Democrat Clinton wants censorship

[melman]

It's hitting the fan now as former Pres Clinton does not like what he sees in ABC's production of the events leading up to 9/11. He wants the report pulled from the airwaves seems like he's in favor of censorship to me. This HAS to be a huge media story let's see how they cover it. I pretty well know how it would be covered if a Republican was making the exact same statements as Clinton is now. He calls the whole show a "pack of lies" well that extreme right wing Bush Admin lackey one Oliver Stone :) thinks differently.

[lsbets]

While only a fool would argue that Clinton made valiant efforts to combat terrorism, I am not comfortable with ABC deciding to use fictional composite scenes in the movie. It just seems like a bad idea that opens the film up to criticism and gives people an out to absolve Clinton for his inaction.

[melman]

I agree with you Isbets it's just that I find the irony so funny. The media loves to use this method of mixing fact with fiction and now it's come home to roost on Clinton and he wants it pulled from the airwaves. Guess what the reaction would be if the older Pres Bush had a show done on his admin and he came out and told ABC to pull the show from the airwaves.

[hcap]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-dvd/

C'mon guys, clearly a political hatchet job. Now, I am not claiming the dems don't do their bit, but this is pretty obvious. Clinton, Berger and Albright have requested advance screening, but have been denied. Meanwhile righties like Limbag and others are getting copies. So what if Clinton is pissed

Btw, where does Clinton say "He wants the report pulled from the airwaves"?
This is what I found...

"Clinton spokesman Jay Carson emailed us a statement questioning the film's depiction of Clinton's record and suggesting that it wasn't a "serious treatment" of the facts.

"The record shows that President Clinton was committed to and focused on stopping terrorism every day," Carson emailed us, "and that his administration had many significant successes on this front, and he expects that any serious treatment of history would reflect that."

[ljb]

Just another example of the right wing bias in the mainstream media.
Perhaps ABC is trying to become the new Faux infotainment network. :lol:

[melman]

Just the reaction I expected from Hcap and ljb. Now if this fact/fiction that ABC is doing was about the Bush Admin then everything would be just fine. :jump: BTW Hcap Ian Bishop a correspondent for the NY Post is using a direct quote from Clinton that a furious Bill Clinton is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made. And ljb I guess you now lump in Oliver Stone as a member of the "right wing bias" :lol:

[JustRalph]

Damn! It's a right wing 9-11......... what are the odds the Dem/Libs are screaming like pigs...........

[JustRalph]

they are getting really fired up over at Democrat Underground

I especially like this post:
If Bin Laden was to blame for 9/11 why doesn't it show on the FBI's laundry list for him? The real lie is that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.
The real truth is Cheney is behind the attacks. "

yep, Dick Cheney did it all!

I predict the four horsemen running in here tonight and posting all kinds of crap from their email lists.............

[Secretariat]

yep, Dick Cheney did it all!


Good point JR.

[Snag]

Btw, where does Clinton say "He wants the report pulled from the airwaves"?
This is what I found...

"

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/bubba_goes_ballistic_on_abc_about_its_damning_9_11 _movie_nationalnews_ian_bishop_________post_corres pondent.htm

Here is one link hcap.

I guess if Moore can get away with making fiction seem like fact, then ABC is just following suit. Seems ok to me!

[hcap]

OK, don't agree with the Clinton gang about pulling it, agree tho, that it is factually wrong. However the co-existing use of the movie as an educational aide by ABCs partner Scholastic, is not exactly a fair look at the last 5-6 years

Don't "pull" it, but keep the educational crap out.

[rastajenk]

How is it factually wrong? Because the faithful Clinton Legacy Protectors say so?

[46zilzal]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/07/911.film.clinton.offic.ap/index.html

[melman]

Here we agree on something Hcap, let the stupid show go forward without any Clinton "tweaks" but not as an educational tool. I hate this Ron Howard/Oliver Stone/Michael Moore half truth and make up parts with fictional people in the film. Just loved the irony of it all with a Democrat calling for censorship.

[BenDiesel26]

A nice article on the matter and difference b/w the way the Repubs vs. Democrats will treat the movie. Politics anyone? Isn't there many on here that continually post articles from democraticunderground. Is this the hogwash you have been reading?

article (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005871.htm)

[hcap]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001483.php

Scholastic Veers from "Path to 9/11"
By Justin Rood - September 7, 2006, 4:25 PM

"Educational media giant Scholastic, Inc. announced it's dropping its original classroom companion guides to a controversial new docudrama, and replacing them with materials stressing critical thinking and media literacy."

Hey Ben I guess the DU is firin' up their keyboards.

[ljb]

Just the reaction I expected from Hcap and ljb. Now if this fact/fiction that ABC is doing was about the Bush Admin then everything would be just fine. :jump: BTW Hcap Ian Bishop a correspondent for the NY Post is using a direct quote from Clinton that a furious Bill Clinton is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made. And ljb I guess you now lump in Oliver Stone as a member of the "right wing bias" :lol:
Melman,
Glad to see I reacted as you expected. Not sure about Oliver Stone. Is he the director of this docudrama ? One of my concerns with the Disney/ABC story is their failure to even mention the lack of attention paid to the imminent threat prior to 9/11 by the Bush administration. This inaction was documented in the 9/11 commissions final report, why did Disney/ABC fail to even mention it ? It appears to be rightwing bias to me, perhaps you know more and can explain this ommission ?

[hcap]

Oh yeah since the midterms are approachin'

It is pretty obvious that this man is a freakin' genius

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/duncanblack/r2.jpg

Who would have guessed a rat would disguise itself as a mouse??

[46zilzal]

or a clone of a movie we all know.

