Tenet is seen saying, "the Pakistani security service, the ISI, has close ties with the Taliban." Albright is seen shouting: "We had to inform the Pakistanis. There are regional factors involved." Tenet then complains that "we've enhanced bin Laden's stature."Albright said she never warned Pakistan. The Sept. 11 commission found that a senior U.S. military official warned Pakistan that missiles crossing its airspace would not be from its archenemy, India.· "The Path to 9/11" uses news footage to suggest that Clinton was distracted by the Republican drive to impeach him. Veteran White House counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke, who also disputes the film's accuracy, is portrayed as telling F

cupcakelove

09-07-2006, 03:49 AM

I don't know if this actually does anything, but I got <a target="_self" href="http://www.democrats.org/pathto911">this</a> link in an email yesterday from a mailing list I'm on. Its a form where you can send a message to Disney's president about the program. I usually don't believe that things actually get to the people their supposed to, but I fill them out anyways. <a target="_self" href="http://www.democrats.org/pathto911">http://www.democrats.org/pathto911</a> 

This message was edited by cupcakelove on 9-7-06 @ 7:50 AM

LordJezo

09-07-2006, 04:09 AM

Meh.Michael Moore gets an Oscar and now someone on the right
is doing stuff and they are sacrificed at the alter of the left wing
controlled media.

cupcakelove

09-07-2006, 04:23 AM

LordJezo wrote: Meh.Michael Moore gets an Oscar and now someone on the right
is doing stuff and they are sacrificed at the alter of the left wing
controlled media. Michael Moore presented facts, even though they were presented in a very annoying way, they were still facts.  This contains lies and fabrications that directly conflict with the 9/11 Comission's report, which happens to be what ABC claims this is based on.

AKA

09-07-2006, 04:51 AM

LordJezo wrote: Meh.Michael Moore gets an Oscar and now someone on the right is doing stuff and they are sacrificed at the alter of the left wing controlled media. How can we forget that right below the "Blame Clinton" on the right wing deflection check list...* Blame Michael Moore for winning an Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine" - check* Reference religion to come across as persecuted - check * Blame Left Wing LIBERAL Media - check Yes - that should do nicely to get people's attention away from the fact that every major facet of our government is actually being controlled by one political party - a party currently divided between religious fervor that rivals our pals in Saudi Arabia and a consuming greed of entitlement that has come from both being in power too long, and by doing the bidding of big corporations. We use to relish the days of have a government of checks and balances, but willful ignorance has won out due to fear and boredom.

bobrobot

09-07-2006, 04:58 AM

The day we have a left wing controlled media will be heaven on Earth compared to the disaster that is our right wing controlled (demolished???) government. I just luv those left wing channels like Fox!!! "Fair & balanced" HA HA HA, what fucking idiot believes that enormous pile of bullshit??? If anyone's raising their hand, quit bombing abortion clinics long enough to make yourself useful. Go find Osama, off you go... shoo... shoo!!!

A.J.

09-07-2006, 04:58 AM

AKA wrote:  a party currently divided between religious fervor that rivals our pals in Saudi Arabia Nobody rivals them.  They have a religious police force for Allah's sake.

AKA

09-07-2006, 05:02 AM

A.J. wrote: AKA wrote:  a party currently divided between religious fervor that rivals our pals in Saudi Arabia Nobody rivals them.  They have a religious police force for Allah's sake.Give us time.

blakjeezis

09-07-2006, 05:13 AM

Michael Moore presented facts<a href="http://mysite.verizon.net/res78x0a/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/bellylaugh.wav" target="_blank">Listed here</a>

HeyGuy

09-07-2006, 10:43 AM

Of course this is going to air just weeks before the nov elections. This is what the Republicans do, they sacre you and have things come out right around election time. Just like the elections in 04. Bin Laden made a tape all of the sudden? And it came out a few days before the election? Most Americans fall for this shit. Like we havent been attacked so hes doing a good job. Bull shit. No matter who is in office we will prob always have attacks. The key is to get the world back on our side. So the republicans can scare us all they want. With most of the world hateing us, we will always be less safe.Think of this "The Path to 9/11" uses news footage to suggest that Clinton was distracted by the Republican drive to impeach him. Veteran White House counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke, who also disputes the film's accuracy, is portrayed as telling FBI agent John P. O'Neill: "Republicans went all out for impeachment. I just don't see the president in this climate willing to take chances."You can take this a different way as well. If the reublicans werent so hateful of Clinton that they had to waste his time over a blow job maybe thing would be different!

joeyballsack

09-07-2006, 11:11 AM

Left /Right arguments are getting so lame. Cant we all agree that both administrations did things to drop the ball in the case of 9/11 ? It was a failure of government all around and now both parties are jockeying to capitalize on that failure. Isnt there something wrong when something as tragic as 9/11 is politicized ? Cant people see that both parties have much to gain by keeping the masses in fear, whether it be fear of terrorism or fear of your own government ? In the meanwhile, the Clinton and Bush families go on vacation with each other laughing about how easy it is to manipulate the American public.

