Reply With Quote
I'll use today's GOP talking points . "Clinton is not running .." , "The GOP is blinded by their hatred of President Wiiliam Jefferson Clinton"..and so on..
Who will call out ABC for their Myths, lies and stupidity?
ABC Docudrama Sparks 9/11 Spat
By Jeff Stein, CQ Staff
The docudrama that ABC will air next week commemorating the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks seems likely to revive some long-running disputes over whether the Clinton or Bush administration has more to answer for in neglecting indications of a pending al Qaeda attack on the United States.
Link“The Path to 9/11,” a five-hour, two-part depiction of events prior to the attacks, is to air Sept. 10 and 11. And early reviews among veterans of the Clinton White House are decidedly negative: They argue that the show downplays the Bush White House’s culpability while inventing some scenes out of whole cloth to dramatize the supposed negligence of Clinton officials.
That complaint came to the fore at a National Press Club screening of the show late last month, when Richard Ben-Veniste — one of the 10 members of the independent Sept. 11 commission, whose final report producer Marc Platt credits with supplying much of the mini-series’ detail and narrative structure — rose to denounce the veracity of a key scene involving Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. Berger.
Berger, portrayed as a pasty-faced time-server by Kevin Dunn (Col. Hicks in “Godzilla”) freezes in dithering apprehension when a manly and virtuous CIA agent played by Donnie Wahlberg radios in from the wilds of Afghanistan to say that he and his noble band of local tribesmen have Osama bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to terminate him with extreme prejudice. In the film, the line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.
The moment is clearly intended to encapsulate the notion of American inattentiveness to the terror threat in the 1990s — a point driven home when the camera pans back to show Berger surrounded by a supporting cast of fellow Clinton administration nervous Nellies, including Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Defense Secretary William S. Cohen.
So when the post-screening question-and-answer session began, Ben-Veniste stood to say that the Berger-bashing scene didn’t square with the research he and the other commissioners conducted. “There was no incident like that in the film that we came across. I am disturbed by that aspect of it,” Ben-Veniste, a loyal Democrat, told the panel, which included both the producer and the commission’s GOP chairman, former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey.
Berger, reached by phone after the screening, seconded Ben-Veniste’s criticism. “It’s a total fabrication,” he said tersely. “It did not happen.”
I'll use today's GOP talking points . "Clinton is not running .." , "The GOP is blinded by their hatred of President Wiiliam Jefferson Clinton"..and so on..
Stinkin' partisanship...
Who the cares, who watches those things anyway?
Let them downplay bush's role and make clinton out to look like a patsy, it doesnt mean to the american people, because frankly, everyone knows that the on TV usually isnt true and furthermore, know one is ever going to know exactly what happened in the run up to septemeber 11th
It may be true, but I'm also inclined that to a lot of people, "downplay" would be anything short of a movie centered around a memo on the WH desk. With the memo played by Martin Sheen.
And with Monday Night Football hopefully very few will be watching this tripe.
What is alarming is ABC is spending 30 miillion on this propaganda piece, they are promoting it to educators, they are not making any money via commercial advertising, they have not allowed Clinton people to see the project yet have mass-distributed it to right wing media types........ Liberal media?? eh.
The only bigger gift Bush could get would be if Osama showed up on the White House lawn yelling "I surrender and have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Please forgive me."
"they have not allowed Clinton people to see the project"
... but ABC showed it to drug addict and rabble rouser extraordinaire Rush Limpballs.
What was it that the Repugs got ABC to cancel a couple years ago that Repugs didn't like?
Last edited by boutons_; 09-06-2006 at 08:30 PM.
A bio pic about the Sainted Ronald Reagan.
That might have been CBS I think.
Let's see, the Repugs are running on their phony national security record, while claiming the Dems are a bunch of national security wimps.
A few weeks before the election, obviously random/co-incidental timing for a $40M production, ABC shows a docudrama masqerading as do entary that shows the Dems as a bunch of national security wimps and sliming Dems as responsible for WTC attack, although Repugs were responsible for the national security apparatus for the 8 months before 9/11.
What were the Repugs doing for those 8 months? Nothing but cutting taxes for the super-rich, their only policy.
ABC smells like a Rove slime job. Probably will be very difficult to trace back to Rove and RNC, but it's worth a try. I'm sure someone will.
