Redstate

The problem is that they've invented 'historical' events that never happened and which specifically contradict the 9/11 report. Like the scene where bin Laden is in the sights and Sandy Berger hangs up on the CIA agents.

That doesn't do red-staters any good--all the public will hear is that those scenes are "made-up" and will view all of this as a right-wing whitewash of history. That sentiment will solidify the view that Clinton did nothing wrong and it was Bush who fell asleep at the helm.

If you want to wake people up to the years of inaction (or at least, failure to be aggressively proactive) during the Clinton years--then the mini-series has to be completely honest without a hint of a political agenda. Anything short of that, in this climate, will just be seen [however wrongly] as fear-mongering and rewriting history to distract the public from Iraq, which again reinforces the narrative that Iraq is a distraction from Al Qaida.

It isn't like that report was all that accurate and one of the co-chairs from that commission is the technical advisor for the movie.

If you want to wake people up to the years of inaction (or at least, failure to be aggressively proactive) during the Clinton years--then the mini-series has to be completely honest without a hint of a political agenda. Anything short of that, in this climate, will just be seen [however wrongly] as fear-mongering and rewriting history to distract the public from Iraq, which again reinforces the narrative that Iraq is a distraction from Al Qaida.

Really? Think so? I can provide you with an huge list of books and movies that would make just to opposite point. From Farenheit 911 to Protocols of the Elders of Zion, lies will kick truth's booty every time.

So...you're saying that eventhough the movie has scenes which clearly contradict the 9/11 commission report it's okay because (a) the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 commission is allowed to contradict himself, and (b) lies are better than the truth.

And that's the argument that you're going to the public with. How do you expect them to react?

Republicans win elections by convincing the public that they are more moral. You can't trade on moral superiority unless you're actually, you know, morally superior.

is that your statement about the necessity for truth is simply counterfactual, in fact, bizarrely so. Whether the truth is the best thing is a different point than you were making because as the commies and the nazis and the Kerry campaign taught us lies are much more effective than the truth.

There are a lot of documents that contradict the 9/11 report. In fact, the report contradicts itself in large parts. In fact, it is safe to say that the evidence presented in the report does not support the findings of the reports in sections.

How will the public react? I don't know. I suspect that most of the ones who vote will realize they are watching a movie produced by ABC not something produced by the Republican party.

Republicans win elections by getting the most votes. Sorry to disabuse you of the quaint notion of morality and all but check the voting laws of your state. If you have doubts review the outcome of the 1992 presidential campaign.

Finally, this is a movie. I don't care what they say because, get this, it is a movie. Movies are, hold on to your seat here, FAKE.

in the White House might be distributed by the adult film industry, but it would never be allowed to run on the networks.
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

documentary version. Watch that again instead, for probably the 50th time.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

or Republicans in particular. A good enemy sharpens your game. He makes you work harder, understand the situation better and ultimately brings out your best. The game is made better by being played by the greats. Nobody would pay to see evander Hollyfeld fight me. (well maybe for comedy value)

Right now we win because our side fights the democrats. It can only wind up with us being lazy and slothfull. Ultimately it will produce more gangs of 14 and RINOS.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to keep my eye out...

Except:
1) Senate Dems should not be telling people what to say. It's a free country, isn't it?

2) Red Staters will see that it's wrong to police this or any other medium for content.

3) Your signature is really awful :-)

--
If you thought that was bad, you should see my blog.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

It's just what they call me in the People's Islamic Liberation Front Army (PILFA, for short.

People's Liberation Army Terran Outreach wrote about your life, right?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

But that poseur got most of it wrong -- a classic case of conflation of similar events. I never should have graduated him, but he was getting published, so it was out of my hands, really. As a simple example, he made me out to be some kind of martyr to the cause of Virtue, saying I took the hemlock willingly.

What actually happened was that they said "full of poison" but I thought they said it was "fully krauesened", and chugged the whole thing.

absentee

I would say find out who our fellow Republicans are that got CBS to pull the Reagan docudrama off broadcast and de-thank them for it... to start

--
agustin, red county, california

Reagan's movie producers had him saying he was the anti-Christ and alluded to AIDS victims as dying in sin among other uncredible lines. Clinton and his adminis were just plain bums when it came to terrorism and they know it.

And? Why not use historical fact to make them look like bums? Why invent?

--
agustin, red county, california

they aren't off the mark. Clinton playing "Wag the Dog", for example, when the Lewinsky scandal was taking place and the inaction for the USS Cole bombing (or any terrorist bombing during the decade for that matter). I guess we'll have to see when it finally airs.