[richrosa]

As a recent former employee of Scholastic (head of eCommerce Technology), I can tell you that as a liberal leaning company, they may have no peer. It is the classic tolerant (so long as you are democrat) type of organization. I'm totally not surprised that they ran from this. They will however, put out kids books authored by Ted Kennedy about his dog. I had to take away their children's dictionary away from my 7 year old because of lifestyle references that I deemed as a parent to be inappropriate.

If Bush was complaining about this, they would NEVER stop the presses.

[46zilzal]

If Bush was complaining about this, they would NEVER stop the presses.
what does that mean?

[richrosa]

It means that Scholastic would never walk away from this if Bush (or any Republican) was claiming foul. Likewise, ABC is caving in for the same reasons.

Media is becoming so partisan that I can only trust myself to disern the facts. That's becoming easier everyday with the divide that exists.

[46zilzal]

Media is becoming so partisan that I can only trust myself to disern the facts. That's becoming easier everyday with the divide that exists.
agree with the latter 100%. The internet helps by allowing one to view stories from a European, Australian, South American etc. perspective........

[46zilzal]

interesting buttons for sale

[hcap]

ABC is backing down some

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-wk-channel7sep07,0,6155461.story?coll=cl-tv-features

[kenwoodallpromos]

TERRORISM? I'm sorry- after that movie about the Bush assassination, I thought the Repubs put one out where they stuck Clinton's head on the body of someone having a non-sexual relation with Monica Lewinsky under the White House desk! MY mistake!LOL!!

[BenDiesel26]

As a recent former employee of Scholastic (head of eCommerce Technology), I can tell you that as a liberal leaning company, they may have no peer. It is the classic tolerant (so long as you are democrat) type of organization. I'm totally not surprised that they ran from this. They will however, put out kids books authored by Ted Kennedy about his dog. I had to take away their children's dictionary away from my 7 year old because of lifestyle references that I deemed as a parent to be inappropriate.

If Bush was complaining about this, they would NEVER stop the presses.

guess that clears that up hcap

[46zilzal]

ONE employee talks for the entire organization? Like asking a WalMart employee about corporate policy. Seems to be a personal opinion.

[BenDiesel26]

Look it is blatantly obvious that this is a political ploy. Nobody has even seen the final product that will air on Sunday, yet people are crying afoul already? They couldn't scream 'I have something to hide' any louder. In interviews with the producer, he states his opinions as backed up by the 9-11 commission report. And the script was carefully reviewed by Kean, chairman of the commision. The final opinion of the producer was that Clinton's neglect of action for certain situations, specifically the USS Cole, only acted to embolden a group that declared jihad on us in 1998 and began planning the attacks of 9-11. Analogous to, hey, I stole 50 bucks from you this time and you didn't do a thing, I'm gonna steal 200 next time. Do you disagree with this? The film is also called a dramatization and is meant to steer the crowd's anger towards the terrorists rather than Clinton. It is not a documentary.

Did you see Clinton's lawyer pull a Drew Rosenhaus/Terrell Owens on the news today and claim responsibility for foiling Bojinka which was actually done by Filipino police? On the other hand, democrats are quick to point out that it was British police that foiled the plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic Ocean in July, not anything to do with the measures that have been taken since 9-11. Why doesn't Clinton speak out himself? Maybe because he's a proven liar.

The politics behind this are ridiculous. It's already on the news that the 'Google Bomb' I just posted about is a plan of the democrats whenever an issue not supporting their platform is raised before midterm elections so that anybody doing an online search on the issue will only see their viewpoint. Are you kidding me? Back in January when it was disclosed that Clinton handed over plans for a nuclear warhead in February of 2000 to Iran in one of the "biggest foreign policy blunders of all time" I did not see all of this outrage. Is that because it was not quite close enough to the election date?

[Lefty]

Clinton exposed by the LEFTWING ABC. Maybe there is hope. I guess Fox's ratings have convinced some they better get on board with the truth!

[PlanB]

Lefty what's your agenda? Why are you so divisive? Have you discovered
some innovative political classification, beyond lib vs con or left vs right.
I see you as a mature gent laughing at your own posts, making some here
go crazy, because they try so hard to combat your simple but exassperating
words. PS: Do YOU really believe 1/3 of what you type here? ummm:faint:

[DJofSD]

Clinton and company are acting like the dictators they want to be. No different than the communist leaders in the former Soviet Union or China. They want to control the image of themselves by contolling the media, typically referred to as censorship.

[Secretariat]

Clinton and company are acting like the dictators they want to be. No different than the communist leaders in the former Soviet Union or China. They want to control the image of themselves by contolling the media, typically referred to as censorship.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Secretariat]

Clinton exposed by the LEFTWING ABC. Maybe there is hope. I guess Fox's ratings have convinced some they better get on board with the truth!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[DJofSD]

A scene I expect to see in the ABC docudrama.

Sandy: "Mr. President, the CIA is asking for a decision about the OBL situation. They want to remind you the window is very narrow and we need to make a decision quickly or the opportunity might not ever again present itself."

Bill: "Sandy, I'm still considering my options. I'll need a little more time to think it through. By the way, have you tried one of the cigars from my latest shipment? I'll get back to you later today. Now, would you please leave, I have an appointment with an intern."

[Lefty]

planb, my agenda is to expose and combat liberalism wherever I find it. I believe every word i post. And you should blve every word i post too. Where do you find fault?

[BenDiesel26]

"So I did not bring him here, and I pleaded with the Saudis to take him."

Bill Clinton's own words on Usama Bin Laden

[Tom]

Just another example of the right wing bias in the mainstream media.
Perhaps ABC is trying to become the new Faux infotainment network. :lol:

I think it is closer to the new Al Gore or Michael Moore.
How do you like it when the shoe is on the other foot?
Diff is, THIS one is based on facts.

[Tom]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The stress of the truth getting out is showing on you! :kiss:

BTW, what's the name of this movie...an Inconvenient Truth?

