RSS Feed
Loading ...
From DEMOCRATS.SENATE.GOV
SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP URGES DISNEY CEO TO CANCEL MISLEADING 9/11 MINISERIES
Washington, DC — 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 9/11 Commission report and is planning to air it on September 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.
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
Must Link to Texas Rainmaker! By far the best roundup I have read! Here is what he reports:
Oh really? Accordng to the 9/11 Commission’s Report, Berger was involved in at least 4 occurences of “failing to support” such requests.
1. Early 1998:
In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.
Then, even after the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania:
National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke sent Berger a memo suggesting a strike against al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan. According to the commission, however, in the “margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’“
2. August 2000:
Berger was presented with a plan to attack bin Laden based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. “In the memo’s margin,” the commission said, “Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’”
3. June 1999:
The potential target was an al-Qaida terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. But the commission cites Berger’s handwritten notes on the meeting paper, which referred to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.” The Berger notes said, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”
But aside from all that, yeah, the movie’s inaccurate.
But, unfortunately it appears ABC has caved to the Clinton threats. (But is it really a surprise that Robert Iger would step in?)
Makes one wonder even more just what was in those “sensitive after-action reports on the Clinton administration’s handling of al-Qaida terror threats” that Sandy Bergler stole from the National Archives and subsequently destroyed.
Update:
I apologize for insinuating that the Clinton administration didn’t have an approach to dealing with terrorism. I’ve uncovered proof of just how they dealt with it:
Update 2:
In response to the argument that the Clinton administration didn’t pass on a chance to get bin Laden… Here are Clinton’s own words (audio file).
“Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again.
They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here, because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
Hugh Hewitt, “Every time I think the Democrats have hit bottom, they dig a new basement.”
September 7, 2006 - 07:40 PM on September 7th, 2006
With idiot Democrats like this it’s easy to see why the Idiot Republicans still control the White House, Senate, and Congress.
I would explain why the Democrats are idiots here, but it would take me way to long to type all of their mistakes that I see. (I have crack to smoke after all)
September 7, 2006 - 07:46 PM on September 7th, 2006
This is not the brightest move to make, that’s for sure!
September 7, 2006 - 08:09 PM on September 7th, 2006
Morons! Morons I say. Why are the rank and file Democrat-citizens so damn stupid? They ask nothing of the Democrat leadership and they get it.
Hating President Bush isn’t going to get you any where.
September 7, 2006 - 08:13 PM on September 7th, 2006
See the update I added Zelda. Historically, the Democrats should be taking back control this year. Realistically, I don’t think it will be a slam dunk. They threaten a major broadcast organization with the revoking or their license? Come on! That reeks of impropriety! If only they would work so hard for us! TERM LIMITS PEOPLE!
September 7, 2006 - 08:24 PM on September 7th, 2006
“I apologize for insinuating that the Clinton administration didn’t have an approach to dealing with terrorism. I’ve uncovered proof of just how they dealt with it:”
Great picture. I think it is pretty accurate.
I wish I could post a picture of President Bush’s method of dealing with terrorism. It involves lots and lots of guns, but no aim at all.
September 7, 2006 - 08:27 PM on September 7th, 2006
Okay; I have to return to my crack pipe.
Thank god it is illegal; otherwise I might never be able to afford it.
The white man is the devil. But the white rock gives me wings.
September 7, 2006 - 08:30 PM on September 7th, 2006
5- I’ll find one for you!:wink:
September 7, 2006 - 08:38 PM on September 7th, 2006
3.
Amen.
The king is dead. Long live the king.
September 7, 2006 - 11:13 PM on September 7th, 2006
I Have a question for the Idiotic Dems who signed that letter. Exactly HOW do you think you’re going to revoke ABC’s broadcasting license? Or rather I should say licenses? They have to have a license for every single station that they own. Only the FCC can revoke a broadcaster’s license, do they think that they are going to be able to get the FCC to revoke the few dozen licenses for the stations that ABC owns AND the HUNDREDS of licenses of the ABC affiliates? ABC is only allowed to own a limited number of stations. The VAST majority of the stations broadcasting this movie will be ABC affiliates. I really want to see these morons TRY to revoke all of these licenses. Seeing as the Dems are entirely wrapped up in appearance over substance, I have to think that they are being incredibly short sighted. Up until this point, the main stream media have been almost entirely pro Democrat. Exactly how do they think the Media is going to respond to them threatening the Media’s very livelihood over a movie? There’s also the fact that I don’t even know if it’s possible for the FCC to revoke a license versus simply refusing to renew it. It’ll take a LOT of complaints to bring a renewal into question, and I doubt that a single incident will be grounds for refusal to renew no matter how many trumped up complaints that the Dems may be able to generate.