He is the ultimate proof that leading a good or moral life is not neccesesary for earthly success.He brings lincolns bromide about being able to fool all the people some of the time, to sharp focus. Finally, he shows if you are willing to do enough damage you might get what you want.

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

You have to strike a balance between precision and concision; that is, you can cover a topic in complete detail and take twelve hourse to do it, or you can collapse two or more events into one that captures their overal essence, allowing you to fit more into less time.

It's the sort of thing that historians deal with all of the time: does it matter more whether the armies attacked each other in successive battalions over the course of several hours, or is it sufficient to say that the battle occurred in such a month and at such a place? You have to tell the story, and often the details can cause the overall picture to be lost.

The big story here is the Dhimmicrats using their government prestige to pressure a private company into editorial changes. It is wrong.

--
If you thought that was bad, you should see my blog.

If only that had actually happened you'd have a point. As it turns out, it was the public that applied the pressure.

Incidentally, weigh the difference, if you will, between people making complaints about your movie, and people threatening to pull your broadcast license over a movie. Which do you find to be more like censorship. This will be on the SAT so think carefully.

absentee

I'm not defending Reid for stepping over the line.. I mean WAY over the line.

--
agustin, red county, california

got a link to show the government threatened Murrow's broadcast license?

We need a pitchfork to shovel the hypocrisy.

--
If you thought that was bad, you should see my blog.

You refer to the movie portraying "unpleasant truths". The Democrats claim the movie is depicting outright falsehoods under the guise of "fictionalizing".

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Here's a quote by scriptwriter Nowrasteh from an article today on NRO by John J. Miller:

Adds Nowrasteh, in an interview with NRO: “The Berger scene is a fusing and melding of at least a dozen capture opportunities. The sequence is true, but it’s a conflation. This is a docu-drama. We collapse, condense, and create composite characters. But within the rules of docu-drama, we’re well documented.”

"Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose." - Ronald Reagan

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

I ASSUME (and yes, it is just my own little educated guess) they pussyfooted around 90% of Clinton's malfeasance. It is ABC, after all. I don't believe they ever mention Gorelick's "wall" or Burger's pants.

They may have consolidated all Clinton's blown opportunities into one scene, which he believes he can purge and thereby clean up his image, but I'll never believe they will portray the extent of his failures, including the fact that he believed that the politics of his lying, cheating ways tied his hands in the defense of our country.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

That's an oblique reference to your post title.

Asking who has seen the movie is a great idea. I think we should first ask Americablog and Dailykos if any of their bleaters have seen, being that they are the ones trying to get the book burned, so to speak.

That Oliver Stone made a horrid JFK film is something everyone can agree on.

Politicians threatening censorship is not a new invention in the history of Earth. However, I do think this type of threat directly from the leadership of the democrats in the Senate, if not completely unprecedented, is certainly an extremely rare thing.

Rarity aside, however, the question remains as to whether it's a good thing, don't you thing? err, think?

absentee

I don't think the Democrats are doing the right thing in this matter.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

While I think the Democrats are being silly here, I do think that Kerry was right.

The show in question, at the very least, walked a fine line in violating Shays-Meehan.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

By what seems to be your definition, surely the WaPo and NYT violate Shays-Meehan every day?

They do not violate Shays-Meehan. Glad I could clear that up for you.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Glad you're back. We've missed that kind of insightful commentary.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

So can you tell me what Shays Meehan is?

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Shays-Meehan, at least in this context, limited advertising during elections. IIRC, it limits advertising in the 90 days prior to an election and it impacts all 527s and other political organizations. The John Kerry advertising really walked a a fine line on Shays-Meehan as it's funding was primarily from 527s.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shah

How would a show about a group of people (or their claims) who were opposed to a presidential candidate constitute advertising (and I'm drawing on a weak and faulty memory here)? Unless you wanted to say that any public airing that might affect a race was an advertisement. In which case, I call 1st Amendment violation.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Since it happened over 2 years ago but here is what I remember.

Since the show was politically driven it could not be considered journalism, as Sinclair was suggesting, the show was considered advertising. As such it falls under Shays-Meehan guidelines, or so the complaints from the Kerry camp were.

The truth is that a group of people(ie 527s) CAN'T use paid advertising for political ads 60 days before an election.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Since the show was politically driven it could not be considered journalism

How can it be decided if a show is "politically driven" or not? Are the courts taking up mindreading now?

If "Stolen Honor" could be considered politically driven, then what about the CBS attempt to ambush Bush using those fake memos? Or the NYT's predictable attempt to tip the election with their Al Qaqa story?

If you can show that 60 Minutes financial backers were a 527 and NOT Viacom then perhaps you would have a point.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

If you can show that Sinclair Broadcasting is a 527 then maybe you would have a point.