[Lefty]

lbj, you post nonsense. You know there is leftwing bias in the mainstream and Bernie Gold at CBS was fired for exposing it at that network. It's surprising but refreshing that ABC has decided to go with the truth for once but distressing that elected officials and an ex pres would threaten the network. I guess they don't blve in freedom of speech. These same official gave the liar Michael Moore a seat of honor at the Dem convention but show the truth distresses and threatens them. Once more Clinton shows what a low class no class individual he really is. And you show that you're either the most disengenuous indvidual on this board or the most easily fooled by the leftwing.

[Tom]

Lefty, the man who did more to permit 9-11 to happen - Clinton - "CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

[rastajenk]

Melman,
One of my concerns with the Disney/ABC story is their failure to even mention the lack of attention paid to the imminent threat prior to 9/11 by the Bush administration. This inaction was documented in the 9/11 commissions final report, why did Disney/ABC fail to even mention it ?

And how is it you come to know this already? Have you seen it? From the accounts I've read, both sides get blistered pretty good.

[JPinMaryland]

Clinton a liberal? Who would have thought it?

[JustRalph]

whether this thing airs or not, it has received so much publicity now, the DVD will fly off the shelves.

[ljb]

lbj, you post nonsense. You know there is leftwing bias in the mainstream and Bernie Gold at CBS was fired for exposing it at that network. It's surprising but refreshing that ABC has decided to go with the truth for once but distressing that elected officials and an ex pres would threaten the network. I guess they don't blve in freedom of speech. These same official gave the liar Michael Moore a seat of honor at the Dem convention but show the truth distresses and threatens them. Once more Clinton shows what a low class no class individual he really is. And you show that you're either the most disengenuous indvidual on this board or the most easily fooled by the leftwing.
Lefty,
Sorry but the msm is biased to the right. Remember CBS's not running the show that depicted some truths about President Reagon ? What about John Stossel's outrage at teachers pay ? Just two examples. If I want to watch fake news, I will go to faux. I expect more honesty from the general networks.

[ljb]

Lefty, the man who did more to permit 9-11 to happen - Clinton - "CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
Clinton has stated "Just show the TRUTH". This fiction piece should be labled as such. What the hell is a docudrama anyway ?

[BenDiesel26]

When Clinton said 'just show the truth' was he talking about the actual truth? I guess we might never know. Was he under oath when he said this?

[ljb]

it is on most of the regular news channels, faux may have overlooked it, today. Turn on your tv, view it yourself and make your own decision.

[Secretariat]

Clinton has stated "Just show the TRUTH". This fiction piece should be labled as such. What the hell is a docudrama anyway ?

A docudrama is a Republican documentary. It is the truth as they want it to have happened, and have brainwashed themselves so much, they beleive it happened.

[Snag]

A docudrama is a Republican documentary. It is the truth as they want it to have happened, and have brainwashed themselves so much, they beleive it happened.

Kinda like M. Moore?

[DJofSD]

I expect more honesty from the general networks.

That's rich!

:D :lol: :D

[melman]

What about the calls for "a chilling effect on free speach" and censorship of and artist's views. If a conservative had made a call to any network asking for "changes" in a completed project of a filmmakers work what would we be hearing from Sec, ljb, I give credit to Hcap as he did say don't pull this from being aired. I come down firmly on the side of Pres Clinton and Mrs Clinton and hate this type of fact/fiction use of fictional people in a film that "is based on real events". The Ron Howard/Oliver Stone/Michael Moore half fact/half fiction is just getting out of hand. Let this junk be shown and UNCUT without any "advice" from others and let the public decide. The Clinton's would have a much better case if they would say "we want all people in the public eye to be able to get changes in a fact/fiction film." However methinks they only want this right when it affects them.

[JustRalph]

I hear that they are going to be giving the DVD away in Walmart Stores next week........ it is being bankrolled by the RNC. The uncut version will get out there anyway.

[PlanB]

I've NEVER been to a WalMart, not on purpose but just opportunity, but I
admire their efficiency & their profit. To me, as an equity accountant, ***
they rule. All things, WM is a VERY positive organization, much like Microsoft
was (is). Changing the planet + making a large buck isn't easy, as every
newstand owner in nyc can attest to. So, TY walmart & continued good
fortune. Oh YES, the ** refers to a fancy title but really I just work at
figuring what companys are worth.

[Tom]

Clinton wnat the truth to be told.

"I did not have sexual relations with that women...Miss Lewinsky!"

THAT truth?


This is too funny - the libs, who wet themselves over MM crap can't take it. They are just blown away that someone else can do this - although, the ABC work is based on far more thruth than anyhting MM ever did.

You guys have shown no class at all - just a bunch of whinny little girls.
:lol::lol::lol:

Take you ball and go home.
"Mommy, mommy - the big kids are picking on me!"

The fact is, Bush has taken eveything the lousylibs have thrown at him and never batted an eye - just kept on doing what needs top be done.
YOU guys, who have not seen the film, are running around crying and looking, I must say, rather weak, stupid, an immature.
Grow up boys....the truth shall out!

[ljb]

What about the calls for "a chilling effect on free speach" and censorship of and artist's views. If a conservative had made a call to any network asking for "changes" in a completed project of a filmmakers work what would we be hearing from Sec, ljb, I give credit to Hcap as he did say don't pull this from being aired. I come down firmly on the side of Pres Clinton and Mrs Clinton and hate this type of fact/fiction use of fictional people in a film that "is based on real events". The Ron Howard/Oliver Stone/Michael Moore half fact/half fiction is just getting out of hand. Let this junk be shown and UNCUT without any "advice" from others and let the public decide. The Clinton's would have a much better case if they would say "we want all people in the public eye to be able to get changes in a fact/fiction film." However methinks they only want this right when it affects them.
And what say you about the right wings success in getting cbs to not broadcast their show on the Reagons ?

[Tom]

cBS has no balls.

[DJofSD]

cBS has no balls.