UnknownPD

09-07-2006, 12:57 PM

Media outlets are neither conservative nor liberal. They are entertainment arms of mega corporations that are only interested in making a profit. Truth doesn't matter; ratings do

This message was edited by UnknownPD on 9-7-06 @ 4:58 PM

foodcourtdruide

09-07-2006, 01:08 PM

LordJezo wrote: Meh.Michael Moore gets an Oscar and now someone on the right is doing stuff and they are sacrificed at the alter of the left wing controlled media. "left wing controlled media"? Can you please explain this to me? How is the media left-wing controlled?

Furtherman

09-07-2006, 01:20 PM

foodcourtdruide wrote: LordJezo wrote: Meh.Michael Moore gets an Oscar and now someone on the right is doing stuff and they are sacrificed at the alter of the left wing controlled media. "left wing controlled media"? Can you please explain this to me? How is the media left-wing controlled? Well, when there are stories presented to us every day on how disillusioned the American people have become with this administration's blunders and ineptitude, i.e. the truth, well, then it must be a "left wing" media.There are no examples.I'm not talking the difference between Republican and Democrat.  Those differences do not matter anymore.  They haven't for a long time.  That's the fault that lies in the media.  Whenever a talking head says "liberal" or "neo-con" or whatever, their mic should be cut off.  They're feeding an addiction that too many of the masses are hooked on.  You're either on the right side of the line or the left side of the line, and none of them are looking AT the line, which is common sense.  You know what hurts Bush the most?  His speeches.  The fact that he gets on TV and shovels the same shit is amazing.  And when he fields questions!  If his people has any brains, they would never let him do that.  The man is remedial.  It's embarrassing.  This is a man who thought Sweden was neutral and Switzerland not.  Only 865 days left.

sr71blackbird

09-07-2006, 04:13 PM

I know many people who feel that Liberals want nothing more than for us to lose the war on terror so that Bush looks even weaker.  They would rather sacrifice our freedom and safety and weaken us in the eyes of the terrorists than support Bush at all costs.

spoon

09-07-2006, 06:31 PM

NortonRules

09-07-2006, 06:37 PM

The shoe is on the other foot and the liberals can't handle it.  This is great. 

spoon

09-07-2006, 06:42 PM

sr71blackbird wrote: I know many people who feel that Liberals want nothing more than for us to lose the war on terror so that Bush looks even weaker.  They would rather sacrifice our freedom and safety and weaken us in the eyes of the terrorists than support Bush at all costs. That's just plain idiotic.  The old "both parties suck" argument is getting old as well.  Bottom line is that we need to make the best choices this November based on the candidates each party puts out there.  I for one see the important need for a better balance in all three braches of our government so you know the way I will probably cast my vote.  Quite simply, the world and our country is not better off over the last 2, or even 6 years since Bush and the Republicans were in power.  The amount of corruption has been unreal, and the lies have all but become commonplace.  Sure we need to reveamp our system from time to time, and that time has come.  A start is a better mix in the House and Senate.  From there, perhaps some true investigations will take place and the new reps/senators can do their best to shake this pile of shit up.

Tenbatsuzen

09-07-2006, 06:57 PM

It's just a fucking movie.  No one is forcing you to watch it.  Just like the left slants things their way, the right slants things their way.  Shit happened, you can't take it back, the only problem now is to fix it and heal.

Ogre

09-07-2006, 07:00 PM

joeyballsack wrote: Left /Right arguments are getting so lame. Cant we all agree that both administrations did things to drop the ball in the case of 9/11 ? It was a failure of government all around and now both parties are jockeying to capitalize on that failure. Isnt there something wrong when something as tragic as 9/11 is politicized ? Cant people see that both parties have much to gain by keeping the masses in fear, whether it be fear of terrorism or fear of your own government ? In the meanwhile, the Clinton and Bush families go on vacation with each other laughing about how easy it is to manipulate the American public. Could not have said it better myself.  It's not left and right.  It's the elite 5% and the rest of us schlubs, and they pit us against one another while they laugh it up.

