« John Hawkins' Favorite 40 Bloggers | Main | College Football at Its Best: OSU Buckeyes Vs. Texas Longhorns »

Clinton Sics his Lawyers on ABC

Clinton's lawyers are now demanding ABC cancel its docudrama "The Path to 9/11." Here's the letter:

Dear Bob,


Despite press reports that ABC/Disney has made changes in the content and marketing of "The Path to 9/11," we remailn concerned about the false impression that airing the show will leave on the public. Labelng the show as "fiction" does not meet your responsibility to the victims of the September 11th attacks, their families, the hard work of the 9/11 Commission, or to the American people as a whole.

At a moment when we should be debating how to make the nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, "The Path to 9/11" calls into question the accuracy of the Commission's report and whether fabricated scenes are, in fact, an accurate portrayal of history. Indeed, the millions spent on the production of this fictional drama would have been better spent informing the public about the Commission's actual findings and the many recommendations that have yet to be acted upon. Unlike this film, that would have been a tremendous service to the public.

Although our request for an advance copy of the film has been repeatedly denied, it is all too clear that our objections to "The Path to 9/11" are valid and corroborated by those familiar with the film and intimately involved in its production.

-- Your corporate partner, Scholastic, has disassociated itself from this proect.

-- 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, who served as co-executive producer on "The Path to 9/11," has stated that he raised concerns about the accuracy of several scenes in the film and that his concerns were not addressed during production.

-- Harvey Keitel, who plays the star role of FBI agent John O'Neill, told reporters yesterday that while the screenplay was presented to him as a fair treatment of historical events, he is upset that several scenes were simply invented for dramatic purposes.

-- Numerous Members of Congress, several 9/11 Commissioners and prominent historians have spoken out against this movie.

-- Indeed, according to press reports, the fact that you are still editing the film two days before it is scheduled to air is an admission that it is irreparably flawed.

As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. "The Path to 9/11" not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film.

Sincerely,

Bruce R. Lindsey
Chief Executive Officer
William J. Clinton Foundation

Douglas J. Band
Counselor to President Clinton
Office of William Jefferson Clinton

My God, this guy's got an ego. This movie really isn't about him. It's about Ramzi Yousef, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, and the others involved in committing the atrocities on 9/11. When will this guy stop making everything about him?

Note: there are a number of typos in the letter. I don't know if that is because the person I am sourcing typed this in himself or if they are part of the orginal letter.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clinton Sics his Lawyers on ABC:

» Right Thoughts...not right wing, just right. linked with Nothing new, but William Jefferson Clinton is disgusting

» Ed Driscoll.com linked with "The Free Speech Crowd"

» The Political Pit Bull linked with The Path To Demmitude?

Comments (127)

No kidding. Think Slick wil... (Below threshold)

No kidding. Think Slick will demand the same for that lying piece of crap "Farenheit 911?" No? Me either.

Isn't this great? They're ... (Below threshold)
jerseychris:

Isn't this great? They're telling us who they really are.

Thesze libs are whining fag... (Below threshold)
Gary Ruppert:

Thesze libs are whining fagots who should be killed

This is truly starting to g... (Below threshold)
Jim:

This is truly starting to get amusing. The complete free speech crowd is screaming to free speech limited now.

I guess free speech is for those who have "responsibly" taken a left-wing position and only for those who can use it in aid of left-wing causes.

I love watching the left-wing get into a lather, they make such hypocritical fools of themselves.

Democrats are in such a pan... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Democrats are in such a panic they are trying to put people in office that will have the same result as infecting the entire country with AIDS and hoping an instant cure will be available tomorrow. Civil war in Iraq is the least of my worries, Civil war will come to the United States fast if the insane people they have selected for leadership in the congress come to pass. I'm too old to worry about it but some of you young people remember this. The democrats are as bad as China and Russia supporting Iran, get real, Iran will know China and Russia are weak and they will be the first to feel the destruction of an Iranian Nuclear weapon. Mark that down also.

ABC needs to show this film... (Below threshold)
bob:

ABC needs to show this film UNEDITED, and then have a live debate aired immediately afterward with representatives from both sides. But the fact that Clinton's lawyers want this censored beforehand shows that they know they won't be able to dispute the facts after the truth is out.

Big mo:Can you or an... (Below threshold)
Mac:

Big mo:
Can you or any of you other brain surgeons and rocket scientists who post comments on this site actually list any specific lies in that appear in "Farenheit 911"?

At least 59 lies in Farenhy... (Below threshold)
Clay:
Oops. Or 56.... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Oops. Or 56.

They seem REALLY desperate ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

They seem REALLY desperate to not have it shown.

Looks like they're hiding something.

Yet if they aired that Bush assassination movie here and Bush's lawyers asked them not to, I can imagine the uproar of the left.
-=Mike

I pray (That's allowed righ... (Below threshold)
Vegas Vic:

I pray (That's allowed right?) that Clinton continues to try and stop this "Drama" from being shown in it's entirety. The more the left whine, the more they look like hypocrites! Free Speech is NOT a one way street Billy Boy!

This is what happens ... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

This is what happens when your too nice to the criminalcrats. Bubbu should have been getting his pecker polished by some other Bubbu while not inhaling in the joint. White trash draft dodging coward. Clinton and the democrats are all punk ass liars.

They really blew it this ti... (Below threshold)

They really blew it this time.

From those who saw the pre-screened version, I heard the production isn't kind to either Clinton OR Bush, but that they aren't the focus of the story - it's on the terrorists, who they are, how they operate and recruit, etc.

By raising such hysteria over it, the Clintons and the left will fare the worse if ABC pulls the show, since people will wonder just what they were so worked up about, and conclude they must have something to hide.

Clinton is also pissed ... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

Clinton is also pissed off because he is no longer able to "EXPOSE" himself the way he wants , to who he wants.

The entire party is a lie and a fraud. Time to fry them all. This Country deserves better than these dirtbags.

The Clittorocks are despera... (Below threshold)
914:

The Clittorocks are desperate to hide the truth from coming out.

Just like Sandy the bungling burglar hid the truth in His oversized 46DD drawers.

For those screaming ABC mus... (Below threshold)
Tom Paine:

For those screaming ABC must show this, how quickly you forget screaming about ABC/Disney not showing Michael Moore's piece close to an election. A big difference, Moore's piece was being released to THEATERS, meaning you had to pay to see it. This piece of non historical crap, is being broadcast of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, and commerical free! My airwaves being used to promote the biased right wing nut conservative agenda! Not on the public's property. For wasn't that your crack pot view about Clinton getting head was that it was in OUR HOUSE?

And commerical free? There goes that theory that the networks are controlled by the "Liberal Media". What Libral Media would completly subsidize five free hours of expensive prime time?

Thank God we have good old fashion Football on both nights this piece of crap is being aired. If even the writers, producers, actors, and the network itself refuse to call it a documentary, why are you right wing haters so hot to have it aired? Because your Monkey Boy President as had five years to catch Osama Bin Forgotten and failed? That this illeterate baboon you pray to and worship was busy vactioning while knowing "Bin Laden plans to attach the U.S." was circulating? That after being told my country was under attack this brave hero of Viet Nam sat there like a deer in the headlights pretending to understand the simple written words of an elementary reader MY PET GOAT, then disappeared for days while true leaders like New York's Mayor actually went to the rubble?

Rewriting history is great, as decades later, people who were not alive at the time can be fed total crap. But those of us alive and who take the time to read, investigate and remember know the truth. This happened on Monkey Boy's watch. And stood there doing nothing for 7 minutes, then went and hid until his puppet master could calm him down and figure out a P.R. plan to make his pet Monkey look lucid.

Great real right wing nuts, BUSH is not a failure, but is entire Kingdomship has been one intelligence failure after another.

Tom Paine,Have you... (Below threshold)
La Mano:

Tom Paine,

Have you SEEN IT?

Didn't think so.

RobLACAL; I might have word... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

RobLACAL; I might have worded it a little differant but your right on. lmao. History proves that liberalism costs legions of people to lose life and limb,all for what? the stupid assumption that they are the wisest of the wise,and can TALK people into peace.Chamberlins all of them.