Damn, I look in the TV Guide and I don't see when it was gelded.

[ljb]

Clinton wnat the truth to be told.

"I did not have sexual relations with that women...Miss Lewinsky!"

THAT truth?


This is too funny - the libs, who wet themselves over MM crap can't take it. They are just blown away that someone else can do this - although, the ABC work is based on far more thruth than anyhting MM ever did.

You guys have shown no class at all - just a bunch of whinny little girls.
:lol::lol::lol:

Take you ball and go home.
"Mommy, mommy - the big kids are picking on me!"

The fact is, Bush has taken eveything the lousylibs have thrown at him and never batted an eye - just kept on doing what needs top be done.
YOU guys, who have not seen the film, are running around crying and looking, I must say, rather weak, stupid, an immature.
Grow up boys....the truth shall out!

When Clinton lied, no one died !!!!
You guys are getting way overboard on this topic.
Basically the rightwing biased msm is about to show a fictional show and call it a docudrama. The leftwing has protested this action. Same as when cbs had a show scheduled that did not show Reagon in the best light. Rightwingers protested and show was relagated to some cable channel.
Does it hurt you guys when the left uses similiar tactics ?
Or just scare hell out of ya ?

[ljb]

cBS has no balls.
Or perhaps their rightwing bias reared it's ugly head.

[ljb]

planb, my agenda is to expose and combat liberalism wherever I find it. I believe every word i post. And you should blve every word i post too. Where do you find fault?
Lefty,
I will answer your question this time.
In every word you post. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Does it hurt you guys when the left uses similiar tactics ?
Or just scare hell out of ya ?

:lol: Scared of YOU guys?
What are you going to do, torture us with feather dusters? :lol:

[ljb]

:lol: Scared of YOU guys?
What are you going to do, torture us with feather dusters? :lol:
I'm gonna make the fat guy in the bar disappear. :lol:

[melman]

So then ljb, I take it you are in favor of this film being put on the air?? Where is Ms Streisand and her call to protest censorship?? I wonder if this was a fact/fiction film about Tom Delay and he asked for changes in an already completed film by a network what the reaction would be. What CBS did three years ago was wrong so now you want ABC to do the same thing?? The irony oh the irony. :)

[Lefty]

And what say you about the right wings success in getting cbs to not broadcast their show on the Reagons ?
lbj, no elected politician threatened them like is being done now. Bush did not threaten M Moore not to show his poece of crap and I didn't see any outrage from any of you libs' when Moore called his piece of crap a documentary.

[Show Me the Wire]

So then ljb, I take it you are in favor of this film being put on the air?? Where is Ms Streisand and her call to protest censorship?? I wonder if this was a fact/fiction film about Tom Delay and he asked for changes in an already completed film by a network what the reaction would be. What CBS did three years ago was wrong so now you want ABC to do the same thing?? The irony oh the irony. :)

Irony is good, but the more accurate descriptive word to apply to the situation is hypocrites.

[Lefty]

Clinton has stated "Just show the TRUTH". This fiction piece should be labled as such. What the hell is a docudrama anyway ?

A docudrama lbj, is fact that has been fictionalized to the extent that some time compression has been done and sometimes also in the interest of time there are composite characters, but the "big truth" of the poece has been preserved. And it has been labeled as such, so Clinton gets what he wants, but like you, prob doesn't know it cause he prob doesn't know what a docudrama is either.

[Lefty]

Lefty,
I will answer your question this time.
In every word you post. :lol: :lol: :lol:
lbj, you have demonstrated that have neither the guts or knowledge to answer many many q's posed to you so your laughter rings hollow.

[Lefty]

Lefty,
Sorry but the msm is biased to the right. Remember CBS's not running the show that depicted some truths about President Reagon ? What about John Stossel's outrage at teachers pay ? Just two examples. If I want to watch fake news, I will go to faux. I expect more honesty from the general networks.
lbj, nobosy could be as vacuous as you act. CBS yielded to VIEWERS on the Reagan film and was not threatened by any govt official such as is the case here. Stossel is an anomoly, one maybe conservatve among hordes of libs. Fox on the other hand has as many registered Dems working there, maybe more, than conservatives.
CBS aired the fraudulent story about Bush complete with forged docs.
NOT ONE mainstream network would give the Swiftboat vets one minute of airtime. So cut the crap, stop the lying, or do you REALLY live in Bizzaro World?

[JPinMaryland]

Since everyone seems to be posting questions and demanding answers can anyone tell me when Clinton became a liberal?

[Show Me the Wire]

The question should be when did Clinton become a centrist. Answer, when he earnestly started his presidential campaign. Same as Hillary, she is now attempting to be a centrist because of presidential aspirations.

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

Why are so many conservatives against releasing this film? Are they libs?

"Conservatives On The Path to 9/11: ‘Unacceptable,’ ‘Defamatory,’ ‘Strewn With A Lot of Problems,’ ‘Zero Factual Basis’

The criticism against ABC’s docudrama The Path to 9/11 isn’t isolated simply to Clinton aides. In fact, many conservatives have criticized the film. Here are a few examples –

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor:

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. [NYPost, 9/8/06]

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor:

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.” [OpinionJournal, 9/7/06]

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog:

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. [Hugh Hewitt blog, 9/6/06]

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:

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. [Fox, 9/8/06]

Captain’s Quarters blog:

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. [Captain Quarter’s blog, 9/7/06]

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:

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. [CNN, 9/8/06]

Seth Liebsohn, Claremont Institute fellow and produce of Bill Bennett’s radio show:

I oppose this miniseries as well if it is fiction dressed up as fact, creates caricatures of real persons and events that are inaccurate, and inserts quotes that were not uttered, especially to make a point that was not intended. [Glenn Greewald’s blog, 9/7/06]

Richard Miniter, conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror”:

If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that. [CNN, 9/7/06]

Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center:

I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes, important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit them, I think they should edit them. [MSNBC, 9/6/06]

UPDATE:

Bill O’Reilly, Fox News pundit:

Ok, we’re talking about the run up to 9-11 and this movie that they’re re-cutting now — and they should because it puts words in the mouth of real people, actors playing real people that they didn’t say and its wrong. [O’Reilly radio show, 9/8/06]"

[Lefty]

sec, i oppose censorship whether posed by libs or conservatives. It goes against free speech. I can't remember any repub officials threatening a network like it's being done here. Where was the outrage when M Moore released his opiniated film and called it a documentary.
No govt official threatened CBS on the Reagan film and it was shown on Showtime.