CuzBum

09-07-2006, 07:27 PM

Yerdaddy, bringing people together one thread at a time.

HBox

09-07-2006, 07:37 PM

<img width="533" height="400" border="0" src="http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/1654/aplan11ft8.jpg" /> Wait, I think I misunderstood this thread.

Se7en

09-07-2006, 08:16 PM

Holy shit, some of you here are a fucking laugh riot.  "Michael Moore presented facts"???  That's damn near DU quality comedy right there.Anyway, about this story - it's my favorite one of the day, for two reasons:  you could see ABC caving in to the pressure from the left a mile away, and the left's blatant hypocrisy (while simultaneously claiming to be the innocent victims of LIES and SLANDER here - even though the 9/11 commission has already established that the Clinton Administration wasn't a 100% blameless).As for ABC, I don't blame them for possibly changing things.  They have to be careful, what with the fact that Senate Democrats have issued a thinly veiled threat <a href="http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzMyNjE1N2UwZjk4ODY3MjYzYTdhNzgwMTkwZjYwMDE=" target="_self">to revoke ABC's license</a> if they air the movie as is.I quote from that letter:[QUOTE]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. [...]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.But wait, I thought it was the Republicans who always want to stifle our free speech?And who can ignore the hypocrisy here?  Remember the Ronald Reagan movie from a few years back?  That is the most appropriate analogy to this current film.  Democrats sure didn't seem to have a problem with that airing.  I even recall them chiding the Republicans for making a stink about it.  What did the DNC say about that film again?  <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005025.php" target="_self">Oh yes:</a>"No, there are no First Amendment violations here. The RNC protested the content of a program, which is its right, and CBS voluntarily pulled that program off the air, which is its right. "But the decision makes it very easy to imagine a future where representatives for the Bush administration have the power to disapprove of any content that touches politics, policy, or history — including news programs."That's fro

Tenbatsuzen

09-07-2006, 08:56 PM

Yerdaddy wrote:Not interviewed!!??... make a movie about 9-11 without actually interviewing the public figures you're going to portray is unheard of.    <img width="337" height="500" border="0" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JOZG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" />  <blockquote />

CuzBum

09-07-2006, 09:00 PM

<img height="500" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JOZG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" width="337" border="0" />When I read the tagline, "four planes were hijacked, three of them reached their target, this is the story of the fourth", I seriously got choked up.

Tenbatsuzen

09-07-2006, 09:02 PM

CuzBum wrote: <img width="337" height="500" border="0" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JOZG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" />When I read the tagline, "four planes were hijacked, three of them reached their target, this is the story of the fourth", I seriously got choked up.   You know, if you watch that movie on Monday, your brain will like, explode.

HBox

09-07-2006, 09:05 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: CuzBum wrote: <img width="337" height="500" border="0" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JOZG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" />When I read the tagline, "four planes were hijacked, three of them reached their target, this is the story of the fourth", I seriously got choked up. You know, if you watch that movie on Monday, your brain will like, explode.   And if you watch it on a flight you start spontaneously beating Arabs.

Tenbatsuzen

09-07-2006, 09:08 PM

HBox wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: CuzBum wrote: <img width="337" height="500" border="0" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JOZG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" />When I read the tagline, "four planes were hijacked, three of them reached their target, this is the story of the fourth", I seriously got choked up. You know, if you watch that movie on Monday, your brain will like, explode. And if you watch it on a flight you start spontaneously beating Arabs.    And then Neil Young writes a shitty song about it.

HBox

09-07-2006, 09:10 PM

CuzBum wrote: <img width="337" height="500" border="0" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JOZG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" />When I read the tagline, "four planes were hijacked, three of them reached their target, this is the story of the fourth", I seriously got choked up.  If you want to read something horrendously offensive, peer into the following invisitext.And it also puts the pussies in the other three flights in their place.