The Sinclair show was not pulled for any reasons related to Shays-Meehan. It was pulled because prominent Democrats used their public positions to blackmail Sinclair into pulling it.

Big institutions, including some unions and pension funds, pressured their fund managers to dump Sinclair's stock, according to an institutional investor for one of the country's largest trade unions—which traditionally align with the Democratic Party. Realizing their portfolios were at risk, some Wall Street decision-makers—money managers, investment advisors, pension funds and individual investors—burst into open revolt. New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, a Democrat, is the sole trustee for the New York State Common Retirement Fund, which owns about 250,000 shares of Sinclair stock. In a letter to Sinclair executives, Hevesi criticized the negative publicity generated by the controversy and the subsequent impact on the company’s stock.

a collection of Sinclair's shareholders called in the lawyers. Glickenhaus & Co., a New York money-management firm that owns significant shares of Sinclair, informed the broadcaster that they would sue unless it altered plans to air the film. Additionally, a group led by a New York hospital-employees pension fund announced that it was suing the broadcaster to recover damages from alleged insider trading and any fallout from the "Stolen Honor" controversy.

But by all means, contine to entertain me with your legal theories.

Praytell where did I say that Shays-Meehan was the reason it was pulled? Please stick to the program.

And Sinclair didn't finance the film. They were merely going to air it.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Since the show was politically driven it could not be considered journalism

So is 60 minutes banished from the air for the 2 months leading up to the general? Has there ever been an episode of 60 minutes that isn't politically driven? Have you ever seen one of their many segments on guns, for instance?

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

how have you been legal wizard/
I've been w/o dsl at home since move to NC until now

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

Legal wizard? You're funny.

Busy lately. Try to stop by RS once in a while and see what the inmates are up to.

Life without broadband wouldn't even be worth living. :)

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

And their success in that instance may have emboldened them in this instance.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

to remember the differences. Can you think of any?
First let me point out that there was nothing in Reagan's past that would hint at such a statement. In point of fact when Governor he defended the privacy of two gay men in his administration who had been outed. So there was no basis in fact or truth for the inartfully constructed words written in the script.

Moving on; are you, in your comparison, saying that there is nothing, repeat nothing, in Clinton's tawdry presidency that would justify what we know about the script? That there was nothing in his foreign policy, action or inaction, that would allow for televised criticism?

As to comparative situations let me point out that Reagan's fictionalized comments, or even whatever views he may have held on homosexuality, are nothing when 9/11 and the entire fifty year history of terrorism is brought to mind. Which is crucial, which is trivial?

Clinton's interests are well known, I would rather not return to that old and ugly past the recounting of which by now should be unneccessary.

As said before, remember the differences, it may not make a person look wise but at least he won't look foolish.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

I'm not sure I know what your point is. The Republicans were in an uproar over comments that are trivial compared to the invented scenes of the Clinton administration? Wouldn't that make us look worse? For wanting a mini-series pulled over less than what the Democrats are complaining of?

Further, in the long run, this will not work in the Republican's favor. To bash Clinton, one does not need to invent scenes.

We do not need the historical fact-checker of the series going on TV admitting their are errors, or commissioners for the 9/11 Report saying it's inaccurate. This does Republicans zero service.

If this were indisputable truth, we'd have it made. We could maybe remind people of why Bush beat Gore in the first place. But now, the average joe watching it will believe anything bad against Clinton is suspect and should be taken with a grain of salt.

A nugget of truth is not truth.

--
agustin, red county, california

how can you judge the relevance or irrelevance? Just wondering.

My point is that you make a comparison between the Reagan broadcast the 9/11 one. My point is that there is no sound basis for that comparison,for reasons given, and despite your mystification, quite clear. My point is that there is more justification for criticism of Clinton pre 9/11 than for putting words into Reagans mouth.

Further mystifying points are as follows; You should link a little more carefully, Ed Gillespie is not a Senate leader,he did not threaten or hint at FCC regs as Harry Reid has done. I say this despite the dark hints that CNN throws out.

Precisely because 9/11 was more important and traumatic does it deserve a viewing, much less so a artificial construction of what a President never said. The people who protested the Regan film protested an outright lie. To put it mildly there is more than just a patina of truth to Clintons portrayal.

You may want to re read your own link on some of the comments that came from CBS as to what they wanted and expected vs what they got. I don't think it strengthens your argument.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

I think Reid has caused the liberal argument to implode. He's muddled the issue. Yesterday, the situations were similiar, with public pressure being the parallels, but now it's not.

There are outright lies in the 9/11 docudrama. I just finished reading both Reid's statements and the letter from Clinton's lawyers (it's on major news sites). It's not demanding too much to removed or corrected, and ABC supposedly IS correcting things. I think you'd be suprised if you haven't read it. Definitely nothing worth pulling a broadcast license over.