[Lefty]

Since everyone seems to be posting questions and demanding answers can anyone tell me when Clinton became a liberal?
You don't think the man that raised taxes on everybody including retirees is a lib? You don't think the man that let his wife conduct secret meetings on a healthcare plan that would have effectively hijacked about a seventh of the economy and in certain situations put doctors and patients in jail a liberal?
What constitutes a liberal to you?

[Secretariat]

sec, i oppose censorship whether posed by libs or conservatives. It goes against free speech. I can't remember any repub officials threatening a network like it's being done here. Where was the outrage when M Moore released his opiniated film and called it a documentary.
No govt official threatened CBS on the Reagan film and it was shown on Showtime.

There was Republican outrage against CBS on the Reagan story, and it was pulled. Michael Moore's film never aired on the public networks. If it did, I'm sure there'd be a Republican outcry.

I'm also against censorship. That is why I'm against so many Freedom of Information Requests being rejected, and the Pentagon being exempt from them. As to this film, honestly, from what the Chicago Sun Times has said, it rates zero stars, and is horrific in its film quality and distortion. I have no problem with it airing because it is apparently an embarassment, and was shot for 40 million by a director who is affilaited with an evangelical group to promote propaganda.

I objected when Oliver Stone included a speculative scene in JFK, and he paid dearly for it in the type of films he got after that. This thing is supposedly loaded with inaccuracies.

My guess is it will air, some threats of law suits will occur, and people will laugh it off as a terrible portrayal, and a political propaganda film dealing with a national tragedy. I've no problem with airing it at all.

My quesiton to you is why so many conservatives are now objecting to the film?

[PaceAdvantage]

When Clinton lied, no one died !!!!

You are joking, right?

I'll take a page out of your own playbook and reference a site that has been used by those vehemently opposed to Bush and this administration:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html

[ljb]

And this from a man that has made light of most conspiracy theroys. I guess if you want to believe this link, you may want to review the links discussing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks.

[ljb]

So then ljb, I take it you are in favor of this film being put on the air?? Where is Ms Streisand and her call to protest censorship?? I wonder if this was a fact/fiction film about Tom Delay and he asked for changes in an already completed film by a network what the reaction would be. What CBS did three years ago was wrong so now you want ABC to do the same thing?? The irony oh the irony. :)
melman,
No I am not in favor of this fiction being put on the air as a docudrama just prior to the elections. If ABC were to give equal time to the left wing, as required by law, I would not protest. As for Ms. Streisand I have no idea where she is. In my opinion regarding your statement about Delay, I think the right wingers would be protesting. I know where you stand now but, where were you three years ago when CBS folded under pressure from the right ?
Ah the hypocrisy of it all.

[melman]

ljb
You skipped over the part of my note that said what I thought about CBS when they pulled there program. Clear as day. And where do I stand?? How about in not liking this type of program produced by anyone.

[ljb]

ljb
You skipped over the part of my note that said what I thought about CBS when they pulled there program. Clear as day. And where do I stand?? How about in not liking this type of program produced by anyone.
Ok,
Then we have agreement. I will re-read your note regarding CBS's actions. Personally, i entered this thread in defense of those being attacked for not liking this type of program produced by anyone.

[Lefty]

sec, why should there be repub outrage on Reagan story? There was NO POLITICAL pressure brght to bear on CBS because of Reagan story and they showed it on Showtime WITHOUT any editing. So you're comparing pineapples to hand grenades.

[Tom]

This thread proves once again that Sec is unable to think about anyhting or talk about anyting except in terms of politics. Sec, shy are you so afraid to be an individual? Your herd instict is controlling your life.

And it also proves Ljb is just unable.

[hcap]

New twist

"In another complication, President Bush has asked broadcast networks to clear time for an address to the nation Monday night at 9:01 p.m., just at the start of the last hour of "The Path to 9/11" on the East Coast. ABC announced plans Friday night to cover what is expected to be a 20-minute speech before resuming the film."

Maybe during the preznits' speech ABC can show the film splitscreen.
Hey maybe bush can act along with the cast. Maybe mouthing from the movies' script. He's pretty good at that. :lol:

[boxcar]

When Clinton said 'just show the truth' was he talking about the actual truth? I guess we might never know. Was he under oath when he said this?

The megabytes of irony here is that one of the most infamous prevaricators of all time is pleading for the truth -- the kind of "truth", of course, that would color the only thing he ever really cared about, (i.e. his precious legacy) lily white.

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

that would color the only thing he ever really cared about

The only thing he cares about is between his legs. Everything else be damned.

[boxcar]

The only thing he cares about is between his legs. Everything else be damned.

Au contraire. He's extremely vain and full of self-importance. He's always been highly concerned about his legacy. This is why he pushed so very hard to try to get a peace deal signed by Arafat the Israeli PM during the long Camp David meetings.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Last night Clintons lawyers sent over a little letter to ABC Chief Bob Iger:

Dear Bob,

Despite press reports that ABC/Disney has made changes in the content and marketing of "The Path to 9/11," we remain 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 project.

-- 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

[Show Me the Wire]

Last night Clintons lawyers sent over a little letter to ABC Chief Bob Iger:...............


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. ...


