If the source material had appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Good Housekeeping or HUSTLER would that have met your rigid standards for quality journalism, Bikerdad?

You can take cheap shots at The Nation to your heart's content. One-liners are easy and require no effort. How about actually contesting the author's findings about Nowrasteh and Cunningham's right-wing roots?

If our soldiers are "fully deserving of your support", then why don't you SUPPORT THEM!

Your previous posts in this thread could accurately be characterized as an attempt to rationalize, defend, and fight a personal Jihad to protect the so-called legacy of one William Jefferson Clinton. Yet, the war in Iraq was the logical end to Clinton's policy of regime change in Iraq. Why do you give Clinton such a huge pass in this regard? You post as though the war in Iraq was done in a historical bubble. Furthermore, it's beyond any doubt that Clinton had multiple prime opportunities to take out Bin Laden and severely hit the Al Qaeda operation prior to Bush even taking office. Yet he passed, time and time again. These facts were not established by "a vast right wing conspiracy". These facts were the result of the revelations of Clinton insiders. Accept them. They are a given.

The men who "sent" the soldiers to Iraq are the ones you have a problem with? How's that? You VOTED FOR TWO OF THEM in 2004! So, that's how you really nailed Kerry and Edwards for their Iraq war authorization votes? A "yes" vote for President/Vice President?? You really showed them, oh boy!!!

And Bush created a "perfect storm" where terrorists have been brought into Iraq? Well, one has to ask. From a tactical perspective is it easier to fight terrorists and terrorism when they are all in one place or scattered around the globe hidden in secret cells?

Also, I have to ask if Iraq is so irrelevant to the war on terror, then WHY, I repeat WHY are so many of the terrorists flocking there, willingly blowing THEMSELVES up, and fighting to the last dead terrorist to beat us there? Why is it so important to THEM (if not to you)? What, pray tell, is the downside for the terrorists if (when) we prevail in Iraq?????

And AGAIN, how in God's name can you claim to "support the troops" yet continue to undermine their efforts? When the terrorist's morale is improved, when they have been given HOPE for their victory based on the possibility of our rapid pullout based on the irresponsible statements of people in your party, statements YOU support, who pays the price? Do the "men who sent them there" like John Kerry and John Edwards take the brunt of the terrorist's efforts? Nope. You rewarded those two with presidential votes and are those two in physical danger? Nope. Edwards is back to chasing ambulances and conning gullible juries out of multi-million-dollar personal injury judgements based on junk science and Senator Kerry is back to dining on Fois Gras from his plush leather seat of his wife's late husband's Gulfstream V "Flying Squirrel". Yeah, you sure showed THOSE guys, didn't you? The human beings who suffer as a result of continuing actions to undermine the war are not those two clowns or even President Bush (unless you plan to defeat him in 2008). It is THE TROOPS ON THE GROUND! Why do YOU continue to work to put THEIR lives in more danger?

I agree with another poster that your rage while typing your responses is obvious. I must have hit a few hot buttons along the way so I consider my previous posts successful in that regard. You should ask yourself why you get so angry. It's a light into YOUR soul, not mine. But, I'm sure your enemies on A-D can conveniently be grouped into one de-humanized mass who you can hate at will; "greedy old white men".

Getting back to the original point, is the democrat's rabid, irrational, and over the top response to the ABC series "censorship"?

Of course. The democrats REALIZE what impact the media of film/video/TV have on the masses of population. That's the reason the left have worked so hard to dominate those media and inculcate our population with a never ending propaganda campaign from the perspective of film and popular TV. The democrats see ANY off-message broadcast (in other words one that does not toe the line of DNC talking points) as a serious threat to their monopoly of information. Fortunately (for our citizens), that monopoly has been broken by the proliferation of media outlets resulting from cable TV, talk radio, and the internet. The democrats reactionary response to this mini-series is similar to the reactionary statements by people like Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw who lament the "rise of alternative media" and the downfall of the dinosaurs previously known as the "network TV monopoly".

That is why the democrats have taken the Clinton attack machine out of the mothballs and turned them on ABC and why the left is fighting a coordinated media attack on both the mini-series AND their creators.

Personally, this "vast right wing conspiracy" stuff is stale. In the Clinton's world, and in the world of their rabid supporters (the Taliban would be proud of their zealotry), Saint Bill has NEVER made a mistake during his 8 years; it was all the result of the GOP congress, Newt Gingrich, or "greedy old white men" who were trying to thwart our "first black president".

As a great president once said, "Facts are stubborn things".

