It looks like liberals are trying to stop the ABC documentary "Path to 9/11"
I understand, when someone simply presents facts, it looks bad for the Left.
There is no commentary needed, no spin necessary.
Just show what happened, present all the facts, and let people make up their own minds.
Then, why are liberals so mad?
The Smear Campaign Against ABC’s ‘The Path to 9/11’
Bozell Column: ABC's Compelling 'Path to 9/11'
ABC's Sept. 11 mini-series under fire...
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
STOP THE TRUTH!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
So?
But if the "facts" presented are events that never happened, how can we expect people to make up their minds intelligently?
When conservative bloggers and media figures get preview copies of the film, but the historical and political figures characterized in the film can't, you must ask what they are hiding.
When a film that is advertised to be "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" contains scenes, dialogue, and other events that directly contradict what's in that report, how can we take it seriously?
Look, conservatives gloated for weeks after convincing CBS to cancel "The Reagans," believing some of the things in that film were historically innaccurate. We have clear evidence that things in "The Path . . ." are historically innaccurate, and yet conservatives are demanding ABC stand firm. What gives with the double standard?
I guess I just don't believe someone who stuffed classifed documents in their underpants and a guy who lied under oath..
Do you believe the 9/11 Commission Report?
This movie was written by a conservative HACK. Jay has it right. If ONLY Repugs get to review the film, what are they trying to hide. ABC obviously knows it's unfair and unbalanced.
Oh, and by the way, is ABC still on your "liberal media" list? What horse manure!
I love how people like Jim want to deny the millions of examples of liberal bias for one instance of something that is actually balanced
Balanced? What horse manure! This is no more balanced than Hannity is balanced.
Jim's obviously seen the film so all discussion is moot. But from the interview I heard tonight with the writer, and an actor on Hugh Hewitt's show, it sounds as if no one is really made to be the holy one. It seems to be about how everyone had a hand in failing concerning the events leading up to 9/11. The libs are just pissed that most of that lead up happened on their watch, but the film isn't concerned about that. He seems to fell both parties failed. From what little I've heard, I don't see any comparison between this and the Reagan nonsense.
Then why aren't non-Republic bloggers and critics allowed to review it?
If a member of the 9/11 commission says it is false and two members of the Clinton AND BUSH counter-terrorism team say it is false, then I'm inclined to believe it is false.
I wonder if the mock-u-drama will detail ALL the things that Rice and Bush did about al-Qaeda and terrorism between January 20th and September 11th. Will they show the 7 minutes that the "Commander-in-chief" spent like a deer staring into headlights in the Florida classroom upon learning that "America is under attack"?
Now THERE is a classic scene!
game, what then, DO you stuff in your underpants? ...if not classified documents?
It has no more lies in it than Michael Moore's propaganda piece about the subject that the lefties orgasmed over.
If a member of the 9/11 commission says it is false and two members of the Clinton AND BUSH counter-terrorism team say it is false, then I'm inclined to believe it is false.
If the Chairman of the 9/11 commission says it's accurate, I'm inclined to believe it's accurate.
Oh, and by the way, is ABC still on your "liberal media" list?
Did FoxNews airing RFK Jrs. propaganda piece on global warming make you change your opinion of them?
how can we expect people to make up their minds intelligently?
We have to deal with this in reality anyway. It's been nothing but double standards & hypocrisy anyway since the current administration took office. If people are blind to the fact that they are watching a t.v. show, and what t.v. is all about (crap anyway), then they need to turn the damned thing off. Television is biased in one direction or another; has always been, and always will be. People know this for the most part. Let them make up for their own minds what's true and what isn't -- they have to on a daily basis anyway.
This whole thing is still a non-issue to me; I hate the boob tube anyway. This is one of the reasons why.
And game, you can't call it "fair and balanced". It point-blank realistically isn't. The point I'm trying to make is, what the hell do we expect? It's t.v. for god's sake. Trivial. Something we all should be taking long walks, playing baseball, or finding some other excuse to exercise during anyway. Makes it all moot. The fact that people are still such bad couch potatoes to watch this crap is what the issue is to me.
its all man down their rhyno, no room for documents...
and yes, if the movie is about the lead up to 9-11, that would be 8 years for Clinton, 8 months for Bush...so it should be mostly about Clinton
"Will they show the 7 minutes that the "Commander-in-chief" spent like a deer staring into headlights in the Florida classroom upon learning that "America is under attack"?"
I dunno, Jim. Will they show the 30 minutes John Kerry (I believe it was) says he and a bunch of Senators sat stunned? How typical you'd mention that 7 minutes as if it means anything. Did you hear what was said in his ear and how it was said? Were you able to see what else was going on in that classroom at that moment? Can you sit there and actually think you have the skill and power to know what was going through his mind at that moment? Do you spend a lot of money on aluminum foil?
John Kerry was not the "commander-in-chief" when the US was attacked, so what does that have to do with anything?
Andy Card has said and nobody has disputed it that he told the president that a second plane had hit the WTC and "America is under attack." Can you imagine any president in the age of nuclear tipped ICBMs who would hear the words "America is under attack" and sit there for 7 minutes. And then they came up with the lame excuse that he didn't want to alarm the children. Are you f**king kidding me?
What else was going on in the classroom? I dunno, what do you think? Maybe the kids were blocking the door so he couldn't leave to make command decisions, to find out if there were incoming missiles, to be available to make shoot down decisions.
And you can shove your tinfoil. There is no conspiracy theory in anything I have written here.
Conspiracy? Perhaps not. Stupid and baseless opinion? Without a doubt. That anyone can assume that they or anyone else would respond in a better way, and of course never bother to suggest what that way might be specifically, is beyond goofy. Who the hell are YOU? The Amazing freakin' Kreskin? What it is is your basic Bush Derangement Syndrome. Take any incident at all, and one with BDS can easily twist it into a negative. It's pretty easy to sit back and judge how a president acts in such a situation. It's pretty arrogant to assume you have any freakin' idea of what could be going throug his mind or what the proper response should be or look like. Bottom line: you're full of crap.
Doesn't matter marshall.
The people of the USA (like jim, you & me) are the ones who are the judge & jury both for the pReZ. We are the ones who vote them in, vote them out if we don't like them.
I do have to admit that 7 minutes right off the bat, when I first learned of it, I thought was GWB maybe giving himself time to collect his thoughts before he spoke -- I have since reconsidered just for the very reason you stated: no one knows.
Sept. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Bush administration claims justifying the war against Iraq were based on fragmented, conflicting, and at times unreliable intelligence, according to two reports released today by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Read more here.
game, what then, DO you stuff in your underpants? ...if not classified documents?
Mother thumb & four fingers. That is, if one believes the "men are smarter than women" crap (see thread above on front page), and that the majority of men's brains are in their pants.
Post a Comment