Oh, I see. We're the "r... (Below threshold)

Oh, I see. We're the "right wing haters"

But!
"Monkey Boy President"

"illeterate(sic) baboon"

And again (in case we missed it the first time): "Monkey Boy" And again: "pet Monkey"

Gotcha.

The trolls are really hot o... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

The trolls are really hot on this issue. They are as mad as Clinton gets when someone tells the truth about him.
I feel your pain. (biting my lower lip)

From everything I've read t... (Below threshold)
jp:

From everything I've read they are much nicer to Clinton than they could've been....the scene in question(although they likely have sources for this) is one scene to tell the truth of the many times they had Bin Laden if they wanted him and let him go for one stupid reason after another.....so lets reshoot this scene and tell this story in Documentary Format told by Michael Schuer the head of the CIA Bin Laden unit
-----------

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9005619/

O‘DONNELL: But many people have made the impression that something in the Bush administration was done wrong. But there‘s evidence that the Clinton administration knew full well that bin Laden had the wherewithal and was planning to attack the United States. Who is to blame and did the president, Clinton, get this information?

SCHEUER: Certainly the president got the information. And most certainly his closest adviser, Sandy Berger and Mr. Clarke—Richard Clarke, had the information from 1996 forward that bin Laden intended to attack the United States. There‘s no question of that. And in terms of which administration had more chances, Mr. Clinton‘s administration had far more chances to kill Osama bin Laden than Mr. Bush has until this day.

O‘DONNELL: That‘s very interesting. I don‘t think that many Americans know that or think that everything that they‘ve heard—you‘ve spent your life tracking Osama bin Laden. From what we know now and what you know, how many missed opportunities were there to prevent the 9/11 attacks?

SCHEUER: Well, we had—the question of whether or not we could have prevented the attacks is one you could debate forever. But we had at least eight to 10 chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all occasions decided that the information was not good enough to act.

O‘DONNELL: What—who then is to blame? I think the American people want to know, then, who then is to blame for this?

SCHEUER: It can only be the policy-makers and the elected officials.…

O‘DONNELL: So what you‘re saying is that when you ran the bin Laden desk, you knew where bin Laden was. You knew that bin Laden was trying to attack the United States. You knew that bin Laden had the wherewithal and that the policy-makers in the Clinton administration and then the Bush administration did not heed your warnings?

SCHEUER: Not my warnings. I hate to make myself the center of anything, ma‘am. But the intelligence community as a whole had warned the administration repeatedly. And I think there‘s no lack of record of that. It just—the 9/11 Commission failed to find anyone responsible for anything. The CIA can‘t order an attack. Only the National Security Council and the president can order an attack. …

…The U.S. intelligence community is palsied by lawyers.

When we were going to capture Osama bin Laden, for example, the lawyers were more concerned with bin Laden‘s safety and his comfort than they were with the officers charged with capturing him. We had to build an ergonomically designed chair to put him in, special comfort in terms of how he was shackled into the chair. They even worried about what kind of tape to gag him with so it wouldn‘t irritate his beard. The lawyers are the bane of the intelligence community.

Im not screaming either way... (Below threshold)
914:

Im not screaming either way.. Show it or dont show it. But dont let Yourselves be censored.

Lets see! Clinton was elect... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

Lets see! Clinton was elected with at least 50% of the vote how many times? Then when in office proved why he should'nt have been.At least 6000 dead attest to his complacency and out right incompetence,all brougth on by Republicans voting to send a message.You sent a message all right,a message that costs lives are you up to doing it again.This time think, maybe you can put the country before your selves,we cant allow these people to ever again take controll of our lives and country.

As a conservative I STRONLY... (Below threshold)
clearwaterconservative:

As a conservative I STRONLY urge ABC to correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the upcoming “Path to 9/11” before it is shown. And I am not the only conservative saying this.

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch "The Reagans."

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.

Captain’s Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, "The Path to 9/11" is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.

just think, if it wasn't fo... (Below threshold)
jp:

just think, if it wasn't for Ross Perot we wouldn't be hearing from bubba....we also probably wouldn't have W in the whitehouse right now, no telling who

I've read the argument on P... (Below threshold)
jp:

I've read the argument on Powerline that Docudramas shouldn't be shown unless the real people's dialog and actions are exact....like a documentary.....my question, does this mean all historical movies should be censored and not made? How about the classics like Patton, he didn't say every line in that movie but it was as you say, "fake but accurate"

now an Oliver Stone hit piece like JFK is another matter, but the Path to 9/11 is well documented and isn't partisian....

Eneils Bailey:Than... (Below threshold)

Eneils Bailey:

Thanks a lot! Now I gotta clean up the coke (soda!) I sprayed all over my laptop, kitchen table, kitchen floor...you forgot to give 'em one of these: (hand out in a fist with the thumb pointing up).

I've got a tip for all you libs that should sound *really* familiar to you:

If you don't like what's on...

CHANGE THE CHANNEL.

I follow that advice myself. Other than sports, House, American Idol (got sucked in by my wife), and Whose Line, if I don't like it...I don't watch it.

However, I am enjoying all the temper tantrums you're throwing over this. It's a lot better than most of the crap on TV!!!

Both the left and right are... (Below threshold)
Mary:

Both the left and right are such Hypocrites - no wonder our socies has so many problems

Remember this from a few years ago?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/04/cbs.reagans.ap/

NEW YORK (AP) -- Capping an extraordinary conservative furor over a movie virtually no one has seen, CBS said Tuesday it will not air "The Reagans" and shunt it off to the Showtime cable network instead.

Based on snippets of the script that had leaked out in recent weeks, conservatives, including the son of the former president, accused CBS of distorting the legacy of Ronald Reagan.
.....

The miniseries became a hot topic on talk radio and the TV news networks. The chairman of the Republican National Committee wrote to CBS President Leslie Moonves, asking for historians to review the movie, and the conservative Media Research Center asked advertisers to consider boycotting the film.

"This was a left-wing smear of one of the nation's most beloved presidents and CBS got caught," said Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said putting the movie before a smaller audience on Showtime doesn't address accuracy concerns. Without changes, Showtime should remind viewers every 10 minutes that the movie is fictional, he said.


Never has so much been said... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Never has so much been said about nothing as isb being said about this issue, I'm a liberal. I love Bill Clinton. Show the damn movie. It's allegedly a piece of garbage. So be it.

The wingnuts have their panties in a wad thinking this is the big expos. The lefties disappoint me cause theirs are in a wad because they think that it's going to make Clinton look bad. Both sides are all ga ga cause one thinks it helps them and the other that it hurts. Give it up folks. In the big scheme it means nothing.

The truth is Clinton screwed up. The truth is Bush screwed up. All we can hope is that lessons were learned and no one on either side will screw up again.

If the wingnuts somehow think this think is going to have a political effect then I say your drunk or stoned or both. This election is about Iraq and the economy. As it stands now things look bad for the Republicans (lets hope it stays that way) but this move ain't going to change anything.

The GOP didn't threaten to ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The GOP didn't threaten to revoke a license to broadcast over it.

The DNC has.

There is a world of difference.
-=Mike

Mike:You're blind ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mike:

You're blind an an idiot,

the Reagan seriese dramatiz... (Below threshold)
jp:

the Reagan seriese dramatized events that did not happen and had no truth to them what so ever.....this is very different than what Clinton is bitching about. It is well documented he passed at chances to get Bin Laden, he's on tape admitting it.....so they dramatize this into one scene, big deal. Not unlike many historical movies.

Get real Sir Paine, you s... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

Get real Sir Paine, you seem to be in alot of pain and the loser liberals are desperatly trying to do just that. Control the Media. In democrat speak, Democrats are not "REAL" Americans. They are Democrats which just the same as saying they are Chinese , Russian , Communist or what ever. That in turn is the same as being our enemy and they are , you are. Your attacking the President of your own Country you DumbF**ks. Oh I almost forgot , YOUR DEMOCRATS NOT AMERICANS. DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT PROVE THIS IN THE LAST 6 YEARS.

Mary:Good point.</... (Below threshold)

Mary:

Good point.

It was still on TV, although it was a premium channel. I still didn't throw a temper tantrum over it, and I wasn't gonna watch it wherever it was shown. I won't be watching the "Path to 9/11" either.

I really believe protesting these movies is a waste of time and energy. Let 'em run, and let people draw their own conclusions. Or let them tune out if they want.