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


Hypocracy at its finest. You listening Howard Dean it is the the Nation's responsibility to be focused on preventing another attack, not fixated on smearing President Bush.

[Tom]

The only thing he cares about is between his legs. Everything else be damned.

Hillary be damned? :eek:

[ljb]

sec, why should there be repub outrage on Reagan story? There was NO POLITICAL pressure brght to bear on CBS because of Reagan story and they showed it on Showtime WITHOUT any editing. So you're comparing pineapples to hand grenades.
Lefty,
If you think there was no political pressure brought to bear on CBS because of Reagan story, you must get your news from faux infotainment.
And to the rest of you dudes.
Wheee ain't this fun we get to bash Clinton again. :jump: :jump: :jump:

[kenwoodallpromos]

Between the Path to 9/11 and the Plame stuff, I "learned" 2 things;
(1) Disney (ABC) movies are sometimes fiction (I can stop watching for ET to return!) and (2) Democrats like to sue.

[Lefty]

Lefty,
If you think there was no political pressure brought to bear on CBS because of Reagan story, you must get your news from faux infotainment.
And to the rest of you dudes.
Wheee ain't this fun we get to bash Clinton again. :jump: :jump: :jump:
SHOW it to me, LBJ. You can't. And the film aired on SHOWTIME with nary a cut. You must get your news and opinions from moveontosocialism.org

[Tom]

The difference is Regan was not able to say anything about it - the libs picked an easy target.

Like MM picked on Charelton Heston after he was too old to kick his fat ass down the street.


I'm tapping the movie so I can pass it on to future generations. Just so everyone will know what really happened.

[hcap]

Let me see if I got this.

"Monday evening, the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, ABC will air part 2 of its intensely controversial docudrama, "The Path to 9/11." At 9PM it will interrupt its airing to switch to the White House Oval Office, where President Bush will give a 20-minute propaganda speech on the global war on terror. How fitting. It's the icing on the partisan cake. What better lead-in for the president to spread his fear-mongering rhetoric than ABC's Bush-stroking, Clinton-bashing fictional tale of the years leading up to the worst tragedy in U.S. history."



Now, not only is his a political hatchet job, but now bush is actively joining in.
Originally I said no censorship. I changed my mind. Not only should the program by pulled, but bush should be not be permitted to use the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, as the date to USE 911.
This stinks.

[ljb]

SHOW it to me, LBJ. You can't. And the film aired on SHOWTIME with nary a cut. You must get your news and opinions from moveontosocialism.org
Lefty,
Again you ask for proof. When will you learn to trust me ?
Here is one link, this from one of your own.
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/covntrove.htm
Scroll down and you will find the RNC asked cbs to put a scroll on the screen every 10 seconds stating the story was not true. Perhaps we can get ABC/Disney to show their fictional story on the Disney channel. Or maybe they will follow this up with a showing of "Iraq for Sale" a factual documentary exposing the profiteers in this mess in Iraq.
And earlier you had mentioned Michael Moore's documentary. The big difference was Michael's documentary had actual footage of the characters involved not fictional portrayals. I especially liked watching Bush in white tie and tails proclaim "This is my kind of people, the haves and the have mores." And when he made jokes about not finding wmds the crowed roared with laughter. This scene is reminiscent of the Let them eat cake phrase attributed to Marie Antoinette. A shame on our country.

[Lefty]

lbj, asking and sending threatening letters are two diff things. AND Moore cut and pasted took things outta context, put his own spin on things and called it a documentary and sat high and mighty at the dem convention. And the Reagan crock was aired on SHOWTIME with NO EDITING!

[Lefty]

hcap, you still don't think terrorism is real? You think attacks all over the world isn't real? You think Iran getting Nukes isn't valid? And if the if the Pres ignored all these things and we got attacked again you would be on this board screaming in CAPS. Harry Reidmade a speech saying the Pres used fear fear fear. Well if the fear isn't real why are the dems always harping on more security in the cargo holds if airplanes and our ports. You guys so hypocritical you should use extra deodorant. Your party blatantly puts politics ahead of our country's safety.

[Lefty]

lbj, asking and sending threatening letters are two diff things. AND Moore cut and pasted took things outta context, put his own spin on things and called it a documentary and sat high and mighty at the dem convention. And the Reagan crock was aired on SHOWTIME with NO EDITING!
One more thing: Moore had the temerity to call his crap a documentary.
ABC calls theirs, more accurately, A Docudrama. Big diff.
Clinton himself, is cght on tape, admitting he passed on Osama when he had a chance to get him. Lies, I think not. And ABC not known to be conservative or even moderate, so guess they think it's time for some truth. We haven't seen this yet, but it's been said they also take some swipes at Bush, so don't prematurely, get your knickers in a twist.

[Tom]

Let me see if I got this.

"Monday evening, the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, ABC will air part 2 of its intensely controversial docudrama, "The Path to 9/11." At 9PM it will interrupt its airing to switch to the White House Oval Office, where President Bush will give a 20-minute propaganda speech on the global war on terror. How fitting. It's the icing on the partisan cake. What better lead-in for the president to spread his fear-mongering rhetoric than ABC's Bush-stroking, Clinton-bashing fictional tale of the years leading up to the worst tragedy in U.S. history."


You are one delusional dude, dude. Seeing monsters under yourt bed at night? :D
Try this on: on the 5th anniversery of 9-11, our president addressed our nation in remeberence. do you honestly believe if ABC were not showing this, he would not deliver a speech?

GOD, it must suc to live in a world like yours.

[Tom]

Lefty, how much fun is it watch theses guys whine and cry when someone does the eaxact same thing they werre all for a while ago?
Except, this time, they acknowledge it as not being a documentarty.