BTW whatever happened to the tolerance and diversity that the Dems are always loudly proclaiming to support? Steal classified documents from the National Archives? That’s okay as long as you’re a Democrat. Commit perjury to a Grand Jury? That’s okay as long as you’re a Democrat. Produce a movie full of lies and inaccuracies? That’s okay as long as you’re a Democrat flunky. Make a movie chronicling historical events that reflect poorly on BJ Billy’s administration? That’s totally unacceptable, HE’s a Democrat.
September 8, 2006 - 04:00 AM on September 8th, 2006
Who was it that was behind CBS pulling the Reagan miniseries?
Extraordinary conservative furor caused it to be moved to Showtime.
Why?
Complaints about inaccuracies, if I remember correctly.
Neither that nor the current flap shows the venal politics behind such events in a good light.
Reagan’s son accused CBS of distorting the legacy of Ronald Reagan.
Boo-hoo & such is “free-speech” in a land crammed full of partisans.
Then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said CBS’ decision “smells of intimidation to me.”
That’s a ‘zipper statement’. You can now zip the names of various republicans in Daschle’s place, but the thinking is the same – reversed.
This is the same old bullshit that is only okay if your guys are on the winning side.
September 8, 2006 - 05:09 AM on September 8th, 2006
A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices.
- William James
September 8, 2006 - 05:11 AM on September 8th, 2006
CBS claimed the Reagan thing was all truth. Then again, Barbra Streisand helped produce the series!
September 8, 2006 - 05:52 AM on September 8th, 2006
it’s interesting that you should bring up Streisand.
Cyrus Nowrasteh wrote the 9/11 TV show & he’s a conservative.
last year, Nowrasteh spoke on a panel titled, “Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift.”
the problem isn’t that Nowrasteh is conservative. The problem is that Nowrasteh and ABC are representing ‘The Path to 9/11′ as an unbiased historical drama.
September 8, 2006 - 06:27 AM on September 8th, 2006
By the same token, CBS should get a certificate of achievement for Dan Rather’s groundbreaking/career-ending efforts to torpedo Bush with fake documents.
September 8, 2006 - 06:35 AM on September 8th, 2006
by the same token, Fox News should get a Presidential Medal of Honor for its outstanding service to the Bush Administration.
such is the state of what passes for ‘journalism’ in 2006.
September 8, 2006 - 07:06 AM on September 8th, 2006
Ala Babs:
So let’s see. CBS put words into the mouth of Reagan (private scenes between Ron and Nancy that no one would be privvy to). Rather than just make a disclaimer that this is a fiction or some other wording, they put it on another network and the reviews say that it sucked. Let’s not even get into the fact that only Babs would wait until the body was lukewarm to do such a movie.Which was to say that Reagan did nothing for AIDS.
Fast forward to 2006 and we have Democratic senators threatening to pull licenses based on hearsay. So far ABC has added that this is a depition of events, Just like Flight 93, those people all died on the plane, so we really have no way of knowing exactly what was sad. But in this case, we do have living people that were involved and they say the only thing they can’t verify is that Sandy slammed the phone down!
September 8, 2006 - 07:43 AM on September 8th, 2006
Lets go brand the demacratic donkey with a swatika on its rear isnt this just typical of liberal demacrats who dont want their elected dictators names draged through the mud:mad:
September 8, 2006 - 09:18 AM on September 8th, 2006
15: It wasn’t any better in 2004, shiloh.
Keep in mind, a lean to the left is “normal” and “objective” for the media. To be “fair” and “balanced” (as you or I consider the terms) in one’s reporting is to be biased to the right. And at least Fox puts both sides on.
September 8, 2006 - 10:19 AM on September 8th, 2006
I found this and thought it was somewhat relevant to what y’all are talking about here…
“The Reagans” miniseries might have been pulled because of disagreements over its script, but media critics from the right and left say it reflects broader issues.
They just don’t agree on which ones.
CBS’ decision was applauded by fans of the former president, who were worried the film scheduled to air Nov. 16 and Nov. 18 would distort Ronald Reagan’s legacy.