And the FACT that Bill Clinton and his team let Bin Laden off the hook and failed to treat the terrorist threat as anything more than a law enforcement issue is indisputable.

Sorry.

lordhelmet, there is a line between reasoned debate and personal attacks and I believe you have erased that line.

I am not going to engage you in a diatribe-versus-diatribe that is pointless, off-topic and boring to everyone. This is descending into a rhetorical food-fight and I will not lower myself to such a moronic level.

That is twice you have you used the phrase "greedy old white men" directed toward me and nowhere in my original posts did I use that phrase. That phrase is your invention and yours alone. I am willing to defend and debate remarks that I actually made. I will not dignify nor debate your race-baiting fantasies of what you think I really meant.

Really? And you have proof that the Democrats stopped ABC from airing the show? You have proof that actors, video editors, producers and directors provided by the Democrat party edited the content? You have proof other than what’s been provided to the public that ABC re-edited the show on their own?

With baited breath.

No, with RABID baited breath.

Sorry, F and D.

You are factually correct. What I meant to say is that the democrats were guilty of "attempted censorship". It's not as bad as "censorship" as "attempted murder" is not as bad as "murder".

But the intent, in both cases, is EXACTLY the same.

Bill Clinton sent a pack of lawyers into ABC, along with the rest of his well-greased attack machine including usual suspects Sandy (Socks) Berger and Madeline (Tip off Bin Laden) Albright to demand that ABC "pull" the show from airing. The failed. Thank God.

Censorship is what they wanted. Just like the same party wanted to the Swift Boat Veterans story pulled form the networks, actually MANAGED to censor Gary Aldrich from ABC's "This Week" when he wrote the book exposing bad behavior in the Clinton White House.

When the democrat party talk of "free speech", what they really mean is speech they approve of. That's why they constantly threaten to bring back the "fairness doctrine" to "regulate" speech on AM radio and why they don't hesitate to promote the works of say.... Michael Moore.... while they simultaneously work to silence Rush Limbaugh, the Swift Boat Vets, and in this case, ABC.

In the same way that organizations that prominently feature "Peoples" promote policies proven to actually harm "people", groups that promote the concept of "free speech", "fairness", and "justice" are actually NOT fans of the concept as understood by most people.

I'm having a problem with the word "censorship" as applied here. If there was an attempt made to prevent the characters from saying or doing what was actually said or done, then that would be censorship. Trying to prevent portrayals of real people saying or doing things they didn't do or say & making them look bad in the process is preventing libel or slander, or at very least defamation of character.

Also, you can't compare it to Fahrenheit 9/11, in that movie actual footage is used and everyone actually says or does what you see them saying or doing. You can argue with the editing and whats put in or left out but its not the same as having actors portraying real people doing fictional things and claiming its historically accurate & educational.

Lordhelmet, I see a few issues with your response here.

The intent of Bikerdad’s thread is directed at government censoring. You state the following:


None of the people you mention are current government officials. If a group of Hollywood types produced a film, “Lordhelmet and the Summer of 06” and you caught wind that a particular scene had you canceling your regular Saturday golf game because you claimed it was a sissy sport and you were going to stay home and listen to your Barbara Streisand collection, I would be behind you 100% to go and set the record straight. It’s personal liability at this juncture.

As London2La just stated:

This is spot on and I have a hard time believing you actually read the letter that was sent, which detailed several inaccuracies, and don’t feel that individuals who were possibly portrayed inaccurately don’t have a right to voice their concerns.

Your disdain for the liberal media is well documented and it appears they were a bit liberal with their interpretation of the 9/11 Commission Report which the docudrama was based on. Why are you giving them a get out of jail free card here? Simply because it’s not your team?

I would be willing to bet that a few years down the road a similar docudrama will be produced focusing on the Bush administration and quite possibly use the book Hubris as a reference. And from the excerpts I’ve read, it won’t be a flattering portrayal of the current administration. I hope you’ll feel the same way if the GOP, President Bush and his staff respond in a similar fashion.

First, the thread simply said "censorship?", it didn't say "government censorship".

And, as I pointed out, the Clinton people "attempted" to sensor that ABC mini series.