Mary, The Reagan m... (Below threshold)

Mary,

The Reagan movie was shown - on Showtime - many, many times, and former President Reagan was unable to respond to it. Besides, that movie was entirely about Ronald Reagan whereas the Path to 9/11 isn't about the Bill Clinton and his administration. It's about the terrorists.

And if I remember correctly, Republicans never threatened CBS' broadcast license over it.

Clinton's grand plan to dea... (Below threshold)

Clinton's grand plan to deal with Al Qaeda was to send ninjas after them...to apparently give them the jibblies.

And any leftwinger who says the democrats take national security or fighting terrorism seriously, I laugh at them. You may get the 1-2% who do, but more often than not, it's conspiracy theorists and people who just go kabonk over the idea that America is fighting terrorism. Or of course, blame us for every wrong in the world. That seems to be the donkey platform.

Hugh , your the idiot an... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

Hugh , your the idiot and blind moron. You would happily jerk him off at his demand with out hesitation. YOU LOVE THAT RAPIST LYING DIRTBAG SO MUCH.

Kim,I haven't been... (Below threshold)
Mary:

Kim,

I haven't been given an advance screening of the film like you have (as I'm sure you wouldn't rely on 2nd hand sources with a political adgenda to push) so I can't say if it focuses on terrorists or the Clinton administration; however, either way, I stand by my statement that both sides are hypocrites.

Both sides get upset when they feel the media is attacking them, but if they agree with the film, then they defend it to the death.

The right wing felt the Reagan film was made up of lies, while the left claimed is was based on facts the right didn't wnat to admit. Now it's all reversed.

Ho jainphx:Bush wo... (Below threshold)
Bush truth squad:

Ho jainphx:

Bush won the popular vote in which year? Oh that's right, he had to be appointed by the Activist Judges you all rail against. If there had ever been a fair election, the rest of the world would not have been saddled with this self aggrandizing mental midget.

The bi-partisan 911 commission's report clearly refutes the allegations against Clinton made in Path to 911. Even Fox commentator turned White House propaganda Czar Tony Snowjob, sets the clock back to the failures of silver screen cowboy Regan's admin with Lebanon, followed by the missing link's dad's failure with homeland attacks. Picking and choosing a starting point (known as cherry picking, like the intelligence on WMD's) is subjective, not objective. Thus the ridiculousness of this mockudrama. It's sad the pathetic Republican'ts can't accept the fact Clinton is not the root cause for all wrongs and evils in the world. Republican'ts have controlled the House since 1994 and have controlled all branches of the US since 2001. Last time I checked the constitutional powers, this means Republican'ts are responsible for the good and the bad results. And since the missing link has allowed Darth Vader to sow the seeds of lies and deceit to further the neo-"cons" agenda of imperial expansion paid for with tax cuts and American blood, the bad has certainly outweighed whatever good the missing link might have spread. Iraq is falling apart, the Taliban is resurging five years after the missing link failed to protect us or link the intelligence that was before his administration's eyes. His attorney general was too busy covering the naked breasts of statues, going after Oregon's Death with Dignity act, and prosecuting one of the nation's most dangerous criminals, Tommy Chong, for selling bongs on the internet. Yes, that is where the top law enforcement of this administration's attention was over the summer of 2001. Clinton is responsible for this how?

Of course, anyone who bothered to research the missing link's history knows he has never successfully completed any undertaking of substance in his life while in the private sector, so why would anyone believe he could successfully complete such complex matters as winning a war, protecting the homeland, or catching "dead or alive" such a well know target as Bin Laden.

Get over your obsession with Clinton, and hold the missing link's administration for it's failures.

Wow, I've never seen people... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Wow, I've never seen people so exorcised about a movie in my life. I find it hilarious that you'll stand on the side of censorship --- then I remembered you're lefties and censorship is needed for people to buy into your moronic dogma.
-=Mike

Mary, you're right, but you... (Below threshold)

Mary, you're right, but you're missing the big point. Those who were angry about the Reagan movie threatened boycotts. Those angry about this movie are threatening DIRECT GOVERMENT ACTION against broadcasting licenses. Short-term financial loss versus capital punishment.

If you don't see that as a several orders of magnitude greater, and abuse of power vs. use, then you have bigger issues than I am equipped to deal with.

J.

RobLA:Are you off ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

RobLA:

Are you off your medications?

Mary, Democrats are LIAR... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

Mary, Democrats are LIARS. That is the whole difference, period. Proven liars , admitted liars and a perpetual fraud. ALL OF THEM! Ever heard of the term "LIE BY OMISSION"? The party that openly admitts and proud that 85% of felons vote democrat.

Mary,I have not ha... (Below threshold)

Mary,

I have not had an advanced screening, but I know the synopsis of the movie. It begins with the 1993 WTC bombing and then follows the terrorists as they plan the 9/11 attacks. It also is about how John O'Neil, FBI counter-terrorism expert, tried to track them.

The movie is not very kind to Clinton or Bush, but it's not about them. Yet, Clinton has managed to turn the entire discussion about the movie around so it's all about him.

If we lose the War on Terro... (Below threshold)
jp:

If we lose the War on Terror and become the "islamic republic of America" in the future, it will be because of naive and immature mindset of Moral Equivalence which has enslaved so many

Hugh, I think Bush truth... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

Hugh, I think Bush truth Squad needs a BJ , it's lying it's ass off. Do it for your beloved Clinton.

Let's see:Boycott ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Let's see:

Boycott vs. Government threatening ABC's license

Hmm......that's a tough one....

Clinton never won 50% of th... (Below threshold)
Florence Schmieg:

Clinton never won 50% of the popular vote.

Rob, Rob, RobSerio... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Rob, Rob, Rob

Seriously, I think there are medications for your problems.

I don't believe Clinton eve... (Below threshold)
Jo:

I don't believe Clinton ever got more than about 43% of the popular vote. Something around there. Way less (twice) than Bush.

43% in 92 and 49% in 96... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

43% in 92 and 49% in 96

The Clinton Legacy has ... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

The Clinton Legacy has doomed the democrat leadership to forever tell lies and you pathetic democrat morons to support those lies. That is the Clinton Legacy you idiots have come to love and embrace. YOU LOSE!

What's the matter Hugh? ... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

What's the matter Hugh? It's not sex according to BJ Clinton. The downfall of the democrat party. The difference between you and me is when I discovered the truth for myself , I STOPPED VOTING FOR THE CORRUPT LYING DEMOCRATS. What's your mental defect?

RobLACaThanks for ... (Below threshold)
Bush truth squad:

RobLACa

Thanks for your offer of a BJ, but your missing link mental midget has already sucked the life force out of me and everyone one else in this wonder country.

And what lies have I stated? I'd love for you to address them item by item so we can have a real debate of ideas, rather than your broad based smears. Ignorance is not bliss, it's just ignorance. Back up your comments with something more than the words lie, or let your shrink know you are off your medication. There is help out there. I know Regan, while governor of CA closed down the majority of the state run mental institutes, which probably explains why you have access to a computer. But help is out there RobLACa. Seek it, you and your paranoid world will be better off.

They are as mad as Clint... (Below threshold)
Brian:

They are as mad as Clinton gets when someone tells the truth about him.

Clinton is asking for them to tell the truth about him. If you think it's so damaging to him, why are you afraid to have it shown?

I know Regan, while gove... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I know Regan, while governor of CA closed down the majority of the state run mental institutes, which probably explains why you have access to a computer.

Regan was never governor of CA.

Reagan was.

And Reagan did so because leftie activists demanded it for decades.

Which shows that, for the sake of your own posterity, you have to oppose all liberal desires because if things go wrong, it'll be your fault --- never theirs.

Note, Republicans have no problems admitting that they were hardly perfect in this regard. Clinton, though, cannot. Apparently, neither can you.
-=Mike

Oh that's right BTS, they... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

Oh that's right BTS, they are not lies if YOU believe them to be true. In which case you are just ignorant and stupid. Is that better for you. Why would I want to waste my time. Besides the point is that you are a liar as is your party and any debate is futile. Are you too stupid to understand that? Your party are proven and admitted liars. There is no debating someone who is trying to deceive the Country and hide the truth. But your continue in your deceitful ways. This Registered democrat will never again vote democrat so your waasting your time.

