Originally Posted By Beaumandy I'm sure the libs would love to silence a guy like me. It's what they do when they can't provide a single reason why they should be considered patriotic or tough on terrorists.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Rush is trying to conflate the much more generic "it" with the "it" that Berger was objecting to, to make it seem like the "it" Berger was objecting to did in fact happen.>> <No, he's not.> Sure, he is. What's been making the news is Berger saying "It never happened," referring to his calling something off specifically. Rush is saying "it happened." <<Newsmax and the Daily Kos are roughly comparable, though I don't expect you to see it.>> <I rarely see things that aren't there.> You all too often don't see things your ideology doesn't want you to see.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Sure, he is. What's been making the news is Berger saying "It never happened," referring to his calling something off specifically. Rush is saying "it happened.">> Dabob, please tell us how you know this didn't happen with Berger? Are you saying the CIA agent who was in the group that had Bin Laden in their sites is lying? Why would you take the word of Berger or Clinton on anything? Please, as a liberal intellectual, explain.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Why would you take the word of Berger or Clinton on anything? Please, as a liberal intellectual, explain.>> You gotta keep this straight Beau. It's Republicans who lie about national security. Democrats lie about illicit sex. As long as they weren't trying to screw Osama to death, we can trust what they say.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Democrats lie about illicit sex.> Some Democrats lie about a lot of things, just as some Republicans do.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Why would you take the word of Berger or Clinton on anything? Please, as a liberal intellectual, explain.>> Let's go back to the bi-partisian, 9/11 Commission Report, shall we? <snip> Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed†and predicted that the principals would not approve it. “Jeff †thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off†the operation. He had simply informed Berger,who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision. </snip> <a href="http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec4.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/p df/sec4.pdf</a> Page 114 =============== So here it says that CIA Director George Tenet was the one who had "decided to 'turn off' the operation". Not Berger. Tenet. Don't believe the 9/11 Commission report? That's too bad because it's the best source of what the 9/11 Commission determined. Everything else is just heresay.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh But that's only one operation. There were several that were cancelled over a number of years, as I mentioned earlier. And the producers have already admitted they merged several different incidents into one, for dramatic purposes.
Originally Posted By woody >>Sure, he is. What's been making the news is Berger saying "It never happened," referring to his calling something off specifically. Rush is saying "it happened."<< This is an amazing vote of confidence for a known destroyer of confidential information. I'm sure Berger has taken the evidence into his pants, no better than Clinton so to speak. Rush is sure Berger is responsible. What evidence would you have otherwise? Berger was President Clinton's National Security Advisor. The reference to "it" is based on a docudrama. Maybe the dramatized scene never happended but "it" as in Berger advising against bin laden's capture has happened. Berger is not trustworthy. Even Kerry distrusts him. Berger knew he was violating the law by taking the classified documents from the National Archives. ----------- <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64379-2004Jul20.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/articles/A64379-2004Jul20.html</a> "Berger's attorneys have acknowledged that he removed numerous classified memos, and apparently discarded some, as he reviewed materials on behalf of the Clinton administration for the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They said the removal of documents was inadvertent but that Berger was aware he was violating the law when he removed his handwritten notes without submitting them for review by National Archives staff."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And the producers have already admitted they merged several different incidents into one, for dramatic purposes.<< Dramatic purposes? Or political purposes? Or pandering to those who are so blinded by their hatred for Clinton that they'll have a different standard for this movie than they have for phony documentaries and 'docu-dramas' when produced by the other side? How consistent.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Dramatic purposes? Or political purposes? Or pandering to those who are so blinded by their hatred for Clinton that they'll have a different standard for this movie than they have for phony documentaries and 'docu-dramas' when produced by the other side?> Dramtic purposes. Supposedly the movie doesn't show the Bush administration in much better light than it does the Clinton administration.