All I was trying to do was warn my fellow conservatives of a topic that could catch off guard at the water cooler. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to help the argument.

Too many conservatives are hitting Off-Topic forums across the net and getting side-swiped by those better informed to their left. Too many are acting like the right have never asked for historically inaccurate shows to be pulled.

and let's let it go at that. There are still differences but at least the gap has narrowed.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

These people are telling these media outlets "Don't broadcast what we deem wrong about our political party, or we'll shut you down."

The difference between private pressure and government pressure is the key here.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

If the game you want to play is that of who said what last time, perhaps you'll be good enough to recall the left mobilizing against Sinclair broadcasting being allowed to air what they called an "anti-Kerry" movie right around the same time that they were appalled at anyone protesting a clearly anti-Bush screed airing on the Independent Film Channel.

If by caught up, you mean we should remember the scorecard with regard to variously opposing and championing free speech, you'll no doubt wish to look up any controversies involving public crosses, and any controversies involving public indecency.

Maybe, if our goal is to tabulate, we should count the number of times liberal blogs threaten to pull advertising or boycott versus the number of times liberal blogs call such tactics censorship.

Most of all, however, we should probably consider the number of times liberal senators have threatened media corporations with legislation to have a movie edited versus how many times conservative senators have done so. I daresay that may be a shorter list, but the ratio should be clear.

You may be interested in a letter from the liberals I've posted at my poor, isolated little blog (admittedly, you'd be rather alone in that interest).

absentee

The upwelling against the Reagan docudrama was from citizens calling advertisers. It was the advertisers who then pressured CBS to move it to Showtime.

Regarding the recent ABC "Path to 9/11", the Senate Democrats sent official correspondence to Disney pressuring them to censor the production. These jackbooted thugs need to be put back in their boxes.

Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Can't really say for sure on Q1 whether or not a lot of folks on the left were screened, although Rush Limbaugh mentioned that Richard Ben-Veniste was at the one he was at.

As to Q2, Nowrasteh claims to be libertarian.

The real problem here is that the left, including several high-up senators, are upset that this program counters their standard meme that 9/11 was totally a failure of the Bush administration, when realists know that the numerous failures of the Clinton administration in the preceeding eight years was equally (if not more so, as is my opinion) culpable in failing to stop the attacks. This show highlights that, and it drives the left bonkers.

I'm not sure many on the left know what the film will say, other than a few leaked scenes, which apparently never happened.

It's tough to do a dramatization of a hot button political issue, especially during an election cycle. You wind up taking license, and you wind up being controversial.

I don't buy your statement that the senators on the left is upset becuase their standard meme is that 9/11 is all Bush's fault. I've never seen a Senator take this view on either side. Their upset because the film could hurt them in the election. If the film did so fairly, then they'd have no leg to stand on. By creating implications that Clinton was distracted by Monica (9/11 report says no) and including an inaccurate scene, Dems actually have decent grounds to oppose this on Network TV...just as the Reagans were changed to cable.

In reality, there is plenty of "blame" to go around. Clinton held the view that international treaties and laws must be followed when dealing with terrorists. He had some notable successes, but he was unable to catch Bin Ladin, or stop 9/11.

Bush takes a polar opposite view of treaties and international law, that it should never stand in the way. During his tenure in office, we've had the Iraq fiasco, and Al Queda member ship has gone up from 20,000 to 50,000.

I've always felt that both Clinton and Bush should have done more to prevent 9/11. They've both maintained they did all that could be done. That's depressing. That means 9/11 couldn't have been stopped.

Horse Hockeys. It could have been stopped. Few thought during the 1990's that we should have invaded Afghanistan. Apparently, we should have.

Few thought, during the summer of 2001, that we'd be hit during the fall. We weren't at the same level of alert that led to the stopping of the LAX bomb plot. Of course we went on high level before the mellinium...it was a holiday. Question is, should we have been on alert on 9/10? Answer: Yes. Second question: Why weren't we?

Probably because we were all, Bush, Clinton, me and you, naive.

Plenty of blame to go around. I'm certain plenty of missed opportunities to get UBL in the 1990's. Too bad the "Path to 9/11" didn't choose some of the actual failures.

For myself, I'll stick to documentaries.

Where have all the Statesmen gone?

Right from the start, in fact. We only seem to remember the Warner Bros' cartoon stuff, for some reason. Probably because of Sturgeon's Law: I can't imagine that Secret Agent of Japan was any good.

Anyhoo, propaganda/Hollywood films of the 1940s is a very interesting subject, by the way: a good primer looks to be here, if you're interested.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.