"And Reagan did so becaus... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

"And Reagan did so because leftie activists demanded it for decades."

That explains everything and why this state is so F**ed up. They don't want the insane Sheehan's put where they belong and they don't want to sentence felons to lengthy terms. After all 85% of them vote democrat. Then they beg and solicit ILLEGALS to vote democrat.

Leftie activists belong in mental institutes.

Come ON Rob,We are... (Below threshold)
Bush truth squad:

Come ON Rob,

We are all waiting for the point by point rebuttal to my comments.

Has the missing link found and captured Bin Laden despite the fact we invaded the country Bin Laden is in?

Where are all of those WMD's? Seen any pictures of the missing link showing them at any press conference?

Ashcroft: What exactly do you beleive he was doing in August and September of 2001? And please provide footnotes and links to any claims you purport. For I can back up my comments.

LIke I suggested, contact your shrink. You are obviously not using your medical benefits to take your prescribed dosage of Zyprexa. I fear we will be watching you on the news with a high powered rifle atop a water tower.

I will have to qualify that... (Below threshold)

I will have to qualify that the censorship threat is a huge problem. That's two censorship threats since 2004 by the Dems.

Will the Democrats For Cens... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Will the Democrats For Censorship theme make it in your campaign ads this election season? I think it's a winner.

If every Democrat in the co... (Below threshold)

If every Democrat in the country wants to boycott ths Pathe to 911, then do it. Maybe that will force ABC to either change the venue to cable or nor show it. That's fine. I don't care. What I do care about is the fact that Ried and fello Democrat Senators threatened ABC with their licence. Something not done by any Republican Senators or government officials.

I hope ABC shows it intact, not because Icare one iota about it's content, because I probably won't waste time to watch it. I hope they show it to force Reid's hand. I want him to try and revoke that license. That is nothing more than a bald-faced attempt at censorship. If that happens, It will be the end of the Democrats and they would be exposed for what they are.

One last point. Citizens boycotting the Reagan or the 9-11 movie is not censorship, Reid threatening their license IS censorship.

VW

Has the missing link fou... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Has the missing link found and captured Bin Laden despite the fact we invaded the country Bin Laden is in?

Nope. It is amazingly difficult to capture a guy when he is an area with a lot of supporters.

It took us how many years to catch Eric Rudolph in the US?

Heck, using your logic, FDR failed because we never found Hitler.

Where are all of those WMD's? Seen any pictures of the missing link showing them at any press conference?

Over 700 found thus far.

Ashcroft: What exactly do you beleive he was doing in August and September of 2001? And please provide footnotes and links to any claims you purport. For I can back up my comments.

Not as much as he should have been doing. Nobody is saying Bush and his people were perfect pre-9/11.

Just that when we got attacked, he did a dramatically better job than Clinton.
-=Mike

"Something not done by any ... (Below threshold)

"Something not done by any Republican Senators or government officials" should read "Something not done by any Republican Senators or government officials concerning the Reagan movie."

VW

I just can't believe ration... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I just can't believe rational people are trying to argue that Harry Reid, or any other Democrat, for that matter can revoke ABC's license or some how censor them.

Have any of you, gone off the deep-end, wingnuts read anything about the FCC? Do you know that they are the only ones who can revoke a license such as ABC's? Do any of you know there are 5 FCC Commissioners and that Bush has appointed 3 of them, including the Chairman? Do any of you know that there is a right to judicial review of the revocation of a license all the way up to the Supreme Court?

For Jesus H Christ's sake shut up about it. Yes, it's a political play by Reid et al. So what? Like your side doesn't know how to play political hardball?

What you argue about this is utterly senseless. Free speech, censorship. For god's sake only the GOVERNMENT can abridge First Amendment rights. And 2 or 3 or 45 Democrats ISN'T the GOVERNMENT. Even if they took the Senate and the House it's the FCC STUPID.

Finally, do you really think Disney and ABC think Reid at al can take their license away. If you do, you belong on the same meds as RobLA. Give it a goddamn rest!!!

Of course it is basically ... (Below threshold)

Of course it is basically an idle threat. But HE MADE IT! The implication is that Reid would enforce it if he could. OTOH,why woulkd he make it if he couldn't back it up?

But if your side gets the majority, they intend on bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. Then, he could carry out the threat.

VW

I just can't believe rat... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I just can't believe rational people are trying to argue that Harry Reid, or any other Democrat, for that matter can revoke ABC's license or some how censor them.

Hmm, Congress can revoke licenses.

The Dems might gain Congress.

Thus, Dems cannot revoke licenses?

That's your argument?

Have any of you, gone off the deep-end, wingnuts read anything about the FCC? Do you know that they are the only ones who can revoke a license such as ABC's?

The Congress' control of the FCC is rather large, since they --- you know --- FUND them and all.

Do any of you know there are 5 FCC Commissioners and that Bush has appointed 3 of them, including the Chairman? Do any of you know that there is a right to judicial review of the revocation of a license all the way up to the Supreme Court?

It's immaterial. The THREAT was made. Whether they can deliver or not doesn't matter. They THREATENED to do it.

Lefties have long claimed that the televised press was quiet about McCarthy for so long because their bosses were afraid of losing their licenses.

This is different...how?

For Jesus H Christ's sake shut up about it. Yes, it's a political play by Reid et al. So what? Like your side doesn't know how to play political hardball?

They've not threatened to revoke licenses so, apparently, they don't play hardball like you want it played.

What you argue about this is utterly senseless. Free speech, censorship. For god's sake only the GOVERNMENT can abridge First Amendment rights. And 2 or 3 or 45 Democrats ISN'T the GOVERNMENT. Even if they took the Senate and the House it's the FCC STUPID.

When 2 or 3 of the signers are the LEADERSHIP, rest assured, there is a real threat.

Finally, do you really think Disney and ABC think Reid at al can take their license away. If you do, you belong on the same meds as RobLA. Give it a goddamn rest!!!

No, we will not "give it a rest". This is an assault on the First Amendmend and not the first one a Dem has unleashed recently.

Hell, go to the Path to 9/11 Blog. Plenty of lefties there are clamoring for ABC to LOSE THEIR LICENSE.

Jesus Christ, your side already sold out your alleged concern for human rights. Are you now going to sell out your alleged concern for free speech?
-=Mike

Mike:I could care ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mike:

I could care less whether they air it or not. You loonies on the right who watch it will salivate and holler and scream your nonsense about Clinton. The left who watch it will scream foul. The sensible middle will yawn and turn to football.

I suggest you do some research before blathering on and on about governmental power. Read just a little about the FCC and how it oversees licenses.

If lefties are clamoring to take ABC's license they are as ignorant and as nuts as you appear to be.

Hugh:Yes... (Below threshold)
Inquiring:

Hugh:

Yes, it's a political play by Reid et al. So what? Like your side doesn't know how to play political hardball?

What you do not seem to get is the types of political plays that are made reveal the character and attitude of the person/party.

There is a huge, vast, enormous, (insert your own synonym) difference between threatening to boycott and threatening to abuse government authority. There is no moral equivalence, no matter how you might like to cry there is.

This kind of political play is indicative of a disturbing mindset, that says, "Free speech for me, not for thee." It is a mindset that I oppose as directly contradictory of the values this country was founded on.

Frankly, if you had any sort of political integrity you would be denouncing this cheap play with all the vehemence it deserves instead of being blindly partisan and defending it as well as the pathetic politicians making it; such action reveals your own character as well.

For god's sake only the GOVERNMENT can abridge First Amendment rights. And 2 or 3 or 45 Democrats ISN'T the GOVERNMENT. Even if they took the Senate and the House it's the FCC STUPID.

First off, all things considered, actually no, the governemnt can't abridge First Amendment rights; try reading, actually reading, that First Amendment sometime.

And as you pointed out, they are only 2 or 3 senators, right now. If that kind of attitude continues to be pushed in the Democratic Party and becomes widely adopted by its constituents and elected members there is no end to the havoc they can wreak, and by making such a petty political stunt they have demonstrated that attempting to do such a thing would not be beneath them if they had more power in their corner.