Tenbatsuzen

09-07-2006, 09:13 PM

HBox wrote: CuzBum wrote: When I read the tagline, "four planes were hijacked, three of them reached their target, this is the story of the fourth", I seriously got choked up. If you want to read something horrendously offensive, peer into the following invisitext.And it also puts the pussies in the other three flights in their place.    Wow, that may have topped my line about Steinbrenner being responsible for 9/11 last year. As a refresher: Don't be silly.  If Steinbrenner was responsible for 9/11, the planes would have flown FROM New York City to destroy Boston.

tele7

09-07-2006, 09:20 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:  HBox wrote:  Tenbatsuzen wrote:  CuzBum wrote: <img height="500" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JOZG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" width="337" border="0" />When I read the tagline, "four planes were hijacked, three of them reached their target, this is the story of the fourth", I seriously got choked up.   You know, if you watch that movie on Monday, your brain will like, explode.   And if you watch it on a flight you start spontaneously beating Arabs.    And then Neil Young writes a shitty song about it.  He needs a good boot in the ass from Toby Keith.

HBox

09-07-2006, 09:23 PM

<a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/07/harvey-keitel-speaks-out-on-path-to-911-it-turned-out-not-all-the-facts-were-correct/" target="_blank">Oh shit. They pissed off the Wolf.</a>

Tenbatsuzen

09-07-2006, 09:28 PM

HBox wrote: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/07/harvey-keitel-speaks-out-on-path-to-911-it-turned-out-not-all-the-facts-were-correct/">Oh shit. They pissed off the Wolf.</a>    Now pretty please, with sugar on top... watch my fucking movie

Tenbatsuzen

09-07-2006, 09:30 PM

telecaster7 wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: HBox wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: CuzBum wrote: When I read the tagline, "four planes were hijacked, three of them reached their target, this is the story of the fourth", I seriously got choked up. You know, if you watch that movie on Monday, your brain will like, explode. And if you watch it on a flight you start spontaneously beating Arabs. And then Neil Young writes a shitty song about it. He needs a good boot in the ass from Toby Keith.   Bar none, as much of a Toby fan I am, that song gives me the fucking douche chills.  The music of the song is great; the lyrics show why Toby doesn't write a majority of his songs.

Furtherman

09-08-2006, 06:45 AM

It's horribly obvious that people who automaticaly label others who disagree with their political beliefs either a "righty" or "lefty" are uneducated morons.As soon as those labels are affixed in a person's statement, that statement should automaticaly become void. Assholes.  And as for these movies, they are shameful attempts for RATINGS so the network can increase their cost per thousand viewers rate that they charge the advertisers.  That's it.There is no "right" or "left" agenda about it.  There is simply dollars predicted, dollars received.Anything more than that and you are fool for believing that.

nwm

09-08-2006, 07:24 AM

It is just a movie who cares. With the logic that I read on this thread we should go get John Rambo to fight in the war on terror. I mean the way he took on the Russian army and won I would think he could find Osama in less then a week.  I saw Rambo kick ass on TV so it has to be true

Yerdaddy

09-09-2006, 03:47 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:  Yerdaddy wrote: Not interviewed!!??... make a movie about 9-11 without actually interviewing the public figures you're going to portray is unheard of.    <img height="500" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JOZG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" width="337" border="0" />  Show me where that movie portrayed public figures who were not consulted by the filmmakers, or where the events of the movie were direct contradictions of the 9-11 Report?

Bulldogcakes

09-09-2006, 04:57 AM

<img width="380" height="258" border="0" src="http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20060830/capt.46634edd4d97482abe4231772b8d9755.spain_tomato _fight_jj805.jpg?x=380&y=258&sig=ZF8CM945nx_OGWXJd.O4qw--" /><img width="264" height="344" border="0" src="http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20060830/i/r2101912787.jpg?x=264&y=345&sig=Cz9ShxEUUewNL8OaOdDgZg--" />  This was enlightening

