Originally Posted By DlandDug Oh... and Shakespeare ACTUALLY said: "The lady protests too much, methinks." So, call me a liar.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >Wow. As Shakespeare said: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."< Since no one, to my knowledge anyway, is averring this series is accurate, it would be nice if this were a bi-partisan request, rather than have Republicans be conspicuous by their absence.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Jim, I know you were being facetious. Truly, I wouldn't care at all that Clinton lied about his indiscretions, if he hadn't looked the American public straight in the eye and knowingly lied, after lying under oath in a court of law. Otherwise, it would have been no more than a personal defect. (And on that account, let he who is without sin among us cast the first stone.)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<That's right. Lying is lying. No matter what.>> No way. The consequences of the lie make a HUGE difference in how bad it is. If I tell someone at work that I already have plans for the evening (when I don't) because I don't want to go out to Happy Hour with them, so what? If I lie to my boss about the status of a major project, BIG PROBLEM!!
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Truly, I wouldn't care at all that Clinton lied about his indiscretions, if he hadn't looked the American public straight in the eye and knowingly lied, after lying under oath in a court of law. Otherwise, it would have been no more than a personal defect< absolutely
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...it would be nice if this were a bi-partisan request, rather than have Republicans be conspicuous by their absence.<< Yes, it would at that. The way it's being presented, one would almost think it was just a political stunt or something...
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I wish more politicians would use the phrase "methinks..."<< Hey, I wish more politicians would think before using a phrase...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<That's right. Lying is lying. No matter what.>> No way. The consequences of the lie make a HUGE difference in how bad it is. , not when your job is to represent 270 million people and you lie to all of them --- that magnitude is too large to ignore. Trippy, I know you have the candles burning at your home CLinton shrine based on how you feel about him, but I have to disagree with you on this one... as for the indiscretion - yeah it wasn't good, but it didn't shake my world as he was neither the first nor the last to partake ... but lying to the entire country because he thought he was clever enough to get around it...for a man as intelligent as Bill that was a huge miscalculation
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <>>...it would be nice if this were a bi-partisan request, rather than have Republicans be conspicuous by their absence.<< Yes, it would at that. The way it's being presented, one would almost think it was just a political stunt or something..., you have to wonder how did it get so close to release time before the firestorm started ? Howevever I do agree it shouldnot be put out if it is grossly incorrect - not knowing whether it is or isn't -- felt the same way about the Reagan mini series
Originally Posted By mele <<<Truly, I wouldn't care at all that Clinton lied about his indiscretions, if he hadn't looked the American public straight in the eye and knowingly lied, after lying under oath in a court of law. Otherwise, it would have been no more than a personal defect<>> I also agree. It's not like I thought all politicians were truthful. But the way Clinton pointed his finger and so adamantly stated that he did not have sexual relations with "that woman" really ticked me off. He should have refused to answer or told people it was none of their business. He could have said "yeah, so?" and I would have had more respect for him.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "..one would almost think it was just a political stunt or something..." Rather than snipe like this, what would you have them do, especially since still no one has said the series is accurate?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Reports say there is a scene that shows 'bin laden in our sites' and Sandy Berger calling off an easy hit. It's not based on any fact. It's made up. It never happened.> How do you know it didn't happen? Because Sandy Berger, a guy who stole classified documents, said so? There were numerous reports that plans were made to take out bin Laden, but were all squelched by the Clinton administration (President Clinton even admitted this).
Originally Posted By ecdc He would rather them just be like Republicans apparently. Like I said, it should be a two-way street. Between yesterdays insistence that all the denouncers of Iraq on this board immediately flock to a topic to praise the handing over of the government, to todays wondering why Clinton won't denounce Michael Moore, it's clear it isn't a two-way street. Talk about a political stunt.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Rather than snipe like this, what would you have them do, especially since still no one has said the series is accurate?> It's a docudrama, and it condenses almost a decade of events into five hours. Of course it's not going to be perfectly accurate, just like the Lord of the Rings didn't perfectedly present JRR Tolkien's words. But from what I've heard and read, the big picture it presents is accurate.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Because Sandy Berger, a guy who stole classified documents, said so?>> IIRC, he took his own classified documents and the whole thing was much ado about nothing. <,plans were made to take out bin Laden, but were all squelched by the Clinton administration>> So when he launched missles into Afghanistan, the GOP was screaming "Wag the Dog! No War for Monica!" Now you want to say that he didn't do enough.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>How do you know it didn't happen?<< Because the executive producer admitted it: >>Platt also said one scene singled out for criticism by Democrats — depicting CIA operatives and Afghan fighters coming close to capturing Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, only for then-national security advisor Samuel Berger to refuse authorization of the mission — was a "conflation of events."<< I know you're eager to defend your side right away, but if you stop spinning for five minutes, things become clearer. >>Of course it's not going to be perfectly accurate<< If they wanted to create a fantasy version of what happened, that's their right. But to say that it's 'based on the 9-11 commission report', it's not unreasonable to expect that what they present should be in line with what is contained in that report. They should expect an outcry from people when they screw up. Just like Michael Moore. Otherwise, the correct way to present this thing would be: "Inspired by the 9-11 Commission Report" or something. This seems, once again, like an issue of basic fairness, regardless of party affiliation. But that's clearly impossible for some on these boards. >>There were numerous reports that plans were made to take out bin Laden, but were all squelched by the Clinton administration<< Plans are one thing. This scene suggests that we had bin laden literally in the crosshairs and Berger stopped him from being taken out. It didn't happen.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <IIRC, he took his own classified documents and the whole thing was much ado about nothing.> Actually, he took Richard Clarke's document. And it was a crime, and he lied about it. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html</a> <Now you want to say that he didn't do enough.> Maybe if the missiles would have actually hit something, that wouldn't have been said.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Because the executive producer admitted it:> Calling it a conflation means he took several events and watered them down into one scene. Of course the scene isn't perfectly accurate, but that doesn't make it false. I think you're buying into the Clinton administration's spin. The truth is, they had opportunities to take out bin Laden, and chose not to take them, because they didn't think the threat was worth the fallout.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It's a docudrama, and it condenses almost a decade of events into five hours. Of course it's not going to be perfectly accurate, just like the Lord of the Rings didn't perfectedly present JRR Tolkien's words. But from what I've heard and read, the big picture it presents is accurate." From you what "heard and read it'd accurate", yet you're comparing to LORD OF THE RINGS? That's one of the funniest things you've ever posted here.