People took exception to the scenes where they looked bad? Well, if they believe they were the victim of libel and/or slander, then they can sue ABC. Why haven't they? I suspect that they will not because during the legal discovery process, we would indeed find the corroborating evidence (which has already been produced by the way) that the main points of the sections at dispute (1) that Clinton was distracted by Lewinsky and forgot about most everything else, including Bin Laden (2) that the Clinton people had numerous opportunities to destroy Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and passed and that (3) the FBI was largely hindered by politically correct bureaucrats. I maintain that the ABC series let Clinton off easy. They didn't dwell on the Clinton/Aspin/Christopher cut-and-run in Somalia which embolden the terrorists. They left out the Gorelick wall and the impact on intelligence gathering against the terrorists. They didn't mention that Clinton did ZERO in response to the USS Cole and left out the historical context of the poorly managed transition between the Clinton-Bush administrations due to the animosity resulting from Florida in 2000 and the democrat's contention that Bush was "an illegitimate president".

The ABC movie wasn't much different than any "historical" movie ever made by Hollywood. Movies like "Patton" and "Tora Tora Tora" were praised for their "accuracy" but they both depended on condensed events, composite characters, and artistic license regarding actual conversations and events. YET, the "essential" facts were correct. I suspect that in the case of "The Path to 911" the same is true.

And, what Clinton and his cadre tried to do was indeed censorship.

By the way, I admire Ms. Streisand's talents and volume of work as a musician and own a number of her recordings. On the other hand, I wouldn't ask her for political opinions, since those are analogous to MY attempts at singing.

Nighttimer, its amazing how you manage to parody yourself sometimes. You stand there and indict me for dismissing "journalism" from The Nation as simply a cheap shot because I think they're biased, when The Nation piece is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on Cunningham and Nowastreh. Ooooooh, Cunningham must be a KKKKristian, errrrr, Christian Reconstructionist because his daddy was one. Oooooooh, Nowastreh is somehow ssociated with the Liberty Film Festival, so he must be a conservative.

Here's his association- 1, he gave an interview to the LFF folks in 2005. He appeared on their Film & TV Production Panel along with panelists including Frank Price (former President of Universal Pictures, Chairman of Columbia Pictures, Chairman of MCA Motion Picture Group - who also appears on American Cinema Foundation panels); Joel Surnow (Executive Producer, Fox's "24"); Warren Bell (Executive Producer, “According To Jim,” “Ellen" {another piece of right wing propaganda, eh?}); Scott Gardenhour (partner in Michael Bay's production company, producer on Pearl Harbor, Armageddon); Doug Urbanski (award winning film producer and Hollywood manager).

Do you know who organized the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where MLK, jr. gave his "I have a dream" speech? The question may seem like a non sequitor, but it isn't, because one of the organizers was the subject of the movie I already linked, penned by the man that you and The Nation so cavalierly dismiss as conservative . Perhaps you should watch it.

With the above in mind, I stand by my dismissal of The Nation for shoddy journalism and bias.

Well if this is true bikerdad, would you say you see that because you yourself hold no bias against whatever opinions come from such, or what else is bias and shoddy then or what should be the measuring stick in which to use when deciding what receives such a label. I mean most people here are seemingly claiming something about each other, and in all that bias should a simple question like what is the objective tool of such measurement that allows for bias claiming or what is more correct then something else be asked?

I personally could not care less to listen to any mainstream form of journalism anymore, thanks to the internet you can simply gather information that’s hard to really control for whatever purpose. Like not to long ago a horrible event occurred in China, and if it was not for the internet I would have never known thanks to all mainstream news channels, though I will admit I did not watch them 24/7, but do to the magnitude of the event in regards to human suffering it should have gotten a minute or so in the times I did watch it.

Back to the subject though, could bias have played a role in why the democrats fired a letter against ABC and Disney over the show, maybe, maybe we should ask them why. As for the letter, it explains basically that they take offense to the show simply because its being called factual, and or is a tool to represent the facts as we understand them in relation to 9-11. Many says it not including those politicians, personally I would not have cared about who sent in the letter, but I would be curious to know if any republicans would have ever objected to the show and its factual misrepresentation overall, so on that scale, I don’t really know what’s worse, it seems nothing really is safe from consumption in regards to the political beast in America anymore, not even something like 9-11, which in my opinion should only draw criticism when people do not care about the truth of such an event, past that its just garbage behavior in my biased opinion.

I disagree. This goes against the “Path to 9/11” rendition which by the way matches exactly with a History channel Documentary on Bin Laden. The fast are that the CIA team (this from a team member) had set up OBL as the ABC series showed and could NOT get approval from Tennant, Berger or anyone else including BC to take him. They had more than one chance and passed.