Wow, these guys are pretty unsure of their positons, aren't they? Afraind of a little TV movie? :lol:

And they want to lead the country! :eek:

[skate]

It's hitting the fan now as former Pres Clinton does not like what he sees in ABC's production of the events leading up to 9/11. He wants the report pulled from the airwaves seems like he's in favor of censorship to me. This HAS to be a huge media story let's see how they cover it. I pretty well know how it would be covered if a Republican was making the exact same statements as Clinton is now. He calls the whole show a "pack of lies" well that extreme right wing Bush Admin lackey one Oliver Stone :) thinks differently.

oh, this is the absolutely the funniest, hey nobody could make this up,

could they do anymore to blow their chance on winning some seats?

jeeesus, man, what's next?

i picture, heads spinning, round and round they go, but ya know, the sad thing is, the people are really the ones that are losing.
nothing will get done regarding, salary stagnation thru immigration.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"Let me see if I got this." "intensely controversial docudrama" "ABC's Bush-stroking"
"Originally I said no censorship. I changed my mind."
This stinks.
____________________
PLEASE answer these 2 simple questions:
1) Who made the movie controversial?
2) How specifically is the movie Bush-stroking?
No comment needed on you wanting to censor the movie, which is a legal term meaning to ban by law or rule rather than opine and suggest.
___
"Senator Clinton noted that almost a decade ago, she and former President Clinton hosted the Children's Television Summit at the White House and worked for passage of the Children's Television Act. That law led to the implementation of the V-Chip in every new television over 13 inches, and mandated that broadcasters show at least three hours of educational and informational programming per week"

[boxcar]

Hypocracy at its finest. You listening Howard Dean it is the the Nation's responsibility to be focused on preventing another attack, not fixated on smearing President Bush.

The appropriate slogan would read: Free Speech for Me, but NOT for Thee.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

The Free DVD's at Walmart Stores will be coming out in 10 days or so.........

also the film will be downloadable from Itunes shortly after it airs.

That is going to be some serious download? Also, the film will be streamed on the ABC website.

It looks like Tom Keane was perfectly happy with the film after it was completed. Now that the Dems are screaming, he is having second thoughts.

http://mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003118271&&&&&imw=Y

[Lefty]

Lefty, how much fun is it watch theses guys whine and cry when someone does the eaxact same thing they werre all for a while ago?
Except, this time, they acknowledge it as not being a documentarty.

Wow, these guys are pretty unsure of their positons, aren't they? Afraind of a little TV movie? :lol:

And they want to lead the country! :eek:
Tom, it's better'n a barrel of monkeys. They blve in free speech if THEY agree with it. The blve in choice, If THEY agree with it.

[PlanB]

Believing in free speech, of course, agreeing with it, not necessary, but how
does an educated young person respond to idiotic blahs freely spoken?
Most likely, there will be polite argument, not about your right to say (or type)
that nonsense, but about its content. After all, yes you cons have the right,
but what can anyone make of the message?

[PaceAdvantage]

After all, yes you cons have the right,
but what can anyone make of the message?

Cons? Who is a convict posting on this thread?

[Show Me the Wire]

Believing in free speech, of course, agreeing with it, not necessary, but how
does an educated young person respond to idiotic blahs freely spoken?
Most likely, there will be polite argument, not about your right to say (or type)
that nonsense, but about its content. After all, yes you cons have the right,
but what can anyone make of the message?

Yes, it is difficult to respond in an educated and polite manner to the blahs from the left.

[Tom]

After watching part I, the dems look pretty foolish for all thier yippiings.
I did not see anything not verifiable.
The truth hurts when it is inconvenient.

Pretty tame compared to MM personal attack jobs. They truth is always far more interesting.:lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, I agree Tom. I watched Part I and don't think I saw anything that hasn't been documented already.

These guys are hypocrites. They are all claiming they didn't watch the thing (on another thread, they talk about watching the football game), yet they banged us on the head about watching Fahrenheit 9/11. I watched F 9/11, just like I'm watching this ABC movie.

The fact that the movie ran almost 3 hours for Part I, and I did not tire of it, tells something.

I'm sure they aren't going to paint the Bush administration in any better light then they've painted the Clinton administration. But it's clear at the very least, that OBL was there for the taking on MANY occasions during Clinton's term. You don't need this movie to tell you that fact. It's in the 9/11 commission report itself, the very report folks like LJB and others like to cite from time to time..

Would 9/11 have been prevented if OBL was taken out by Clinton? Nobody knows. But it's good to see MORE of the story being reported to the masses, and not just this recent "It's all Bush's fault" that has become something of a broken record of late.

After watching Part I, I can see why Clinton and Berger and others would be upset. As someone once said, an inconvenient truth hurts something fierce!

[ljb]

You guys gotta catch this from youtube it is funny.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/09/11/video-abc-rewrites-the-w_n_29166.html

[JustRalph]

You guys gotta catch this from youtube it is funny.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/09/11/video-abc-rewrites-the-w_n_29166.html

you actually think that is funny?

[PaceAdvantage]

Wow, have you ever seen a group so annoyed by a film that takes much of its premise from the official 9/11 commission?

As some on here like to say, I guess the truth hurts.....or else there wouldn't be so much squirming....
Oh, and by the way, LJB and SEC aren't allowed to comment anymore on this, since they have admitted they did not watch the movie....:lol:

[Tom]

After watching almost all of it, ( 20 minutes to go) I can only say this film was FAIR and BALANCED. BOTH sides got plastered, and deservedly so. This was not a Bush puff piece. Nor was it a Clinton bashing. It was the truth, and if it didn't fit your own little agenda, then so be it.

[Secretariat]

Wow, have you ever seen a group so annoyed by a film that takes much of its premise from the official 9/11 commission?