“This reminds us all that the American people have a strong voice in deciding what is fair and appropriate,” said U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va.
link
September 8, 2006 - 10:34 AM on September 8th, 2006
18
Sasha
Fox [mostly] puts both sides on, i agree.
they have perfected the art of editorializing the news with just enough innuendo, voice inflection & body language to communicate what they’re really trying to get across.
some of the interviews are a joke. a fellow named [i think Cameron] is simply a joke. the kinds of questions he asks conservatives are sympathetic & softballs. democrats & other traitors are grilled like Annie Lee Moss was when she was accused by Joe McCarthy of being a Communist infiltrator in the Pentagon.
Coulter et.al of course insist that Annie was, indeed, a Commie, but like so many accusers, provided no evidence. such was the wonderful patriotism demonstrated by the drunk known as tail gunner Joe.
September 8, 2006 - 11:09 AM on September 8th, 2006
SF- I think that this is actually the money quote from the article:
Yet critics disgusted by the furor of a movie virtually no one has seen — part of a trend of pre-emptive strikes on controversial entertainment projects — said a dangerous precedent was set.
“If the decision not to air ‘The Reagans’ was made in response to political pressure, it will have a chilling effect on future creative efforts in this genre,” said Herb Sargent, president of the Writers Guild of America, East. “Even under the threat of advertiser boycott, networks must not allow special interest groups to dictate programming.”
How right they were in that prediction.
September 8, 2006 - 03:12 PM on September 8th, 2006
Thjis is governement censorship at an unreasonable level, plain and simple, if true.
September 8, 2006 - 03:26 PM on September 8th, 2006
yeah, well, republicans reap what they sow.
September 8, 2006 - 04:43 PM on September 8th, 2006
23.
Not just REpublicans, but Democrats also.
Don’t turn a bling eye: “Physician, heal thyself.”
September 8, 2006 - 07:06 PM on September 8th, 2006
shiloh is back?!?!?!?!
What happened?
Hey shiloh; don’t let any planes that need 7,000 feet to take off use a 4,000 foot runway. Okay?
September 8, 2006 - 11:38 PM on September 8th, 2006
Bad move, DEMS - No doubt the docudrama made Clinton look bad, by portraying actual events - I said “made”, because it’s being overhauled completely as we speak - But I REALLY think the controversery the DEMS are stoking will re-visit them - And I understand the “final” version is out, so perhaps we’ll get to watch FOX show the “editing” - Could be quite interesting - This is much ado about something that will become even more ado…thanks to the DEMS hysteria, and their reckless threats.
September 9, 2006 - 12:25 AM on September 9th, 2006
I heard an interesting interview with the writer today. According to him, all of the hullabaloo is based on hearsay about only the 1st half of the film. While it’s true that BJ Billy’s administration dropped the ball repeatedly, even his buddy Dick Morris said so on the Sean Hannity show today, the Bush administration wasn’t exactly let off the hook either. Apparently the press showing only covered the first half of the movie due to time constraints. The first half of the film only runs up until Jan 1, 2000. The second half of the film is after that and therefore the first half wouldn’t have covered the Bush adminsitration at all unless it was about something in Texas where Bush was Governor at the time.
As I have said, they should allow the film to run as originally edited. If they had simply kept their mouthes shut, far fewer people would’ve watched it than will watch it now. And if there has been a major overhaul in the editing, people are going to want to know what has been edited out. A fact that will only increase the controversy.
As for the proper response for ABC CEO, I’d recommend that he take out ads on all of the networks and major newspapers stating that the “due to the controversial nature of the material covered in the film, which is a vetted dramatization of the findings of the 9/11 commission, the undersigned Democrats have threatened to impede Disney’s ability to do business by refusing to renew their broadcast licenses. As the US government has a policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists, Disney refuses to negotiate or accede its constitutionally guaranteed rights to free expression to those who threaten it. As the undersigned Congressmen and Senators have stated that airing this film will bring our service to the public good into question, we shall do our best to prove our intent to serve the public good by running a series of investigative reports about the business dealings of members of Congress and the Senate starting with the undersigned Senators. As a wonderful article on the lobbying activities of Senator Harry Reid’s sons has been published in the LA Times, we feel that revisiting the Senator’s personal involvement with lobbyists and the financial rewards that his family has received from that involvement would be an excellent place to start.”
Imagine the response to having all of these guys’ shady business dealings broadcast nightly on “Nightline” Want to watch politicians run for the corners like Cockroaches in a cheap apartment when the lights’ are turned on?
September 9, 2006 - 03:22 AM on September 9th, 2006
25
Hi Zelda…
If you’re surprised I’m back, just imagine my shock when i got an email from mike kilo & pcd, begging me to come back, saying there weren’t enough people left here for them to cajole, threaten & condemn.