If the lefties would like t... (Below threshold)
sansscoucy:

If the lefties would like to revoke ABC's broadcast license, I think that's an excellent idea. If the price I have to pay for ABC being wiped off the airwaves forever is to not have this bullshitumentary aired, then so be it.

ABC is a net disaster for truth *and* conservatives. Good idea to shitcan them.

SS

It's incredible, but Hugh g... (Below threshold)
Clay:

It's incredible, but Hugh gets dumber with each of his posts. He is the amazing shrinking brain! What a moron.

Inquiring:Thanks f... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Inquiring:

Thanks for your response. But me thinks you protest too much. I don't know if you're a Republican or not but if you are, to be somehow offended by politics, in the party of Rove is, disingenuous at best.

I have read the First Amendment. I have studied the First Amendment and though I am not a constitutional scholar it's meaning is clear and with regard to abridging freedom of speech in a circumstance such as this.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment

Your conclusion is just plain silly, and I actually think you don't believe it. The democrats as boogiemen??


Clay:An intelligen... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Clay:

An intelligent, well-reasoned argument. Thank you. Your silence says it all. You might want to ask RobLA if he has any spare meds for you.

There ya go again, Hugh. Wh... (Below threshold)
Clay:

There ya go again, Hugh. What argument? It was an observation. You're an idiot.

I find it hard to believe t... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I find it hard to believe that the CEO and Chief Counsel of the Foundation would allow this letter to go out with these typos -- and if the typos aren't in the original letter - who's typos are they -- and what is the source of the letter?

"...we remailn concerned about the false impression..."

"Labelng the show as "fiction" does not meet your responsibility to the victims .."

These typos suggest this is not a verbatim cut and paste of the letter, and at that point the source and "path" of the letter comes into question. I'm not suggesting the words aren't authentic, I'm just wondering who typed them and what was the source, and the cynic in me then wonders whether any liberties were taken in the re-typing. These same typos appear on the TPM page linked in Kim's post, so they weren't introduced by Wizbang.

Spotted a couple more typos... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Spotted a couple more typos.

"Your corporate partner, Scholastic, has disassociated itself from this proect."

"...but also cheapens the fith anniversary..."

Again, I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing on the part of bloggers -- it just raises a concern in my mind reference accuracy.

Oh, and Hugh? The meds thin... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Oh, and Hugh? The meds thing? It wasn't funny the first time.

Are you 12?

I'm not 12 Clay but I'm old... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I'm not 12 Clay but I'm old enough not to call someone dumb or a moron after posting an argument or "observation" as you like to put it. I stand by my meds comment.

HughFollow me here... (Below threshold)

Hugh

Follow me here a bit. Let's say you decide to rob a bank --- you hand over a note to the teller saying "I have a gun, you know what to do" (btw you DON'T have a gun)... but before she can, you leave.

Can you be prosecuted for attempted armed robbery?

Hell, YEAH. It doesn't matter if you had a gun...you threatened that you did. It doesn't matter that you didn't specifically ask for money, its enough you implied it, it doesn't matter that you left the bank before she handed you some money.

Senate Dems are trying to strong arm ABC into an action it wouldn't have otherwise taken with the implicit threat about the broadcast license. It doesn't matter whether they could reasonably carry out that threat or not. And it doesn't even matter if ABC doesn't submit to the threat. The threat was made.

Any and all current Democrat candidates for office, local state or national, should be specifically asked if they support their current Dem office holders actions in threatening ABC's license. They should ALL be asked it again and again until they give a "yes" or "no" answer.

Darleen:With all d... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Darleen:

With all due respect your analogy doesn't work. One of the reasons it doesn't work is that there are statutes which define whatt attempted armed robbery is. Those statutes govern the action which is the crime. Here, it's the FCC regulations which control licensure. Harry reid has no control over those regulations. The democrats are powerless to take their license away. Only the FCC can with all the built in judicial review. The FCC appointments are made by the President.

Now can you argue it's hardball politics. Of course you can. But you folks keep talking about a threat that doesn't exist....Harry Reid has as much power to take ABC's license away as you or I do. You can call it implicit or whatever, but do you think ABC sees it as one? How can they? They know only the FCC has the power to regulate them.

Hugh,er, I mean Doct... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

Hugh,
er, I mean Doctor Hugh
Since you seem to be prescribing medication for some people, could you tell me what to take for a pain in the ass? I am getting one from reading comments from you and the three stooges... nyuck nyuck nyuck.

Why yes I can prescribe for... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Why yes I can prescribe for you. take your head out of your ass.

I long for those days when ... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

I long for those days when honest opposition and arguement was the norm and not the exception.The trolls are so lacking in basic honesty and facts that no amount of truth or facts can change them.To be fair I don't believe they believe the bull they put out themselves and if they do, mental institutions should be reopened for their own safty.Hugh, Lee, Mary,please get help before its too late.

This is a prime example of ... (Below threshold)
Buckeye:

This is a prime example of Government censorship by the Dems. Harry Reid must have edited out the first amendment from that copy of the Constitution that he carries.

Mr. president we have Osama... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

Mr. president we have Osama cornered,what should we do.Monica ease up a minute this may be important.Ah never mind.

As abhorent as I find the "... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

As abhorent as I find the "We Killed the Patriot Act" Democraps, I do have a problem with the ABC thing.

The truth/facts are bad enough, why not just go with that and accurately portray what happened.

Jesus Lord we've had enough "Commissions" to tell us who said what to whom, including Bubba's girlfriend, Monica Blewinsky.

HughWhy are you ba... (Below threshold)

Hugh

Why are you babbling about statues? I used the analogy that you can't use a "get out of jail free" card about threats just because you don't have the immediate means to carry them out.

The Senate or House dems could easily make life real difficult for ABC as a broadcaster by calling for hearings and pressuring the FCC to open their own investigation.

It's like sending in Tony and Guido into the local mom&pop store, they stroll around and say "hey, nice business you got here. Be a real shame if sumthin were to happen to it."

And Dem threatening in this manner is not unprecedented... in 2004 a cabal of 38 House Dems and Ind. decided to do pursue a little Don Corelone action with Rupert Murdoch. Or the Dem threats of individual station licenses over a program that hadn't even been shot... gotta love Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton little rant

think they're going to regret doing this, and they better hope we don't win.
See, they are not threatening boycotts or letterwriting campaigns to advertisers..they are threatening GOVERNMENT action to interfere or even shut down speech they don't agree with.

BuckeyeRemember, t... (Below threshold)

Buckeye

Remember, to Leftists it's a "living Constitution"... where it means whatever they want it to mean.

You're right, Lee. It's a ... (Below threshold)

You're right, Lee. It's a conspiracy. Karl Rove wrote the letter.

I'm not 12 Clay but I'm ... (Below threshold)
Clay:

I'm not 12 Clay but I'm old enough not to call someone dumb or a moron after posting an argument or "observation" as you like to put it.

Hugh, you are a lying, leftist pudwad. You didn't use the exact words dumb or moron, but you said the same thing. And now you're equivocating.

Hugh: "Now can you argue it... (Below threshold)

Hugh: "Now can you argue it's hardball politics. Of course you can. But you folks keep talking about a threat that doesn't exist....Harry Reid has as much power to take ABC's license away as you or I do. You can call it implicit or whatever, but do you think ABC sees it as one? How can they? They know only the FCC has the power to regulate them."

If there is no threat then it's NOT hardball politics. It would be softball politics, or maybe fluffy-bunny politics, but not hardball politics.

So let's agree that it's actually, as you said, hardball politics. Not the softball type or fluffy-bunny type, hardball.

Now lets just suppose, for pretend, that the hardball politics involves people in the government paying "hardball" with the private sector. Just for pretend.

You don't think there is something wrong with that?

Well I will use those words... (Below threshold)
914:

Well I will use those words Hugh, Your a dumb smart moron.

I'm not 12 Clay but I'm ... (Below threshold)
Clay:

I'm not 12 Clay but I'm old enough not to call someone dumb or a moron after posting an argument or "observation" as you like to put it.

Hugh,

Did you not call Mike blind and an idiot? So, you're not only a dumb 12-year old, but you're also an hypocrite. Typical of the left to accuse while asking for a pass. Tsk, tsk.