Some suggested reading on the matter:

The Path to Hysteria by Cyrus Nowrasteh

I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for "The Path to 9/11." I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal--to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood.
...
In July a reporter asked if I had ever been ethnically profiled. I happily replied, "No." I can no longer say that. The L.A. Times, for one, characterized me by race, religion, ethnicity, country-of-origin and political leanings--wrongly on four of five counts. To them I was an Iranian-American politically conservative Muslim. It is perhaps irrelevant in our brave new world of journalism that I was born in Boulder, Colo. I am not a Muslim or practitioner of any religion, nor am I a political conservative. What am I? I am, most devoutly, an American. I asked the reporter if this kind of labeling was a new policy for the paper. He had no response.
...
It's good to have come to something approaching the end of this saga, whose lessons are worth remembering. It gave us, for one thing, a heartening glimpse (these things don't come along every day) of corporate backbone in the face of phenomenal pressure--and an infinitely more chilling one testifying to the power and reach of politically driven hysteria. A ripe subject for a miniseries, if ever there was one.

And this is supposed to help in the discussion how Bikerdad? That he has become a victim or something, when several of the people including Cyrus are linked to David Horowitz & Richard Mellon Scaife.

Discover the Secret Right-Wing Network Behind ABC's 9/11 Deception

As well did you watch the trailer that linked to in my post 100?

Edit: To add from your article



With this quote about fact checking and such gets blown out the window when you go thru this thread to mine as well as other peoples posts where people that were involved (an FBI agent working on the project left after 3 months when he saw things being fabricated) to the actors questioning things being made up, to Tom Kean under pressure admitting errors, you are going to have to bring some more credible sources then Cyrus to convince us.

If you are going to convince me, you will have to do more than make nebulous accusations about right-wing conspiracies. Wow, a movie trailer from the UK which says "official true story" - shocking. Not that UK television would over-dramatize anything... And a link to a Huffington Post opinion piece is just that. It makes a bunch of incinuations but proves nothing. It's called 'mud-slinging' in case you didn't know.

This writer brought us the "day Reagan was shot," starring noted conservative activist Richard Dreyfuss, and then 10,000 black men named George, which lionized a black socialist union activist.

Simple task. Why don't you factually refute what the author says, if it is untrue. Your linked HuffPo piece says that Cyrus is an "outspoken conservative." That should be easy to prove. Just post some quotes of him being "outspoken" on conservative issues. Maybe he hid some conservative messages in La Femme Nikita or Falcon Crest. Knock yourself out.

Since we're down to quoting one of the "victims" of a group's hypersensitivity to fear and the truth I hope you don't mind my unpublished response to Nowrasteh's opinion:

Wishful Thinking

Any accurate portrayal of the path to 9/11 would stick to the facts laid out in the 9/11 commission’s report and leave out a writer's gut instinct and ideological well-wishing. It’s odd that a writer strictly interested in a documentary failed to interview subjects and took liberty with the report’s findings. I didn’t watch The Hysterical Path to 9/11 or the president’s superfluous State of the Union speech on the anniversary of 9/11. When the docudrama is criticized by the left AND the right I know it’s a waste of my time.

Nowrasteh: “I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe.”

I see. That’s why on Libertas - A Forum for Conservative Thought on Film you describe yourself as “more of a libertarian than strict constructionist” and you spoke at a panel titled “Rebels Without a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift”.

Well, at least Cyrus must have learned conspiracy mongering from the best, after all, what else could explain that Manchurian Conservative Oliver Stone choosing him as writer and director for Stone's production of "The Day Reagan was Shot"

Incidentally, I was unaware that the First Amendment contained exclusions for those who are connnected to David Horowitz and Beelzebub, er, Scaife.

1) Censorship?


Lets face it the show was not kind to either party because the truth is neither administration moved decisively against terrorism. The Clinton folks had far more time and should have done more and IMO Bush should have canned Tennant on day one and hired the FBI and CIA agents that the agencies had ASKED FOR to get the job done.

That said the Republicans who presently control Congress did not threaten ABC, the Dems did and it is shameful. Criminal attempt at censorship.

Finally let’s remember that the whole 9/11 Commission report is a bit of a sham from day 1 since they assigned themselves the task of reporting but not ever trying to assign blame!! Now why would they do that??? Unless of course they KNEW that a good part of the ‘blame” would fall in their laps.

It is a subject that can have no winners
as the truth would be blunderous for the ruling elite as well as the republicans and any attempt to fictionalize the truth would be unacceptable for the democrats
abc should of just made a comedy about it then all of us would be mad and no one would call it partisan
I have an idea why dont they do a picture about all the people that never got to have their sworn statements put into the 911 comissions report and have a BYU professor be the star of it
it would be more accurate and have an effect of clearing the air on the matter once and for all
what do you think ?