Plus, I don’t have the enough masochistic experiences in my life at this time.
Nice to still you’re still a junkie; current events & otherwise.
September 9, 2006 - 05:07 AM on September 9th, 2006
In the red state of Alabama, Republican state representative Gerald Allen introduced a bill that would ban a huge list of books from libraries, universities, and schools. Specifically, Allen has proposed a law that would prohibit “the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.”
It’s not just political books advocating freedom for gays and lesbians that would be banned. Any book with a gay or lesbian character would also be banned. Also, any books that discuss homosexuality without condemning it would be forbidden.
If the Republican politician has his way, students at Alabama colleges and universities would not be allowed to read biology textbooks that discuss the role of genetics in the development of sexual preference.
University theatre groups would be unable to outlawed from performing Tennessee Willliams’ play “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”.
Alice Walker’s book “The Color Purple” would become contraband.
Even reading “Bridget Jones’ Diary” would become illegal.
John Irving’s “The World According to Garp” would be confiscated if found on library shelves, and students would not be allowed to discuss “The Portrait of Dorian Gray” by Oscar Wilde.
Even Stephen King’s book “It” would be categorized as illegal.
In public schools, the law would make it illegal for teachers, administrators, or adult visitors to say anything about homosexuality other than to condemn it as wicked.
let’s all legislate morality.
September 9, 2006 - 06:15 AM on September 9th, 2006
29- And in you follow it to the end here is the money quote:Editor’s Note: When the time for the vote in the legislature came there were not enough state legislators present for the vote, so the measure died automatically.
Did it come up again?
September 9, 2006 - 06:22 AM on September 9th, 2006
30
the point is he tried. do you think he’s the only Republican trying to censor & legislate morality. i could provide a list of rightwing organizations that have organized boycotts of everything from Murphy Brown to Star Wars.
idiocy is not party specific as Jack A. Neal implied.
September 9, 2006 - 06:50 AM on September 9th, 2006
Yes shiloh, a man in the republican party tried. Not the entire Republican party.
When you are composing that list of boycotts, don’t forget to include one for the boycotts during the Civil Rights Movement as it pertains to the 60’s and Dr. King. Don’t forget to do one that includes the left wing boycotts.
Boycotts are a form of free speech. They are a wonderful tool. Are you suggesting they are only good if used by causes you believe in?
Did the Republican Party threaten to pull the license for the Network of Murphy Brown? I don’t think so! Here is what Candice Bergen had to say:
In 2002, Candice Bergen, the actress who played Brown, said “I never have really said much about the whole episode, which was endless, but his speech was a perfectly intelligent speech about fathers not being dispensable and nobody agreed with that more than I did.”
The point of Quayles words were missed. We are now faced with the reality of a 70% birthrate of illegitimate children in the black community. Illegitame children is in no way limited to blacks but that figure is alarming any way you look at it.
September 9, 2006 - 07:01 AM on September 9th, 2006
neither does Mr Neal’s imlication of ” DEMS hysteria, and their reckless threats” apply to the entire population of the party, although no one rushed to point THAT out.
September 9, 2006 - 07:15 AM on September 9th, 2006
33- Well, let’s see how wrong you are here: You have The DNC, which represents the party, the senators that signed their names to a threatening letter, Bill Clinton, his minions, Sandy “Pants” Berger, and Madeline. The left wing bloggers tried, stupidly, to compare this to “The Reagans”. Ronald Reagan was in the last stages of a horrendous disease(a disease that does not need stem cells for a cure). He was in no position to defend himself. On the other had you have Bill Clinton. Rather than address the issue, which some feel he won’t because he can’t, he has sent his minions out there to do his calling. Why not take some questions on the subject of OBL? This mini series represents something the Dems don’t want to face. It was a stupid move any way you look at it…Know why? They have done something GWB couldn’t…they angered the right wing base and united us going into November….The gloves are off and we will see who is standing on election day!
September 9, 2006 - 07:44 AM on September 9th, 2006
former acting FBI Director Thomas Pickard said Ashcroft dismissed warnings of terrorist threats that summer and rejected appeals for additional counterterrorism funds.
Pickard said that “in late June and through July, he met with Attorney General Ashcroft once a week,” the report says. “He told us that though he initially briefed the attorney general regarding these threats, after two such briefings the attorney general told him he did not want to hear this information anymore.”