Synova:Like lots o... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Synova:

Like lots of other folks, and myself included at times, you want to change the argument. What the shrill voices of the right have been hollering about on this and other posts is the democrats "threat" to take ABC's license away. I'm simply pointing out it's a false argument. It can't be done. There in no infringement on ABC's freedom of speech.

If all the silly scenarios people posit ,about dems taking control and making things difficult for ABC, happen then I would absolutely agree.

The shrill voice of Harry Reid and others is matched only by the shrill voices of the wingnuts crying fouls. Both of you are silly about this.

Meantime, relax, watch the show and then come crowing about the big bad boogieman Bill. The rest of the country will either yawn or laugh.

"Thesze libs are whining fa... (Below threshold)

"Thesze libs are whining fagots who should be killed"

The preceding message was brought to you by the new republican party and their loyal followers.
We thank you Gary Ruppert for those brilliant words.

Yep, I am siding with the "whining fagots", you can keep your party of lunacy, and intolerance.

"Mr. president we have Osama cornered,what should we do.Monica ease up a minute this may be important.Ah never mind."

Yeah that's funny jainphx, but could frat boy at least corner the F#$%^ng guy. It has been FIVE YEARS!!!

BTW, I will take Clinton and his BJ's over this crowd and their incompetent leadership any day.
"Browny, you are doing a heck of a job"

And what's wrong with a little BJ anyway? From the tone of the posts here, most of you repubs could probably use one. You seem a bit uptight ;)

I wish to address to things... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I wish to address to things here. First, Hugh. He is an idiot. This is just an observation, but if you read his posts, you will find him in disagreement with the simplest ideas and concepts. If he is not an idiot, then he is a democrat. That speaks for itself. Next, the Path to 9/11. Not having seen it, I know not if it is worth watching, but I know this. The WTC was first attacked in 93, Osama declared war on the United states in 96. There were numerous attacks by al-Qaeda on US interests. During the Clinton Presidency, you could count the number of terrorists killed on one hand. Since 9/11, Bush took action, and thousands of terrorist have died. We have not been attacked again and Bin Ladin spends little time in luxury hotels. Most of al-Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured. If I were Clinton, I wouldn't want to remind America what he had not done either. Clinton is a cheat and a liar, and Sandy Berger is a thief. Reid is a coward and Kerry a communist fool.

There are three forms of 2,... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

There are three forms of 2, to, too, and two. I meant to use two. I would want Hugh to misundersand.

Haven't met a liberal who c... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Haven't met a liberal who can't lie through his teeth.

They can't stand the thought that someone might actually think that terrorism didn't start until jan of 2001.

Unlike others on the right I don't look to blame Clinton for terrorism. Nor do I blame Bush. Or, perhaps more accurately, I blame both for ineptitude about considering how real the threat was.

here is the secret about Clinton and his legacy. He did nothing. Nada. Zip. He is the Zachary taylor of the 20th century. A footnote on his ability to accomplish nothing either in foreign or domestic policy.

At best, the Right can blame him for inactivity or getting a blow job.

That's why they doth protest too much. The Left HAS to believe that things were all roses and teacups before Bush. That only if Al Gore or Hillary had been elected then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Truth is it would have happened. And like the 1993 attempt it would have been treated as a crime rather than the act of War it was.

Here is another truth, under Clinton OBL continually grew in power and influence while escalating the war. Since Bush he has had his assed kicked. Neither President captured him, but I can tell I would rather go with the guy that took away OBL's power base than with the guy (or party) that let him grow in power.

I don't think Clinton was the worst President ever. I don't give one shittin-shinola about Lewinsky and the Dress and the Money Shot Heard Round the World. I think Clinton was absolutely nothing either way--something he probably fears more than anything.

field-negro, I constantly find it amusing to here the Right described as the party of lunacy and intolerance when I constantly see the Left castigate an abuse anyone who doesn't agree 100% with them. If, as your name implies, you are an African-American, I find it ironically amusing you embrace the Party that constantly thinks that African-Americans are so inept and unable to care for themselves that the need the rich, White, "enlightened" intelligensensia to take care of them. They've painted your race as inferior for so long you are starting to believe it. I bought into it as well as a young Hispanic growing up in the barro until I learned the hand supposedly reaching down to help me was really holding me down.

Woo Hoo, must be a slow wee... (Below threshold)
epador:

Woo Hoo, must be a slow weekend with all this banter.

The fact that the letter quoted originally has lots of typos leads me to question its authenticity.

But for all the ranting, the best thing about all this so far is the audio clip we can play over and over of Clinton saying:

"I just want people to tell the truth."

Faith+1You know wh... (Below threshold)

Faith+1

You know what's even funnier than the Clintonistas attempted rosewater wash of the era? At Khatamis' CAIR dinner ....

He asked my name, which I gave, then asked what I would like to talk about. I asked him what changes in American policy toward Iran he would like to see from the next U.S. administration. He broke into a great big smile and became almost animated. I can boil it down for you to one word.

Clinton.

If we just do what Clinton did, things would be much better. Color me surprised. Heh.BWAHAHAHAHAH!!

Oh shoot...I forget that th... (Below threshold)

Oh shoot...I forget that the blockquote tags on this site close after each paragraph... should be:

He asked my name, which I gave, then asked what I would like to talk about. I asked him what changes in American policy toward Iran he would like to see from the next U.S. administration. He broke into a great big smile and became almost animated. I can boil it down for you to one word.

Clinton.

If we just do what Clinton did, things would be much better. Color me surprised. Heh.
FN, I usually assume that t... (Below threshold)

FN, I usually assume that the truely wacked out "righties" are "lefties" having fun. Sort of like "Liberal Larry" of Blame Bush blog.

Hugh, All accounts are that the film is every bit as critical to Bush as to Clinton and from everything I've heard about it so far it's nothing that I didn't see a year ago on the History channel in a show about Bin Laden. People who have *seen* the movie say it's not about Clinton anyhow, but about the terrorists. I can't see myself crowing about boogieman Bill when absolutely none of it is news to me.

And I'm not trying to change the argument because I'm arguing what everyone else, except you, is arguing. That an attempt by government persons to intimidate the private sector into censoring speech is wrong. You are the only one trying to claim that it's quite all right for members of the government to try to intimidate people if the threat is an empty one.

I, like many others here, find this incomprehensible. It's the same sort of incomprehensible as the Muslim student interviewed who said that free speech doesn't include the right to insult someone's religion, only that *is* comprehensible assuming that the young lady wasn't from around here and wasn't familiar with the concept of free speech.

This should be an absolute no brainer for anyone who opposes censorship. It should be an easy answer for anyone who understands the concept of free speech.

Yet it's not. And it's confusing and unsettling that it's not. Rather than the high road, see how much more careful of free speech *we* are than all you who protested the Reagan thing, it's the equivalency road. What? Liberals aren't any *worse* than conservatives because the Reagan movie got shoved off to Showtime? (And never mind that Michael Moore's manipulative BS gets shown as documentaries.)

Freedom of speech isn't a comparative issue. It's a principle itself and it is to that principle that actions need to be compared. He who is without sin, throw the first stone? And since no one is sinless... what? Screw freedom of speech?

Where on God's green Earth did people get the idea that it was okay for members of the government to use their positions to silence criticism if only that criticism seems unfair? "This is untrue and people should not be allowed to view it." is right out of a very *very* bad dystopic novel. I'm impressed, actually, that you've been saying "show it". Thank you for that. But the fact is that you haven't been able to actually *say* that elected officials should not use their positions to bully the private sector in order to shut them up.

It should be an excessively simple statement to make.

For *anyone*.

Man, I was late to this par... (Below threshold)
kirktoe:

Man, I was late to this party.

Here is my favorite part of the letter sent to ABC:

"Indeed, according to press reports, the fact that you are still editing the film two days before it is scheduled to air is an admission that it is irreparably flawed."

This is hilarious!!!! The only reason it's being edited is baecause of the threats made to ABC!!!! What arrogance these people have.

My take on the whole thing is that now it doesn't really matter if ABC shows the movie or not. Bill Clinton (and the Democratic party) as usual have gone over the top on this and whatever potential fallout there would have been from the movie is now smaller than the fallout from Americans seeing the left engage in blatant censorship. From what I understand from those who have seen it, you come away from the movie angry at the terrorists, not Bill Clinton (of course being mad at the real enemy is not something that the Dem's like either). So Clinton probably should have just kept his mouth shut but when you're a malignant narcisist, that's impossible (by the way that's a Tammy Bruce coined term).