Yerdaddy

09-09-2006, 05:27 AM

Se7en, once again you prove that the only thing you hate more than liberals and Muslims is being right.(while simultaneously claiming to be the innocent victims of LIES and SLANDER here - even though the 9/11 commission has already established that the Clinton Administration wasn't a 100% blameless).In the article I posted are the direct contradictions between the movie and the 9-11 report. Did you intentionaly ignore those contradictions when you wrote this crap, or are you too stupid to read it? I'm sure you ignored it deliberately simply because, instead of actually following the 9-11 Commission version events, the film portrays the conservative talking-points version of events. That's why Limbaugh, (since when has this scumbag had any credibility with anyone except people like LordJezo and Se7en?), endorsed it. And that's why you're lying about the facts in order to defend it.Senate Democrats have issued a thinly veiled threat to revoke ABC's license if they air the movie as is.Thank you for posting the letter because it allowed me to read it and see that there is NO threat contained within it. It is a complaint about the actual distortions from the 9-11 Commission Report being portrayed in a movie to be shown on the public airwaves on September 11th. They are pointing out the fact that the granting of a federal licence to broadcast on a public station, (as opposed to cable), legally requires the company to serve the public interest, which broadcasting deliberate lies about an event like 9-11 is the opposite of. There is no threat, especially given the fact that the Democrats have no power to revoke anything in the Congress right now. It's the responsibility of the Congress, however, to supervise the use of the public airwaves and see that they are not used for political propaganda. And who can ignore the hypocrisy here?  Remember the Ronald Reagan movie from a few years back?  That is the most appropriate analogy to this current film. And what did Republicans find objectionable in the film that makes this a good comparison? As I remember it the objections had to do with the portrayal of Reagan describing AIDS in religious terms and being unsimpythetic to those who had it because they were mostly gays. This is NOT comparable to the distortion of events leading to the worst American tragedy in 100 years. So unless you can find something more substantial about the political flaws of that film, it's not the same issue as this film raises.Man, how sad.  You guys have Michael Moore making movies so full of inaccurate 'facts" and deliberate distortions that they're not even true documentaries. Most of us so-called lefties attacked Michael Moore and his movie at the time and since. His film was also not broadcast on public airwaves, commercial-free, on the fifth anniversary of 9-11. He's nothing but a red herring in this discussion. You've got guys like Spike Lee making films perpetuating urban myths about Katrina. I've got no idea what the hell that is. But, again, film, not public airwaves or on one of the four mainstream commerical publicly-licensed television stations, which have a legal obligation to objective political broadcasts, and which have historically been committed to ballance and legitimacy. Hell, you even have a new film that deals explicitly with the subject of the left's latest fetish - the assassination of Bush "latest fetish" as though all us liberals are calling for his assassination! Fuck you. AND THAT'S NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN FILM! It's British, for fuck's sake! You're desperate and sad. You're literally outraged that one dopey miniseries is even PARTIALLY critical of the Clinton administration, even though the ALLEGED inaccuracies in the film aren't even that outrageous or, really, that removed from actual historical fact. See facts above. [quote]It's not as if ABC is trying

Tenbatsuzen

09-09-2006, 05:46 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Not interviewed!!??... make a movie about 9-11 without actually interviewing the public figures you're going to portray is unheard of. <img width="337" height="500" border="0" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JOZG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" /> Show me where that movie portrayed public figures who were not consulted by the filmmakers, or where the events of the movie were direct contradictions of the 9-11 Report?   Barbara Olson?

Yerdaddy

09-09-2006, 06:46 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:  Yerdaddy wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote:  Yerdaddy wrote: Not interviewed!!??... make a movie about 9-11 without actually interviewing the public figures you're going to portray is unheard of.    <img height="500" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JOZG.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" width="337" border="0" />  Show me where that movie portrayed public figures who were not consulted by the filmmakers, or where the events of the movie were direct contradictions of the 9-11 Report?    Barbara Olson? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson" target="_blank">She was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77</a>. Not even in the movie.<img height="600" src="http://www.uscharterboats.com/womenanglers/pics/wa275%20fl%20aboardfishing%20bikini-fishing-lrg.jpg" width="317" border="0" />You're fishing, but nice ass.

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 9-9-06 @ 10:50 AM

Tenbatsuzen

09-09-2006, 06:51 AM

Look, all I'm saying is that "Right Wing Propoganda" means that it's forced over the head that people believe it.  If you look at how 9-11 "movies" (as opposed to documentaries) have performed, not a lot of people are believing it.  Especially with Bush's approval ratings.  As I said before in the "I Will Not See World Trade Center", this is tragedy porn for people who want to have a connection with that day.  Nothing more. If you honestly believe that after the clusterfuck the second Bush administration has been, if any remnant gets elected in 2008, I'll be shocked and saddened.  McCain/Giuliani, please.

