Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Of course the scene isn't perfectly accurate, but that doesn't make it false.<< What??? It either is true or it is false. It's 'dramatic license' -- in other words: FICTION. Don't lecture me about buying into spin. LOL!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Of course the scene isn't perfectly accurate, but that doesn't make it false." Did you suddenly become beau? This is some of your worse, and frankly, insulting, spin yet. If it isn't "perfectly accurate" then it certainly ISN'T TRUE, is it????
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If it isn't "perfectly accurate" then it certainly ISN'T TRUE, is it????<< It's 'true-ish'.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<And it was a crime, and he lied about it.>> And he had the integrity to fess up and take his medicine. Couldn't we all take cue from that? <snip> After a long investigation, however, Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence. Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them out. More than a few conservatives have been crying foul, or whitewash, in part because Mr. Berger's plea means he'll likely avoid jail and lose his security clearance for only three years. So we called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission." </snip> <<Maybe if the missiles would have actually hit something, that wouldn't have been said.>> Naive much?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<And it was a crime, and he lied about it.>> And he had the integrity to fess up and take his medicine. Couldn't we all take cue from that? < Most people do after their caught and the game is over -
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Come on, Doug, read what you're writing here. There's no defending this thing as a true or accurate account. When license is taken, it ceases being a documentary and starts becoming something akin to "inspired by" or based upon" or "what we'd like you to believe". Why stop with making up stuff about Berger? Why not put a spy in the White House, or having an "composite character" in the Secret Service staff as a double agent? THAT would be interesting. What are you all going to say if a program comes out with a "conflation of events" that has Rove dialing up Novak while he drools over a picture of Plame on his desk with his pants aroud his knees? As far as we know, that didn't happen, but it sure makes it interesting.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan If I want to watch exciting, made up stuff about the war on terror, I'll tune into 24. It doesn't ever pretend to be anything but fiction. Apparently, docu-drama means: Propa-ganda.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It either is true or it is false.> It's a 5 hour docudrama, not a simple, one sentence claim. Therefore, it can contain many truths as well as many moments of fiction. I don't believe anyone thought "Flight 93" or "World Trade Center" were perfectly accurate, but the consensus seemed to be that they conveyed an overall truth. From what I've read, this movie does as well. <Don't lecture me about buying into spin.> What, you've got some government mandated monopoly on it? I didn't realize you had the market cornered on lecturing on spin.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It's a 5 hour docudrama, not a simple, one sentence claim. Therefore, it can contain many truths as well as many moments of fiction." Dialog crafted attempting to represent a certain conversation is acceptable. Creating scenes out of whole cloth, with no basis in fact, is lying, not fiction.
Originally Posted By bboisvert ^^^ Haven't we talked about "consensus" somewhere before? The difference here is that no one bothered to check with the Clinton Administration before changing the facts in their little story. So it's quite hard to presume there was a consensus on the factuality in this film.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I didn't realize you had the market cornered on lecturing on spin.<< Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Nathan Therm. >>but the consensus seemed to be that they conveyed an overall truth<< Neither of them made false accusations, and neither of them presented themselves as 'docu-dramas.' You should know the difference, but I think you said too much, realize it now, and are embarassed to admit it. So you instead choose to attack me. Yawn. >>From what I've read, this movie does as well<< And yet, when I highlight a specific scene that is pure fiction, created for dramatic effect only, you ask "How do you know it didn't happen." Well, again, I answered: because the executive producer admitted it. Yet you still argue the point. I would think that 'the path to 9/11' would be filled with enough dramatic tension sans made up stuff.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why stop with making up stuff about Berger?> How do you know they're making it up? "The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up." <a href="http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/cover s/1101020812/story.html</a> "In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured," the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, CIA memo. "He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted." <a href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39612" target="_blank">http://www.wnd.com/news/articl e.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39612</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Dialog crafted attempting to represent a certain conversation is acceptable. Creating scenes out of whole cloth, with no basis in fact, is lying, not fiction.> Agreed. But there's no credible evidence it's the latter and not the former.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Neither of them made false accusations, and neither of them presented themselves as 'docu-dramas.'> There's no evidence that the "Path to 9/11" made false accusations either. <So you instead choose to attack me.> I'm not attacking you. I'm defending myself against your baseless attacks. <I answered: because the executive producer admitted it.> He didn't say they made it up; he said they conflated several events. There's a difference.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The bovine excrement is coming from the former Clinton officials, not me. And you're lapping it up.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder My head is spinning again, my goodness... The Spork of Spin has returned in full force, defending the inclusion of things that never occurred.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I sure hope the hard right never wonders why they're not trusted one iota anymore.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The Spork of Spin has returned in full force, defending the inclusion of things that never occurred.> You're projecting. Instead of spinning, please show me the evidence that Sandy Berger never declined to implement a plan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. You can't, because he did.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