As some on here like to say, I guess the truth hurts.....or else there wouldn't be so much squirming....
Oh, and by the way, LJB and SEC aren't allowed to comment anymore on this, since they have admitted they did not watch the movie....:lol:

Ok, I won't comment on it, but Richard Clarke did see it, so I guess he can comment on it.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/11/abc_consultant_richard_clarke_blasts_first_install ment_of_film

ABC Consultant Richard Clarke Blasts First Installment Of Film, Hints At ABC "Conspiracy"
By Greg Sargent

Richard Clarke, a consultant for ABC News and a senior counterterrorism official in the Bush and Clinton administrations, has just released a statement blasting the first installment of "The Path to 9/11." Interestingly, Clarke appeared to suggest that more than profit motivated the film: "Although I am not one to easily believe in conspiracy theories and have spent a great deal of time debunking them, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the errors in this screen play are more than the result of dramatization and time compression. There is throughout the screenplay a consistent bias and distortion seeking to portray senior Clinton Administration officials as holding back the hard charging CIA, FBI, and military officers who would otherwise have prevented 9-11. The exact opposite is true."

[Lefty]

Richard Clarke has already been exposed as a liar so why should we believe him? No, sec, afraid he has an agenda. Try someone else.
I saw nothing in the first part that I haven't heard before.

[46zilzal]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

[Lefty]

Clarke, I think, comes off rather well in the 2nd half of this film, so not exactly sure what his beef is. I don't blve him when he says Clinton authorized attacks against Bin Ladin and was willing to pay a political price. Having listened to every Clinton speech and most q's put to him, he was unwilling to pay a political price for anything. He was a pres who perjured himself, went after his enemies and supposed enemies with a vengeance, passed the buck to Janet Reno on Waco, and after he told Jesse Jackson he would "fix" the Welfare reform he was forced to sign later, when it worked, he took the credit. No, I don't blve Clinton was willing to pay a political price and is just a political opportunist. I blve the film.

[PaceAdvantage]

If Clarke is so pissed, why was he on ABC's PrimeTime right after the movie, where, by the way, he didn't say ONE WORD about how much he thought the movie was wrong.

I guess he's not all that pissed now, is he? A guy so angry at his portrayal in an ABC TV movie would not be appearing on an ABC television program MINUTES after said movie ends, and on top of that, not mention that he thought the movie was dead wrong.

For the record, I thought the movie was very well done, especially for a 5 hour+ TV movie. Those who didn't watch it missed out on an excellent presentation, in my opinion.

The only way certain members of this board and certain members of the left would have approved of this movie was if VP Cheney was shown cackling with glee, complete with blood dripping from his fangs as the towers fell.....that's how sick and twisted this world has become.

[JustRalph]

When Michael Moore put out his crap I didn't hear the Dems screaming about accuracy in media..........this cracks me up.........the same people who logged on here and defended Moore and begged us all to see 9=11 by Moore, are bitching about this............ :lol:

[ljb]

I don't recall Michael Moore's piece being broadcast on national tv as a commercial free docudrama. Can you refresh me with the date/network ?
Oh wait i found it at this link. :lol:
http://morebsfromtherightwingwhackos.com

[PaceAdvantage]

When Michael Moore put out his crap I didn't hear the Dems screaming about accuracy in media..........this cracks me up.........the same people who logged on here and defended Moore and begged us all to see 9=11 by Moore, are bitching about this............ :lol:

Now this is the point I was trying to get across, but you did it so much more efficiently....thanks!

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't recall Michael Moore's piece being broadcast on national tv as a commercial free docudrama. Can you refresh me with the date/network ?
Oh wait i found it at this link.

What does the forum in which one's body of work is displayed have to do with anything? It's the message contained within which counts the most, wouldn't you agree?

[Show Me the Wire]

Now this is the point I was trying to get across, but you did it so much more efficiently....thanks!

PA:

Were you trying to say these people were practicing hypocrisy (double standards)?

[Snag]

What does the forum in which one's body of work is displayed have to do with anything? It's the message contained within which counts the most, wouldn't you agree?

ljb didn't have a rebut, so he had to try to spin and devert from the facts again.

I have a feeling we will be having the same discussion when MMoore's next pos comes out. Yes, I have already made up my mind about it without ever seeing it so no need to point that out. I'm very comfortable in my belief because of his past history. Just like handicapping horses. Take the past performance and apply it to todays race. The ABC movie doc whatever tried to do the same thing. Guess who won?

[Lefty]

When Michael Moore put out his crap I didn't hear the Dems screaming about accuracy in media..........this cracks me up.........the same people who logged on here and defended Moore and begged us all to see 9=11 by Moore, are bitching about this............ :lol:
Just the opposite, JR. IN fact in another thread, 2 guys said Moore was justified in changing speeches and events and doing anything he wanted to create an effect, any effect.

[rastajenk]

"Fake but accurate" seems to be the mantra of the new millenium for the Dems ever since the prevaricating Clinton administration.

[Tom]

BTW, Lefty -

Did you listen to Rush yesterday?
He played both sound bites of Clinton - the first one saying he no legal reaosn to accept OBL when Sudan ffered him up, and then after 911 saying how he always regretted not having the opportunity to capture him.

Clinton -1
Truth - 0

[Lefty]

BTW, Lefty -

Did you listen to Rush yesterday?
He played both sound bites of Clinton - the first one saying he no legal reaosn to accept OBL when Sudan ffered him up, and then after 911 saying how he always regretted not having the opportunity to capture him.

Clinton -1
Truth - 0
No, leave to early to hear more than a snippet these days, but Hannity has played the tape many times.
Heard a snippet this morn that's hilarious and pitiful at same time. After Bush's speech last night that little ex Clintonite Stepphonapolis(know I butchered the name but you know who I mean}said Bush's speech wasn't political. Rush played the clip. This morning, Steppie has done a 180 and says the speech WAS political. Guess the partyline overqhelmed him. These guys so obvious it's just funny and pitiful at the same time.

[Tom]

How about Teddy's response?
What a dipstick!
He will not be happy until OBL comes here and humps his leg.