Originally Posted By bboisvert >>And the producers have already admitted they merged several different incidents into one, for dramatic purposes.<< Why is that even allowed to happen? A documentary about 9/11 airing on 9/11 is irresponsible at least to excercise "dramatic license", especially when the events and emotions are so fresh in everyone's mind. To claim that these events are "based on the 9/11 Commission Report and then say, "Well, we may have changed or merged some things for 'dramatic purposes'," is unacceptable unless the producers and ABC have a political axe to grind. Either tell the story accurately (based on your source (the 9/11 Commission report) or state clearly that you are creating a work of fiction and why.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why is that even allowed to happen?> Because it always does when real world events are compressed into moview. Do you think "Erin Brokavich" was a completely accurate retelling of what happened? <A documentary about 9/11 airing on 9/11 is irresponsible at least to excercise "dramatic license", especially when the events and emotions are so fresh in everyone's mind.> It's not a documentary - it's a drama based on historic events. <Either tell the story accurately (based on your source (the 9/11 Commission report) or state clearly that you are creating a work of fiction and why.> There's still no indication that the larger picture presented is not accurate. There just seems to be some nitpicking about details, and these are being used to imply the whole movie is false.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Because it always does when real world events are compressed into moview. Do you think "Erin Brokavich" was a completely accurate retelling of what happened? >> Don't know. I didn't see it. I don't care for Julia Roberts much. <<It's not a documentary - it's a drama based on historic events.>> Probably one of the reasons that Scholastic had prepared teaching guides for this film, and them pulled the plug on it last Thursday. Again, for me personally, I'd rather see the true story rather than a interpretation of the history that we all lived thru just 5 years ago. <<There's still no indication that the larger picture presented is not accurate. There just seems to be some nitpicking about details, and these are being used to imply the whole movie is false.>> I heard that ABC was frantically reworking the film. Not sure which parts they are retooling or what the final outcome will be. I suppose that we'll have to wait and see but it's the little details that make up the whole picture. Overall, Farenheit 9/11 was accurate in that it was about 9/11 and our government's response, but the little details that were taken out of context skewed the film's overall message. Also, re: Farenheit 9/11. Didn't Disney pass on that film because it was too "politically charged"?
Originally Posted By woody >>Also, re: Farenheit 9/11. Didn't Disney pass on that film because it was too "politically charged"?<< Not really. Disney did benefit from F911 by releasing the film under shell companies. So you can say Disney is being balanced by showing another "docudrama." Read about how Disney gotten rich off of F911 slander. <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2117923/" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/211792 3/</a> "How Disney and Michael Moore cleaned up on Fahrenheit 9/11." "Eisner's solution: Generate the illusion of outside distribution while orchestrating a deal that allowed Disney to reap most of the profits. Here's how the dazzling deal worked. On paper, the Weinstein brothers bought the rights to Fahrenheit 9/11 from Miramax. The Weinsteins then transferred the rights to a corporate front called Fellowship Adventure Group. In turn, that company outsourced the documentary's theatrical distribution rights (principally to Lions Gate Films, IFC Films, and Alliance Atlantis Vivafilms) and video distribution rights (to Columbia Tristar Home Entertainment)." "So, when Miramax made the deal for Fahrenheit 9/11, it allowed Moore a generous profit participation—which turned out to be 27 percent of the film's net receipts. Disney, in honoring this deal, paid Moore a stunning $21 million." "What of Disney? After repaying itself $11 million for acquisition costs, it booked a $46 million net profit, which Eisner split between two subsidiaries, the Disney Foundation and Miramax."
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I am taking the simplest way of dealing with the controversy - the same I took with F911 - just not going to watch -- I see no purpose to either - as both are either not 100% factual or edited to be as skewed as can be -- didn't watch the Reagan mini series and sure as heck won't be tuinng in Spike Lee's latest piece.... I know many people will not separate fact from fiction - and that is an issue - but smarter people will not be swayed by something already known to have artistic license...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Repeating your unfounded opinions does not advance your argument.> Nor does repeating that my opinion is "unfounded" make it so. Sorry.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<Sure, he is. What's been making the news is Berger saying "It never happened," referring to his calling something off specifically. Rush is saying "it happened.">> <Dabob, please tell us how you know this didn't happen with Berger? Are you saying the CIA agent who was in the group that had Bin Laden in their sites is lying?> AFIAK, this "Mike" consultant said he didn't know who called it off. And if you're going to say it was Berger specifically, you'd better have proof or it's downright demafatory, "docudrama" or not.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Dramatic purposes? Or political purposes? Or pandering to those who are so blinded by their hatred for Clinton that they'll have a different standard for this movie than they have for phony documentaries and 'docu-dramas' when produced by the other side? How consistent.> Beautifully said.
Originally Posted By woody Gee, Bush didn't come off so well with this docudrama too, but it seems only the Democrats and Clinton are complaining. I wonder if its because they can't take the heat and also, if they are the ClintonHitlers.