Yerdaddy

09-09-2006, 07:38 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: Look, all I'm saying is that "Right Wing Propoganda" means that it's forced over the head that people believe it.  If you look at how 9-11 "movies" (as opposed to documentaries) have performed, not a lot of people are believing it.  Especially with Bush's approval ratings.  As I said before in the "I Will Not See World Trade Center", this is tragedy porn for people who want to have a connection with that day.  Nothing more. If you honestly believe that after the clusterfuck the second Bush administration has been, if any remnant gets elected in 2008, I'll be shocked and saddened.  McCain/Giuliani, please.   I hear what you're saying. That SHOULD be true. But the fact is that propaganda works. It worked for the Nazis, it's worked for American politicians in the past, and it works here for this shitty authoritarian government I live under now. In fact I posted this story because it reminded me of the Yemeni ruling party's use of official media to put forth it's own election propaganda. I don't don't have faith that the administration and the neoconservatives will be held responsible for any of the failures that I'm sure you're referring to when you say "clusterfuck" simply because they've never been held accountable for anything to date. At the time Bush won re-election in '04 the public had access to information to the fact that there were no WMD or links to al-Qaeda, and that we were, at the time, losing the Iraq War. Most of the colossul failures that the Bush team made in Iraq were made before November '04. But, because of the constant stream of propaganda flowing through the mainstream news, like Fox, and the networks' constant coverage of the Swift Boat Vets, which was proved by military records to be complete lies, the Democrats were labeled as worse. Based on what? Propaganda. Fear-mongering and lies. Now if you've seen "Good Night and Good Luck" you'll see that the three (now four) main television networks were once required to "balance" political opinions by offering "equal time" to opposing sides in order that the public's own airwaves were not used to mislead them politically. During the time that policy was required by law the networks had an incentive to appear, and thus to be objective. The reputations of the networks were created by the proffessionalism of their news departments. The American people trusted the networks for accuracy more than any other sources.But that law was overturned in 1987 and anybody could say just about anything on the airwaves. Right away Limbaugh took advantage of this and shot to national political figure status and made shitloads of money for himself and his network. Other outlets of right-wing talking heads picked up on this newfound source of revenue and political influence and followed suit and multiplied. Fox news was spawned, combining Rupert Murdoch's two favorite things: right-wing ideology and making shit-loads of money in the largest market in the world. Ann Coulter made the cover of Time Magazine a couple of months ago. And so on and so on. Now the left, never entirely comfortable making money in the first place, has not followed suit. And I don't want them to. The problem I see is that this kind of freedom to lie for money has changed the entire political culture of conservatism. The kind of conservatism that makes the most money, and thus is in our faces the most, is the craziest shit these fuckers can think of. The Hannitys and the Coulters don't espouse traditional values so much as demonize the left and everyone else who doesn't share their views. Whatever their views are, apart from this, I don't even know. There is no honest debates with them; they either stack their shows with pussy or stupid 'liberals' or they just sit with three or four other "anti-liberals", (I

CuzBum

09-09-2006, 07:55 AM

I hate made for tv movies.

Tenbatsuzen

09-09-2006, 08:20 AM

Yerdaddy, are you trying to tell me that the Left wasn't just as capable of propaganda?  Moveon.org and the Concerts for Change immediately come to mind. Bottom line: Voters had a choice between two evils.  They chose the evil they knew over the evil they didn't.  Kerry was a weaker candidate.  That's why Bush got re-elected.

Yerdaddy

09-09-2006, 08:52 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: Yerdaddy, are you trying to tell me that the Left wasn't just as capable of propaganda?  Moveon.org and the Concerts for Change immediately come to mind. Bottom line: Voters had a choice between two evils.  They chose the evil they knew over the evil they didn't.  Kerry was a weaker candidate.  That's why Bush got re-elected. Yes, I'm trying to say that the left is not as capable of propaganda. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveon" target="_blank">Moveon.org's</a> commercials were issue-oriented and no worse, factually, than the Bush campaign's own commericals. The biggest piece of evidence the right ever put forth about them was that some random lefty submitted a commerical to their website that compared Bush to Hitler. It wasn't even Moveon.org that did it! On the other hand the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans" target="_blank">Swift Boat Vets</a> put forth a best-selling book and trotted out a veritable clown car of vets who each accused Kerry of some misdead in Vietnam none of which was corroborated by the official military records. They were proven to be liars, and, one by one, they went into hiding after being exposed as liars. Meanwhile, with $500k in seed money they aired their commericals in four states and with the help of the "liberal media" 77% of Americans had seen the commericals, and 25% of swing voters said they believed there was "some truth" to the ads. That's alot of propaganda for the buck, and I'm saying, yes, the left have nothing that can compete with that. Especially when, given at the same time that John McCain, (who called the ads <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/06/opinion/lynch/main634587.shtml" target="_blank">"dishonest and dishonorable"</a> and that "It’s the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," by Rove and Bush), called on Bush to condemn these ads specifically, Bush did not have the moral courage to do it. THAT'S the kind of leader his base wanted. The left has nothing comparable. That's what I'm saying. And that's why Kerry was a weaker candidate: because his base would not have reawarded him for such moral cowardice. And that's why all this crap conservatives are spouting about "they're both equally bad" is bullshit. There's no way in hell Kerry would have created the same mess in Iraq, or spawned so much hatred for us in the world. It's just that there is no conservative conscience anymore. Not until the moderates speak out against it and stop making these false-equation fallacies as an excuse.