Clinton shares responsibility for intelligence failures & for not responding with more force to get/kill OBL. you’ll get no argument here. The slavish devotion to Bush & his failed policies, a man who’s done more to divide this country than any president in my lifetime would be comical if he weren’t such a danger to the Constitution of the United States.
The incompetence of this administration is staggering.
September 9, 2006 - 08:01 AM on September 9th, 2006
From ABC
The following disclaimer will air throughout the movie:
“The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report and other published materials, and from personal interviews. The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression.”
Of course they’ve also released a trailer overseas that has the tag line:
“”You know WHAT happened. Now see HOW it happened.” and goes on to refer to the mini-series “the shocking truth” about the events leading up to September 11.”
Friggin hypocrites.
September 9, 2006 - 08:11 AM on September 9th, 2006
35- No one is arguing that Bush hasn’t made mistakes. As for you saying the most divisive etc..You are almost 60 years old. Withing the past 20 years we have had alternative news sources and within the past 10, blogs and internet…poeple have had more options to speak up within the past 10 years than ever before..therefore..it isn’t GWB, it is the people that have made it divisive!
For almost 40 years of your life, you relied on the big 3 networks and the local news..
September 9, 2006 - 08:26 AM on September 9th, 2006
Sean Hannity here,
I simply cannot believe (and I believe tons of horseshit) this big flack over mine and Rush’s “personal friend”, Cyrus Nowrasteh’s, little docupropodrama. Im my circles it is a well known fact that Bubba was not only responsible for the destruction of the Towers, but also for Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust and the 1918 influenza.
Not possible you say? He wasn’t even born yet? Well, you are confusing truth with facts, a common failing of overeducated liberals, i.e. - Reaganomics, The Iraq War and Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. You see, misguided moonbats, you don’t need facts to know the “truth”. In religion, politics and supermarket tabloids the “truth” is whatever one chooses to believe. It is that simple!
If Nowrasteh tole me Mickey Mouse piloted American Airlines Flight 11 I’d still blame Clinton….
Sean Hannity
September 9, 2006 - 08:28 AM on September 9th, 2006
38
i was actually ‘chanelling Hannity’ when i wrote 38.
had you fooled tho, huh?
September 9, 2006 - 08:32 AM on September 9th, 2006
Time to take out the old whip and beat that jackass till it brays and thats at the voting booth and we vote all those rotten to the core demanazis out of office and give them their pink slips:mad:
September 9, 2006 - 08:38 AM on September 9th, 2006
I wonder if the ABC rightwing docudrama will include the August 2001 Intel report warning that OBL was plotting to attack inside the US.
I wonder if it will include Ashcroft telling his deputy he didn’t want to see anymore terror-related memos.
I wonder if it include Bush reading ‘My Pet Goat’ after the plane hit.
September 9, 2006 - 09:51 AM on September 9th, 2006
gosh - reading the news just now about this TV show, it seems the rightwingers that are behind it are being pressured by 100’s of thousands of the people (more people than objected to Massachusetts providing security for the x Iranian prez, peejz - so i guess that equals “the people” don’t it?) to take out some of the crap they are trying to peddle for truth.
A group of historians agree with Clinton. They wrote to the CEO of Walt Disney, the parent of ABC, calling the inaccuracies “disingenuous and dangerous.”
“A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the falsification of history, except to expose it,” wrote the historians, which included Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Sean Wilentz of Princeton University.
Schlesinger and Wilentz are probably not conservatives so they can be called names. perhaps they, too are “morally or intlectually confused” like everybody else who disagrees with the Bush policies, accroding to thge SecDef.
persoanlly i believe President Cheney & Bush & Rumsfeld who are morally or intlectually confused.
September 9, 2006 - 10:09 AM on September 9th, 2006
41- I guess you don’t read. It does include it!
September 9, 2006 - 10:13 AM on September 9th, 2006
A group of historians? Wow! You mean the same people that gave F911 the thumbs up?
You seem to take issue with the words that Rummie used. But it is growing tiresome and has nothing to do with the conversation. Rummie didn’t call to have you taken off the blogs for disagreeing with him did he? Again..is it only okay for these people to speak out if they agree with you?
September 9, 2006 - 08:01 PM on September 9th, 2006
shiloh;
Hey; it’s great to have you back. Don’t worry about mike kilo and PCD; we’re not in high school anymore.
This place got really bad for a while.
If I wanted to hear that President Bush was perfect and never made mistake; I would listen to Rush Limbaugh.