"Political pressure against a television drama is not unprecedented. In 2003, CBS dropped a four-hour miniseries about Ronald and Nancy Reagan after a concerted campaign by Republican and conservative groups. That series, “The Reagans,” was later televised on the cable channel Showtime."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/wa...rtner=homepage
Saint Ronnie wasn't running for office. The Dems are and are being slimed by the Repugs exactly the way the ABC show slimes them.
I read this in an article by David Broder of the Washington Post:ABC smells like a Rove slime job. Probably will be very difficult to trace back to Rove and RNC, but it's worth a try. I'm sure someone will.
One Leak and a Flood of Silliness
By David S. Broder
Thursday, September 7, 2006; A27
Conspiracy theories flourish in politics, and most of them have no more basis than spring training hopes for the Chicago Cubs.
Whenever things turn dicey for Republicans, they complain about the "liberal media" sabotaging them. And when Democrats get in a jam, they take up Hillary Clinton's warnings about a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
For much of the past five years, dark su ions have been voiced about the Bush White House undermining its critics, and Karl Rove has been fingered as the chief culprit in this supposed plot to suppress the opposition.
Now at least one count in that indictment has been substantially weakened -- the charge that Rove masterminded a conspiracy to discredit Iraq intelligence critic Joseph Wilson by "outing" his CIA-operative wife, Valerie Plame.
I have written almost nothing about the Wilson-Plame case, because it seemed overblown to me from the start. Wilson's claim in a New York Times op-ed about his memo on the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger; the Robert D. Novak column naming Plame as the person who had recommended Wilson to check up on the reported sale; the call for a special prosecutor and the lengthy interrogation that led to the jailing of Judith Miller of the New York Times and the deposition of several other reporters; and, finally, the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff -- all of this struck me as being a tempest in a teapot.
No one behaved well in the whole mess -- not Wilson, not Libby, not special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and not the reporters involved.
The only time I commented on the case was to caution reporters who offered bold First Amendment defenses for keeping their sources' names secret that they had better examine the motivations of the people leaking the information to be sure they deserve protection.
But caution has been notably lacking in some of the press treatment of this subject -- especially when it comes to Karl Rove. And it behooves us in the media to examine that behavior, not just sweep it under the rug.
Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and now a columnist for several publications, has just published a book led, "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime." It is a collection of his columns for Salon, including one originally published on July 14, 2005, led "Rove's War."
It was occasioned by the disclosure of a memo from Time magazine's Matt Cooper, saying that Rove had confirmed to him the iden y of Valerie Plame. To Blumenthal, that was proof that this "was political payback against Wilson by a White House that wanted to shift the public focus from the Iraq War to Wilson's motives."
Then Blumenthal went off on a rant: "While the White House stonewalls, Rove has license to run his own damage control operation. His surrogates argue that if Rove did anything, it wasn't a crime. . . . Rove is fighting his war as though it will be settled in a court of Washington pundits. Brandishing his formidable political weapons, he seeks to demonstrate his prowess once again. His corps of agents raises a din in which their voices drown out individual dissidents. His frantic massing of forces dominates the capital by winning the communications battle. Indeed, Rove may succeed momentarily in quelling the storm. But the stillness may be illusory. Before the prosecutor, Rove's arsenal is useless."
In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment. And we now know that the original "leak," in casual conversations with reporters Novak and Bob Woodward, came not from the conspiracy theorists' target in the White House but from the deputy secretary of state at the time, Richard Armitage, an esteemed member of the Washington establishment and no pal of Rove or President Bush.
Blumenthal's example is far from unique. Newsweek, in a July 25, 2005, cover story on Rove, after dutifully noting that Rove's lawyer said the prosecutor had told him that Rove was not a target of the investigation, added: "But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: That he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil."
And in the American Prospect's cover story for August 2005, Joe Conason wrote that Rove "is a powerful bully. Fear of retribution has stifled those who might have revealed his secrets. He has enjoyed the impunity of a malefactor who could always claim, however implausibly, deniability -- until now."
These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.
Hey Dan and boutons - I think you should heed this advice!!!
Wow! A full court press to save Clinton's legacy from information that is already known. Go figure.
There sure seems to be a bunch of gnashing of the teeth over this "docudrama."
Just what was Berger stuffing down his pants?
Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.
"especially when it comes to Karl Rove"
Rove deserves the slime-bag reputation he has worked so hard for years to gain.
With his history, he's asumed guility until proven innocent.