sailor

09-09-2006, 08:54 AM

so, michael moore makes a blatantly, viciously distorted movie about 9/11 (in which he was implying that bush was in cahoots with the saudis...that's what i believe se7en was referring to) and that constitutes a "red herring", but swiss director david cunningham makes a movie that appart from some dramatizations (i don't believe it's ever been referred to as a documentary) is WAY less slanted, it is a "campaign video for bush"?  and then you have the audacity to compare it to nazi propaganda?  and as for the senate democrats letter, this is obviously a threat, to say otherwise is lacking in intellectual honesty.  just because you may lack the power to carry out a threat, doesn't make it any less of a threat.

Yerdaddy

09-09-2006, 09:27 AM

bronxmarc wrote: so, michael moore makes a blatantly, viciously distorted movie about 9/11 (in which he was implying that bush was in cahoots with the saudis...that's what i believe se7en was referring to) and that constitutes a "red herring", but swiss director david cunningham makes a movie that appart from some dramatizations (i don't believe it's ever been referred to as a documentary) is WAY less slanted, it is a "campaign video for bush"?  and then you have the audacity to compare it to nazi propaganda?  and as for the senate democrats letter, this is obviously a threat, to say otherwise is lacking in intellectual honesty.  just because you may lack the power to carry out a threat, doesn't make it any less of a threat. You're obviously ignoring everything I've already said. I and others have already condemned Moore, and his movie is not comparable for reasons I've stated already. "Dramatizations" is the term you, like Se7en, use to ignore the direct contradictions with the 9-11 Commission Report detailed in the initial post. I did not compare it to Nazi propaganda. I said propaganda works, here and there. Describe how the letter is a threat in accordance with any dictionary definition of the word "threat". It's a complaint letter by any definition, and calling it a threat is simply parrotting some right-wing blog who is spinning the letter like Bill O'Reily on his favorite loofah.[edited: nevermind]

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 9-9-06 @ 1:34 PM

CuzBum

09-09-2006, 09:34 AM

Why do people let themselves get all bent out of shape over this shit?

sailor

09-09-2006, 09:41 AM

"try just a little to care if you're right or not."  if you wish to try to persuade people, perhaps talking down to them is not the route to take?

Yerdaddy

09-09-2006, 09:41 AM

CuzBum wrote: Why do people let themselves get all bent out of shape over this shit? "An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy." - Thomas Jefferson

CuzBum

09-09-2006, 09:42 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: CuzBum wrote: Why do people let themselves get all bent out of shape over this shit? "An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy." - Thomas JeffersonTom never saw a mediocre made for tv movie, OR DID HE!<img src="http://www.nonstuff.com/wp-content/billandted.jpg" border="0" />

JimBeam

09-09-2006, 09:43 AM

Yerdaddy while I do respect you pointing out certain things and adding refferals for documentation I think it's a little hypocritical for you to " know that Kerry wouldn't have been this bad " and the " world wouldnt have hated us as much ".What are you basing your logic and fact on when making that statement ?That the first attack on the WTC didnt come when a Democrat was in office ( and not that I'm saying thats why that attack occured just pointing to the fact that terrorism doesnt only occur due to the global hatred of right-wing politics ).You point to the rush of people to decide on what the swifty boat ads said but what about Dab Rather's rush to put that nonsense he " discovered " on the air ?You don;t think that was a bad thing ?( And if that issue was addressed earlier in the thread I apologize for not going back and reading it in its entirety ).

Yerdaddy

09-09-2006, 09:53 AM

bronxmarc wrote: "try just a little to care if you're right or not."  if you wish to try to persuade people, perhaps talking down to them is not the route to take? I'm sorry. It's a kind of knee-jerk reaction to that kind of argument. I didn't condone Moore, I didn't compare this to Nazis, and I want you to show me how the letter is an actual threat and not the same kind of coplaint letter that comes out of Washington every day with thousands of others just like it. I didn't mean to be rude, and I took that part down before I saw this post. I need a trip to the meadow.<img height="150" src="http://mightyshep.com/images/opusveep1.jpg" width="115" border="0" />Peace.