You morons!!!! President Bush IS NOT PERFECT!!!! HE HAS MADE MISTAKES!!!! The Democrats are still borderline retarded; but that does not change the fact the President Bush has made mistakes… Big ones.
September 9, 2006 - 09:10 PM on September 9th, 2006
When has anyone here said that Bush is perfect and has not mistakes?
September 9, 2006 - 09:14 PM on September 9th, 2006
CBS can do everything in the world for the Democrites, including contributing Dan Rather to the political world, but let CBS step out of line just ever so slightly, and not only are they out of favor, the Democrite leadership wants to put them out of business!
Unbelievable! Democrites are the party of fascism!
September 11, 2006 - 06:30 PM on September 11th, 2006
46;
Okay, that’s not verbatim; but it is the mindset.
September 11, 2006 - 08:02 PM on September 11th, 2006
You apparently haven’t read many posts here, including some of the ones I have posted.
September 12, 2006 - 08:20 AM on September 12th, 2006
Zelda, are you sure one of your nine kids didn’t get you some rock with PCP in it or something?
September 12, 2006 - 08:42 PM on September 12th, 2006
Re: 50
It’s really hard to know what the Government did with my kids. Why don’t you ask the government?
But they didn’t get any from me! I keep mine hidden.
September 12, 2006 - 08:56 PM on September 12th, 2006
Robert;
“You apparently haven’t read many posts here, including some of the ones I have posted.”
You are mistaken. I have read many, many posts here. I am not new to this site. Unfortunately; the white man has changed things on me. I can’t give this site my best anymore. I apologize. Even so; perhaps you could learn from me and I could learn from you. For example…
“Democrats are the party of fascism!”
Come on!… That is crazy talk. It is below you! You are obviously smarter than that. Who do you think you are talking to? Anyone who would believe that isn’t going to listen to what anyone here has to say.
September 12, 2006 - 10:52 PM on September 12th, 2006
When the Demokrats try to take censorship to the extreme, to the point of threatening to pull ABC’s broadcast license because they don’t like some of the content politically, you wouldn’t call that fascism?
I and others criticized the hell out of Farenheit 911, but we didn’t suggest that any movie theater that shows it should have its business license revoked.
September 13, 2006 - 08:17 AM on September 13th, 2006
Actually, I remember on this site, we debunked what he peddaled as truth. We discussed at length how the Democratic leadership embraced F911 as the truth. We also threw in many a jab at his other movies..I, in particular, had a field day with BFC, as he somehow tied Dick Clark into the death of a 5 year old in Detroit. We all laughed that people were so simple minded to believe this man and then he showed up at the 04′ Democratic Convention with a seat next to Jimmy Carter! And that is when the fun began! It was shortly after the 04′ election that the Dems stopped hanging around him!
September 13, 2006 - 11:32 AM on September 13th, 2006
#53, Robert…
Republicans and Conservatives forced CBS to pull an unflattering Ronald Reagan biopic.
The means may have been different but the end was the same.
September 13, 2006 - 12:04 PM on September 13th, 2006
Unflattering personally to RR as an individual? If so, that is an entirely different context from the current situation.
This case deals with national security and the legacy of Klinton’s malfeasance, directly costing lives, jobs, and money.
September 13, 2006 - 05:59 PM on September 13th, 2006
Robert;
“When the Demokrats try to take censorship to the extreme, to the point of
threatening to pull ABC’s broadcast license because they don’t like some of the content politically, you wouldn’t call that fascism?”
As I remember it was 3 Democrats. (I don’t know for sure) I would call those Democrats morons; not Fascists. But even if they were fascists, for you to group all Democrats under a label of Fascists is fundamentally absurd.
Republicans push censorship all the time too.
September 13, 2006 - 06:06 PM on September 13th, 2006
They are party leaders, and they were well and widely supported by a firestorm of rhetoric from their underlings, including the Daily Kosrs, etc.
And I did not say all Democrats. I said Democrat was the party of fascism, as evidenced by the actions of their political leaders. You morphed the statement into “all”.
My observation stands: The Democrite party is the party of fascism (censorship, political correctness, intolerance, etc.)
September 13, 2006 - 07:33 PM on September 13th, 2006
57.
Amen.
58.
Neither party is s party of fascism. “Fascism” is the most misuded word I’ve ever seen. Uder Fascism, a central leader regiments industry. Here, industry has control of the central leader, both parties and pretty much the citizen ship. The almighty dollar (controlled by business)rules both of these parties and I am sorry, if you folks don’t see it them you are fools.
So, we aren’t moving towards any type of a fascist state but m