How many others cases like Plame where Rove has been innocent of sliming and lying vs cases where he has been guilty?
ie, if you were "ethically profiling" suspects rather than "racially profiling" suspects, Rove would fit the profile.
Okay, Chumpy, just what are the facts surrounding the most disputed parts of the movie? Because, I too am incensed that the movie isn't portraying the facts accurately. So, let's look at some facts.
Let's address principal inaccuracy being brayed about; the claim apparently made in the film that, "...it reportedly contains a scene in which Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser to President Bill Clinton, declines to give Central Intelligence Agency operatives the authority to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden..."
This is demonstrably inaccurate. There should not be one scene showing Clinton Administration officials declining chances to kill Osama bin Laden, but four.
The 9/11 Commission Report states unequivocally that on four separate occasions--Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000--U.S. National Security Advisor Sandy Burger was "an obstacle to action," preventing strikes that would have perhaps killed Osama bin Laden, decapitating al Qaeda well in advance of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks that killed nearly three thousand innocent people. This mini-series, if released with only one incidence of the Clinton Adminstration failing to kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance instead of the four chances we know that Samuel "Sandy" Berger blocked, is a whitewash of history. Damnit! We deserve accuracy.
Further, I am against any scene in the film that make's the infamous "Gorelick wall" seem "puzzling at best, and inaccurate at worst," as Congressional Democrats have claimed in a letter to Disney.
There should be absolutely no doubt of the effect of the Gorelick wall in hindering terrorist investigations:
As Senator John Cornyn was quoted in the same article:
I do agree the film is an inaccurate depiction of the Clinton administration's behavior toward terrorism in the '90s; I do highly suspect, however, that if Disney/ABC squared the film with the historical record that Democrat cries would only become more shrill and bombastic.
As for this and other ham-handed attempts at censorship by liberal Democrats, Giaus astutely notes:
I think the answer is obvious.
Sure, show the four opportunities.
Show the ignored memo.
Why be afraid?
Those have been shown? What's your point?
It's a docudrama. Congealing all four into a scene that represents the jist of Berger's actions is artistic license.
But, I agree, maybe there should be a do entary that does just what you suggest. I'd be in favor of it.
"Berger's actions"
Berger ed up big time. indefensible.
How does that paint the entire Clinton administration as responsible for 9/11.
How about a real do entary based on how Repugs ignored Clintonites warnings on Al-quaida, and how dubya listenedto or ignored the intelligence of summer 2001?
dubya and head were watching out for American when WTC was attacked. They are fully responsible for that attack. The truth has started to come and as more people retire from govt service, more truth will come out.
Those have been shown? What's your point?...But, I agree.
What's so funny?
All four instances are do ented in the 9-11 Commission's report. The Gorelick Memo is do ented in teh 9-11 Commission's report. I agree, let's have a do entary that exposes exactly what Berger, Gorelick, & Company did in the '90s.
I'm glad you're amused.
You.What's so funny?
The fact you don't see it makes it even funnier.
Deflection. nice technique when you're trying on someone who gives a .
I like the way you're totally ignoring the topic here.
What topic?
Anyone who is going to get their history from a show starring one of the New Kids on the Block deserves their fate.
Let me know how what you thought of it, Yoni.
Well, I won't be watching it.
But, there's a whole butt-load of Democrats and former Clinton administration officials -- including Clinton himself -- who seemed pretty exercised over the show starring of of the New Kids on the Block.
Seems they're might worried over what those who do watch might think.
What did Gorileck do?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed...1757-6420r.htm
Former Sen. Slade Gorton [R-WA], a 9-11 Commission member, specifically addressed and debunked the theory that Gorelick's memo prevented such intelligence-sharing in an August 18, 2005, letter to the editor in The Washington Times:
The one witness who did name Atta came to our staff shortly before the commission's report went to the printer. He said he thought he had seen something showing Atta in Brooklyn early in 2000. We knew, in fact, that Atta first arrived in the United States in June 2000 with a visa. For this and other reasons, the witness simply was not credible on this subject.
Additionally, the assertion that the commission failed to report on this program to protect Ms. Gorelick is ridiculous. She had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else
Later in the article
Congress created the walls that were in place before September 11 -- such as the National Security Act's prohibition on U.S. intelligence agency spying on Americans and the Posse Comitatus Act -- that have nothing to do with the Department of Justice memo. The Defense Department's own directives on sharing such information date from the 1980s.
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 09-07-2006 at 03:15 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