sailor

09-09-2006, 10:10 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: bronxmarc wrote: "try just a little to care if you're right or not." if you wish to try to persuade people, perhaps talking down to them is not the route to take? I'm sorry. It's a kind of knee-jerk reaction to that kind of argument. I didn't condone Moore, I didn't compare this to Nazis, and I want you to show me how the letter is an actual threat and not the same kind of coplaint letter that comes out of Washington every day with thousands of others just like it. I didn't mean to be rude, and I took that part down before I saw this post. I need a trip to the meadow.<img width="115" height="150" border="0" src="http://mightyshep.com/images/opusveep1.jpg" />Peace.  it's cool.  of course they don't come out and say directly they'll take away their license, but it's certainly implied.  we gave you a nice free license to do "A" but we don't think you're living up to your part and doing "A".  it's implied that their recourse would be to take away their license.  it's like if you got a letter from the IRS (for instance) stating "we put people in jail who don't pay their taxes.  we notice you haven't paid your taxes.  we look forward to hearing from you to resolve this matter."  there's an obvious implied threat there.  while it's not in exactly the same format as the other, i hope you can see the similarity.  :)  i also have no experiance to say whether or not there are thousands of others like this coming out of washington everyday.  if there were, i'd still say they were threats, but they would definitely carry much less weight than i'm currently giving this letter.

rckiller

09-09-2006, 10:23 AM

We all have the ability to "censor" the show. Just turn on a football game or read
a book. Personally I think the big fuss about it will just up the ratings.

Yerdaddy

09-09-2006, 10:36 AM

JimBeam wrote: Yerdaddy while I do respect you pointing out certain things and adding refferals for documentation I think it's a little hypocritical for you to " know that Kerry wouldn't have been this bad " and the " world wouldnt have hated us as much ".What are you basing your logic and fact on when making that statement ?That the first attack on the WTC didnt come when a Democrat was in office ( and not that I'm saying thats why that attack occured just pointing to the fact that terrorism doesnt only occur due to the global hatred of right-wing politics ).You point to the rush of people to decide on what the swifty boat ads said but what about Dab Rather's rush to put that nonsense he " discovered " on the air ?You don;t think that was a bad thing ?( And if that issue was addressed earlier in the thread I apologize for not going back and reading it in its entirety ). Thanks for the respect. Same to you. I base the Kerry statement on the way Kerry handled his role in the lead-up to the war given his role as Senator in the minority party, and one who was running for president. (I have to run through this in a couple minutes becuase I'm late for dinner already. But, since dinner is being made by my German girlfriend, I'm not in THAT much of a hurry.) When voting for the authorization to use force weeks before the midterm elections Kerry added a statement that stated that force should be a last resort, that disarming Saddam was important and that inspectors should be supported fully by the adminsitration until the point that they are prevented from making progress in their work. Bush did the opposite. He and the adminsitration belittled the UN publicly, calling it "irrelevant" and, a week before the key negotiations between the UN team and the Iraqi government, the Bush administration leaked a memo from Bush authorizing US agents to assassinate Saddam if the opportunity provided. Many of the inspectors were Americans, and the Clinton adminsitration had, in fact planted intelligence agents on the first UN inspection team, as Saddam was well aware of. These and other actions are how the Bush team undermined the inspections. We now know that it was the work of the first inspection team that caused Saddam to make the decision to destroy his weapons. [See the just released <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html?sub=AR" target="_blank">Senate Intelligence Committee Report.</a>]Experts, including some on Bush's own inspection team, have stated that Saddam probably could have been forced, in the post-9-11 atmosphere, to have eventually come clean with the fact that he had already destroyed his unconventional weapons, and probably would have accepted a permanent monitoring presence in exchange for security guarantees and some lifting of sanctions. Would have better than what we've got now, no?But Kerry was not a "no blood for oil" democrat. Further, Kerry's statements and actions regarding the war have been very close to that of the two moderate republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Hagel and Lugar, who have been extremely crititcal of the Bush administration's handling of the war. During the campaign his team did have plans for the post-war strategy that were more public than the Bush adminsitration has ever made their plans, and they didn't include the monstrous mistakes that the Bush administration has made - the ones that republicans have pointed out, like disbanding the Iraqi Army, allowing the nation-wide looting, not having enough troops to secure the country, not securing key facilities like ministries and suspected WMD sites and weapons stockpiles, not planning for an insurgency, lagging two years to strain sufficient numbers of Iraqi forces, etc.Basically what I'm saying is: I can't imagine a Republican president in the last 100 years who would have made