The irritating thing to me is that as we come up on the 5th anniversary of 911 we should be coming together as Americans and remembering a tragic day. But Bill Clinton and the left couldn't give a damn about that so he's dividing the country (which of course liberals always do and then blame it on conservatives).

We need to make sure these people stay in the political minority for a long, long time.

Field Negro-Let me inform y... (Below threshold)
jainhpx:

Field Negro-Let me inform you of the real conspiracy,Osama Ben Laden is dead he has been dead since Tora Bora,we only keep him alive to taunt you idiots on the nutso left.It's working real good.Rove you magnifisant Bastard.

Yes, Rove has Osama Bin in ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Yes, Rove has Osama Bin in a box in his office. Waiting until the October Surprise!

Faith + 1, amen brother. FN knows how to latch on to that "enlightened" Dem. crowd who've done so much for his "race" since LBJ in 1960's.

Ahem. Well, at least he is consistent, if not real clear about what his party has done for him and his Peeps.

Jesus H., why can't we get over the color thing and MoveOn.org.com.edu?

"First Amendment? We don't ... (Below threshold)
smitty:

"First Amendment? We don't got no First Amendment!
We don't need no stinking First Amendment!"

So the Clinton mob is now emulating the Corleone Family.

Don Clinton: So ABC, that's a pretty license you got there, you wouldn't want anything to happen to it, would you? I've got friends in Washington, powerful friends.

ABC: Please Don Clinton, I don't want a Special Prosecutor! I don't want an FCC drive-by! The broadcast license is all I have!

Don Clinton: Good, very good. We understand each other. By the way, my friend Michael Moore wants to speak to you about broadcasting his movie.

Don't misunderstand me, peo... (Below threshold)
smitty:

Don't misunderstand me, people (alone or in groups)have the absolute right to protest the ABC movie or boycott ABC if the see fit.

Senators, Congressmen and an ex-President, however, do not have the right to demand that anyone refrain from broadcasting, printing or speaking on a controversial subject. Especially when those demands are coupled with not-so-subtle threats. That's censorship.

As a conservative I STRONGL... (Below threshold)
clearwaterconservative:

As a conservative I STRONGLY urge ABC to correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the upcoming “Path to 9/11” before it is shown. And I am not the only conservative saying this.

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch "The Reagans."

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.

Captain’s Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, "The Path to 9/11" is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.

Clearwater, I agree.<... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Clearwater, I agree.

That is why we are better than the Democrats.

They would mortgage their souls for any false purchase they can get on "Bush lied/For Oil/Halliburton/etc" stupidity.

We're better than that.

clearwaterconservative,... (Below threshold)
smitty:

clearwaterconservative,

That's a pretty impressive list of conservatives,
did the DNC provide it?

But the real story isn't the truth or untruth of this movie, it's the attempt by powerful politicians to censor it. Lots of people were angered by the misrepresentations and half-turths in Fahrenheit 911 but I don't remember any Republican Senators, Congressment or ex-Presidents
issuing not-so-subtle threats.

To illustrate why we don't ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

To illustrate why we don't have to lie"

"Sen. Rockefeller says Iraq would be better off under Saddam Hussein"

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topstories_story_252203351.html

Who needs to make shit up when you have the circus clowns that are the Democrapic Party?

Faith +1 you are exposing y... (Below threshold)

Faith +1 you are exposing your ignorance and your lack of knowledge of history. But that's to be expected. Let me clue you in on a little something. Just because I choose to use the handle field negro, does not mean I am some down on my luck black slacker looking for a hand out. Trust me, I don't need one from repubs or anyone else. So spare me the pull yourself up speech, it's kind of old now. It's one that my good friend Mitchell uses all the time to convince himself that he has arrived. Because he is soooo past the race thing :)

I choose to look at the big picture, and I will always align myself with whoever has the best policies that will help all Americans. Truth be told, the repubs and their tax cuts would help me more than it would propbably helps you, but that's the irony of this dabate. You are probably selfish in nature, so you align your self with the party of the selfish. Me, on the other hand, would like to help those who are not as fortunate as I am, so I choose the party or the politician who I believe will do the best job for ALL the people.

In this present discussion. That was one Bill Clinton, and not some coke snorting, born again frat boy, who cheated his way through school and life. [That's who you should be giving your work ethic speech to,not me]

Get it genius? So the next time you want to impress "Charlie" take that sh$# somewhere else. Maybe to Mitchell's house,cause I am not impressed.

In a word, go f#%^ yourself!

Oh lord, somebody hurt fiel... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Oh lord, somebody hurt field's feelings and he's back to playing the role of "internet" big shot.

Just because I choose to use the handle field negro, does not mean I am some down on my luck black slacker looking for a hand out. Trust me, I don't need one from repubs or anyone else.

To be blunt, your race is immaterial. You are a dunce. Skin color isn't much of a mediating factor with that.

I choose to look at the big picture, and I will always align myself with whoever has the best policies that will help all Americans. Truth be told, the repubs and their tax cuts would help me more than it would propbably helps you, but that's the irony of this dabate.

Advice: Bragging how rich you are on the internet is more than mildly pathetic.

Nobody ACTUALLY believes you. Most find it funny that you are so insecure that you have to toss that in when nobody gave a darn in the first place.

You are probably selfish in nature, so you align your self with the party of the selfish.

No, I'm fairly sure he's not a Democrat.

Me, on the other hand, would like to help those who are not as fortunate as I am, so I choose the party or the politician who I believe will do the best job for ALL the people.

Ahh, so you confuse "making people reliant on the government" for "helping" them?

In this present discussion. That was one Bill Clinton, and not some coke snorting, born again frat boy, who cheated his way through school and life. [That's who you should be giving your work ethic speech to,not me]

We had drug-addled, draft-dodging, and all-around total scumbag against Bush. We had a man who put blowjobs from a sow over the well-being of the country. A man who refused to push for investigations into the slaughtering of Americans in Arabia. A man who was so divisive that we saw domestic terrorism for the first time in a long time --- and Bush, fortunately, mended the country enough to stop that nonsense.

In a word, go f#%^ yourself!

Keep your personal itinerary to yourself.

Again, nobody cares about you.
-=Mike

"In a word, go f#%^ your... (Below threshold)
Cybrludite:

"In a word, go f#%^ yourself!"

Pssst, dude, that's three words...

The reaction from some of t... (Below threshold)
Delta OP:

The reaction from some of the members of the former Clinton Administration can only be labeled ridiculous. They want to say because events depicted in the movie did not happen as shown somehow changes the fact that the 9/11 Commission asserted that several opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden presented themselves during the Clinton Administration and that he and his trusted advisors dropped the ball. And how Sandy Burglar can somehow come forth on this issue after his dispicable act (stealing classified Clinton Administration documents from the National Archives before he was to testify before the 9/11 Commission) while this country was making an effort to get at the truth behind the 9/11 attacks is laughable to say the least. While events have been dramatized (there is almost no way to show what actually happen because there may be no written record of them - maybe Berger got rid of the evidence...) I think the spirit of the 9/11 Commission's findings is still demonstrably intact.

The bottom line is this: the Democrats once again want to politicize 9/11 to gain maximum political advantage (just as they are doing with Iraq) and this film reveals what a lot of Americans shockingly don't know about what the Clinton Administration did and didn't do to combat the growing problem of global terrorism. And while this may be off topic for some people, this constant refrain from Democrats that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 is a complete joke and only shows how Democrats don't understand the big picture. Would these same people be questioning why we were waging WW II against the Germans because they weren't the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor? I can just hear them now: "How could we have possibly gotten ourselves bogged down at Normandy when the real enemy is Imperial Japan? The war against Germany is a tragic diversion of our nation's resources. FDR lied and thousands died..." President Bush never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 - Iraq was a case where they and many others felt that they could be a future threat and they needed to be dealt with so that they won't be a problem for us in the down the road. The Bush Administration recognized that Al Qaeda was only one threat we needed to be concerned about and turning a blind eye to other potential enemies is a very dangerous policy in this day and age where WMD's could destroy entire cities. In any case, it is hard to imagine how a real war on terror can be fought if one chose to ignore Saddam Hussein's flagrant violations of the original Gulf War cease fire agreement and countless UN resolutions. Iraq had to be dealt with in order to protect what was left of the UN's credibility. How can countries like North Korea or Iran take threats of action from the UN seriously if no steps are ever taken to actively enforce those penalties for non-compliance? Is it that hard for the left to grasp such a simple concept? Wake up people...

I have to agree with Hugh o... (Below threshold)
millco88:

I have to agree with Hugh on this one. It's a political issue, that's it. Perhaps some actually believe that the Dems would really attempt to pull ABC's broadcast license if they showed the Path to 9/11. Given the likely response of ALL the networks, I think that beyond unlikely.

However, it's pretty obvious that the Reps are using Reid's letter to illustrate what Dem control would look like. That's smart politics on their part. But come on, there's no way ABC is going to go dark anytime soon, regardless of what happens in the election.

I think the most likely "retribution" would be some cold looks at a fundraiser.

Field Negro's new nickname:... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Field Negro's new nickname: Mr. Big.

Snort!

"Advice: Bragging how rich ... (Below threshold)

"Advice: Bragging how rich you are on the internet is more than mildly pathetic.

Nobody ACTUALLY believes you. Most find it funny that you are so insecure that you have to toss that in when nobody gave a darn in the first place."

That's funny I don't remember bragging about how rich I am. So Mike, keep your petty insecurities to yourself. And the fact that the people who posts here don't believe the things I post, is not causing me any sleepless nights my man. But I have said this before, and you, or any one posting can take this bet. Anything you want to prove about me or my station in life can be handled with a friendly wager to your favorite charity or to mine. But I repeat, it won't be taken, because first, repubs don't have charities, and second, I doubt if you even believe half the crap you post. You are obviously a down and out loser who probably spends his life in a public library somewhere trolling on the internet. But enough about you.

This debate is about your frat boy president and the terrible job he has done and continues to do. What country did the frat boy mend, and when has the country been more divisive? I will tell you when; never! So stop trying to paint one of the worst presidents in American history as anything but the stupid moronic imbecil that he is.

And thanks for the attempt at advice, but I will pass. I do, however, have some for you. Turn the T.V. off FOX, go outside the nursing home and mingle with some other people, and don't forget to take your meds.

Loser!

Pssst cybrludite; since you are the resident grammer and spell checker for this thread, you might want to get with your boy Mike. I think his spell checker was off.

Oh, and you can go and f%$# yourself as well!
How many words was that?

Field Negro's new nickname ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Field Negro's new nickname after last post:

Mr. Go F#ck Yourself

One word describes him: Angry Black Man!

I like that new one word ti... (Below threshold)

I like that new one word title from you.
AngryBlackMan. Thank you Mitchell, I will wear this new title like a badgeofhonor ;)

Ah FN, just as I expected, ... (Below threshold)
faith+1:

Ah FN, just as I expected, you aren't really a minority after all. Probably just another Ivy School "enlightened" lefty living off mom and pops dime with illusions of relevance. My knowledge of history is sound. The best you can do is tell me to "go fuck myself" because, as usual, you have absolutely no point or clear thought. Just unjustified, immature anger born of ignorance.

I can now see you are simply too irrlelevent to even bother reading or responding to. I can get your opinion from any intolerent, racist, elistist leftist website out there.

In the rightwing neocon uni... (Below threshold)
groucho:

In the rightwing neocon universe any criticism of the fearless brush-clearer-in-chief, no matter how reasoned, is automatically written off as hatred. It's a lame dodge that avoids defending the indefensible. Does 65% of the country hate Bush? On the other hand, this crowd has been clamoring for Clinton's head on a stick for more than a decade, with no end in sight. They couldn't throw him out for having consensual sex, so they desperately keep throwing dirt at him to divert attention from the current mess. It's all they've got. It's projection on a mass scale, the stock in trade of Rovian politics.

Let's say Clinton took out OBL in the 90's. Where's the slightest shred of evidence suggesting that 9/11 wouldn't have happened? Maybe it would have been worse. Who knows?

I just want the entire government to start restructuring its priorities, representing the people and keeping us safe. This will not happen until the decider...whoops, I mean the divider and his nefarious cronies are history.

Call me an Angry White Man

I've always prefered to cal... (Below threshold)

I've always prefered to call him Theo Huxtable.

"In the rightwing neocon un... (Below threshold)

"In the rightwing neocon universe any criticism of the fearless brush-clearer-in-chief, no matter how reasoned, is automatically written off as hatred."

Do you believe this?

Maybe you should let all the "rightwing" bloggers know that they aren't supposed to criticise the president. I think they missed the memo.

A better nic for "field neg... (Below threshold)
smitty:

A better nic for "field negro" might be "self important negro", he's so full of himself. A guy with lots of opinions and very little first hand knowledge or historical perspective.

Yeah, we all know your a well to do lawyer on the public payroll and you want to help ALL Americans. But somehow you come across as another opinionated schmuck.

Am I being judgemental? Hey you're the guy who just wrote: "You are probably selfish in nature so you align yourself with the party of the selfish."

In four words, take a hike, bozo.


Color me amused everytime I... (Below threshold)

Color me amused everytime I listen to a Leftist sneer "selfish" at someone who believes in property rights.

See, when a robber takes your wallet or car, they don't ask for your moral sanction or tell you that you're being "selfish" if you resist their predations. Ironicly, they are more honest in their thievery than all the Leftists like FN who want the absolute power to decide who's property gets confiscated and who it gets "donated" to (while taking their cut, of course).

That's funny I don't rem... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

That's funny I don't remember bragging about how rich I am.

Truth be told, the repubs and their tax cuts would help me more than it would propbably helps you, but that's the irony of this dabate.

A reminder for you, Sparky.

So Mike, keep your petty insecurities to yourself.

Projection is ALSO not a pretty thing to do on-line.

And the fact that the people who posts here don't believe the things I post, is not causing me any sleepless nights my man.

Good. Hate for you to think anybody takes you seriously.

But I have said this before, and you, or any one posting can take this bet. Anything you want to prove about me or my station in life can be handled with a friendly wager to your favorite charity or to mine.

Your point is...?

For a guy who doesn't remember bragging about how rich he is, you spend a lot of time bragging about how rich you are.

But I repeat, it won't be taken, because first, repubs don't have charities, and second, I doubt if you even believe half the crap you post.

Well, my favorite charity of "Make Field-Negro Infertile" is a very worthy cause. But, fortunately, I doubt you need the help to make sure you don't procreate.

You are obviously a down and out loser who probably spends his life in a public library somewhere trolling on the internet. But enough about you.

Yup, ya caught me. Darn you're clever.

Does your prison have broadband access or are you working on dial-up?

Oh wait --- stereotypes are bad only if they're done to you, eh?

This debate is about your frat boy president and the terrible job he has done and continues to do. What country did the frat boy mend, and when has the country been more divisive?

I don't see domestic terrorism now.

I did see it under Clinton.

Thus, Clinton --- demonstrably more divisive.

So stop trying to paint one of the worst presidents in American history as anything but the stupid moronic imbecil that he is.

I stopped trying with Clinton years ago. Thanks again.

And thanks for the attempt at advice, but I will pass. I do, however, have some for you. Turn the T.V. off FOX, go outside the nursing home and mingle with some other people, and don't forget to take your meds.

Don't drop the soap, sparky. And a carton of cigarettes really isn't SO valuable that kneepads should be needed to achieve one.

Just some advice for ya.

In the rightwing neocon universe any criticism of the fearless brush-clearer-in-chief, no matter how reasoned, is automatically written off as hatred.

Wow, I think I heard that with the last President, too. Funny how that works.

Of course, the right didn't blame Clinton for the ME chaos or natural disasters, but c'est la vie.

Let's say Clinton took out OBL in the 90's. Where's the slightest shred of evidence suggesting that 9/11 wouldn't have happened? Maybe it would have been worse. Who knows?

Whoa. Clinton knew OBL wanted to attack America. His refusal to go after him shows that he wanted America attacked.

Wow, moonbat logic is fun.

Call me an Angry White Man

All of you people are just Sparky.
-=Mike




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy