›

f*ck ABC

keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts
edited September 2006 in Strut Central
Its one thing to fictionalize history for the purpose of entertainment, but i can only imagine that ABC had other intentions when it chose to turn a "docu-drama" into a fake account of the events leading up to 9-11. Elections in Congress are right around the corner, and now ABC is coming out with a bullshit miniseries which points the finger at the Clinton administration for being too distracted (lewinsky-related) to handle terrorism. Meanwhile, the majority of the media is covering this story as though Clinton is rushing around trying to make sure "the truth" doesnt come out. Such bullshit. Real headz know the deal. Check out this link and the other stories where ABC admits making a fake-u-drama.http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/07/clinton-pushes-back-911-families-speak-out/
«1

  Comments

  • coffinjoecoffinjoe 1,743 Posts
    clinton
    was distracted
    clearing brush
    on his ranch
    !!!
  • coffinjoecoffinjoe 1,743 Posts
    A
    B
    C
    !!!
  • hammertimehammertime 2,389 Posts
    They're already making changes because of the uproar it's caused. To me the airing of the movie or whatever isn't as scary as the fact that Scholastic was setting up a program to show it in classrooms! WTF! It's been canceled BTW, but still...scary.
  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    Its one thing to fictionalize history for the purpose of entertainment, but i can only imagine that ABC had other intentions when it chose to turn a "docu-drama" into a fake account of the events leading up to 9-11. Elections in Congress are right around the corner, and now ABC is coming out with a bullshit miniseries which points the finger at the Clinton administration for being too distracted (lewinsky-related) to handle terrorism. Meanwhile, the majority of the media is covering this story as though Clinton is rushing around trying to make sure "the truth" doesnt come out. Such bullshit. Real headz know the deal. Check out this link and the other stories where ABC admits making a fake-u-drama.

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/07/clinton-pushes-back-911-families-speak-out/


    The fuckers are utterly shameless in their lies. While most of us learn from history, they're busy twisting it.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    The truth already came out - it came right of the national archives in Sandy Berger's pants. After that, who knows where it went.
  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    The truth already came out - it came right of the national archives in Sandy Berger's pants. After that, who knows where it went.

    Like I said....
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Here is one man's opinion.....he only worked for Clinton for 20 years......and he is a "Dick" ......and he probably has some vendetta against Billy boy.....certainly not worth paying attention to......it's probably all BS.

    Personally I don't agree with showing it in schools.....but with all the "docu" flicks out there about the current administration that include truths, half truths and unsubstantiated biased slander I'm disappointed that folks are on board with this kind of political censorship.

    I'd be upset if Michael Moore was censored...threatening ABC seems like some weird paralell world role reversal.


    Let all the morons begin to attack this as some sort of "Pro-Bush" post....I wouldn't expect anything less from the no-spin SS zone.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/7/203153.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2543-1


    Dick Morris
    Friday, Sept. 8, 2006

    Reprint Information
    New York Still Prime Terror Target

    Bush: 'Yes, America Is Safer' After 9/11
    Miami, L.A. Tops in City Cell Phone Chat
    Tom DeLay 'Dancing' With Family Values
    Schwarzenegger: Latinos 'Very Hot'


    The attack by Bill Clinton and his allies on the upcoming ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" is "outrageous," charges former Clinton aide Dick Morris.

    As NewsMax has reported, Clinton through his surrogates have demanded that ABC "correct all errors" in the docudrama or pull it from the air, charging that it is a "fictitious rewriting of history" regarding Clinton's handling of the terrorist threat.

    But Morris claims that Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, and the president himself "were both responsible for failing to catch or kill Osama bin Laden on several different occasions."

    Morris served Clinton as an adviser for 20 years and notably as Clinton's senior campaign strategist during his 1996 re-election.


    Morris states that the evidence for this failure is documented in the 9/11 Commission's report and summarized in "Because He Could," the book about Clinton that Morris co-authored with his wife Eileen McGann.

    The commission's report, released in the summer of 2004, "highlighted the weak, incompetent, hesitant, and inconsistent attempts of the Clinton administration to kill or capture Osama bin Laden," according to the book, which devotes an entire chapter to Clinton's mishandling of the threat.

    "The report's account shows the president and his advisers at their worst."


    One time, the United States "canceled an attempt to kidnap bin Laden out of concern that we might injure or kill him and be accused of using assassination as a policy tool," Morris told NewsMax.
    "The president had yet to make a finding that it was OK to kill bin Laden. The reason he had not is that he did not yet know bin Laden's connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The reason he did not know that is that he did not fast-track the investigation.

    "A second time, we did fire missiles but alerted the Pakistani military to our plans and they tipped off bin Laden, and he escaped."

    According to the commission's report, the United States alerted Pakistan because the missiles targeting bin Laden, who was in Afghanistan, had to cross Pakistan, and U.S. officials did not want Pakistan to think the missiles came from India.

    "A third time, our plans to attack by missile were canceled, partially out of chagrin over having missed him before and partially because we had just bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade by mistake and were worried about being called trigger happy," said Morris.


    "The president was also concerned about civilian deaths in any such attack.
    "The underlying theme of the ABC coverage, that he was distracted by impeachment, is of course true. But more so, he was gun-shy" because he was afraid conservatives would say he had launched a failed attack "in an effort to 'wag the dog' and distract people from the Monica Lewinsky affair."

    Morris concluded: "His fear of such attacks on him inhibited him from acting."





  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts
    The truth already came out - it came right of the national archives in Sandy Berger's pants. After that, who knows where it went.

    ha. he gave those documents back and they were unrelated.

    abc has admitted that the disputed scenes were not based in fact.

  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    Let all the morons begin to attack this as some sort of "Pro-Bush" post....I wouldn't expect anything less from the no-spin SS zone.


    Let us all shed another tear for the downtrodden conservative minority of SoulStrut....
  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts
    Here is one man's opinion.....he only worked for Clinton for 20 years......and he is a "Dick" ......and he probably has some vendetta against Billy boy.....certainly not worth paying attention to......it's probably all BS.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/7/203153.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2543-1

    yea, he worked as a campaign strategist. check the facts. the cia and clinton's cabinet members refute everything he says. furthermore, the dude wrote a book (which he is pushing) in which he bashes clinton, i'd say he is far from a credible source. maybe you can find an interview with clinton's chef or his personal trainer.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    The truth already came out - it came right of the national archives in Sandy Berger's pants. After that, who knows where it went.

    ha. he gave those documents back and they were unrelated.

    abc has admitted that the disputed scenes were not based in fact.




    Wrong and wrong.


    I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives," Berger said in a written statement. "When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded."



    Although Berger said he reviewed thousands of pages, he apparently homed in on a single document: the so-called "after-action report" on the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium plot of 1999/2000. Berger is said to have taken multiple copies of the same paper. He is also said to have taken those copies on at least two different days.
  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    Here is one man's opinion.....he only worked for Clinton for 20 years......and he is a "Dick" ......and he probably has some vendetta against Billy boy.....certainly not worth paying attention to......it's probably all BS.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/7/203153.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2543-1

    yea, he worked as a campaign strategist. check the facts. the cia and clinton's cabinet members refute everything he says. furthermore, the dude wrote a book (which he is pushing) in which he bashes clinton, i'd say he is far from a credible source. maybe you can find an interview with clinton's chef or his personal trainer.

    Holy shit! I saw the Newsmax link and didn't even bother checking it out, but honestly, if ANYONE has a

    vendetta against Billy boy

    it's Morris. The guy's a a one-man Clinton-hate industry, and as a result has been embraced by the Fox Newsers as one of their own.

    Fucking please....
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Here is one man's opinion.....he only worked for Clinton for 20 years......and he is a "Dick" ......and he probably has some vendetta against Billy boy.....certainly not worth paying attention to......it's probably all BS.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/7/203153.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2543-1


    You don't have to....I already did it for you above....Kreskin could make a fortune here.
  • deejdeej 5,125 Posts
    Michael Moore comparisons are totally off point.
  • coffinjoecoffinjoe 1,743 Posts


    Let all the morons begin to attack this as some sort of "Pro-Bush" post....I wouldn't expect anything less from the no-spin SS zone

    dick morris ??

    got to be some better peep to quote,
    maybe george tennet or al gore ........?
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    Here is one man's opinion.....he only worked for Clinton for 20 years......and he is a "Dick" ......and he probably has some vendetta against Billy boy.....certainly not worth paying attention to......it's probably all BS.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/7/203153.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2543-1

    yea, he worked as a campaign strategist. check the facts. the cia and clinton's cabinet members refute everything he says. furthermore, the dude wrote a book (which he is pushing) in which he bashes clinton, i'd say he is far from a credible source. maybe you can find an interview with clinton's chef or his personal trainer.

    Holy shit! I saw the Newsmax link and didn't even bother checking it out, but honestly, if ANYONE has a

    vendetta against Billy boy

    it's Morris. The guy's a a one-man Clinton-hate industry, and as a result has been embraced by the Fox Newsers as one of their own.

    Fucking please....


    Dick Morris is an idiot, you know the story with him, hookers and everything. He's been outside the Clinton cirle too long now to have any value anyway.
  • Scratch_n_SniffScratch_n_Sniff 353 Posts

    But Morris claims that Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, and the president himself "were both responsible for failing to catch or kill Osama bin Laden on several different occasions."

    Ummmm, has Bush caught Osama Bin Laden? Am I missing something? This makes sense how?
  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts


    Wrong and wrong.


    I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives," Berger said in a written statement. "When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded."



    Although Berger said he reviewed thousands of pages, he apparently homed in on a single document: the so-called "after-action report" on the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium plot of 1999/2000. Berger is said to have taken multiple copies of the same paper. He is also said to have taken those copies on at least two different days.

    the archives is not missing any documents. i dont know where you got that quote from, but taken in full context, he "discarded" copies of documents that were given back at some point to the archives (i think he took a total of 2 pages). and while "the millenium plot" is related to terrorism, there were/are thousands of documents detailing clinton's involvement with anti-terrorism. everything berger took is in the archives. so if there was something critical, we would know about it.
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    So regardless of who is involved, the consensus here is that if a film/TV Show that is being billed as a "docu-drama" about politicians contains scenes/info that a political party or politician claims to be incorrect they should have the ability to censor it or shut it down???


    I thought the American way was to let them run it and then sue the shit out of them for slander???
  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    So regardless of who is involved, the consensus here is that if a film/TV Show that is being billed as a "docu-drama" about politicians contains scenes/info that a political party or politician claims to be incorrect they should have the ability to censor it or shut it down???


    I thought the American way was to let them run it and then sue the shit out of them for slander???


    i.e. slamming the barn door shut after the big propaganda horse has gotten out...
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    So regardless of who is involved, the consensus here is that if a film/TV Show that is being billed as a "docu-drama" about politicians contains scenes/info that a political party or politician claims to be incorrect they should have the ability to censor it or shut it down???


    I thought the American way was to let them run it and then sue the shit out of them for slander???


    i.e. slamming the barn door shut after the big propaganda horse has gotten out...

    So you're on board with this kind of censorship??......I'm not.

    The flick we spoke about here yesterday actually takes GWB's face and super imposes it on an actor's body.....would you be OK with the Bush Administration trying to stop the release of that film??
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts


    Wrong and wrong.


    I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives," Berger said in a written statement. "When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded."



    Although Berger said he reviewed thousands of pages, he apparently homed in on a single document: the so-called "after-action report" on the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium plot of 1999/2000. Berger is said to have taken multiple copies of the same paper. He is also said to have taken those copies on at least two different days.

    the archives is not missing any documents. i dont know where you got that quote from, but taken in full context, he "discarded" copies of documents that were given back at some point to the archives (i think he took a total of 2 pages). and while "the millenium plot" is related to terrorism, there were/are thousands of documents detailing clinton's involvement with anti-terrorism. everything berger took is in the archives. so if there was something critical, we would know about it.


    From WAPO

    Government official with knowledge of the probe said Berger removed from archives files all five or six drafts of a critique of the government's response to the millennium terrorism threat, which he said was classified "codeword," the government's highest level of document security.


    From NRO

    The documents Berger took ??? each copy of the millennium report is said to be in the range of 15 to 30 pages ??? were highly secret. They were classified at what is known as the "code word" level, which is the government's highest tier of secrecy. Any person who is authorized to remove such documents from a special secure room is required to do so in a locked case that is handcuffed to his or her wrist.
  • coffinjoecoffinjoe 1,743 Posts
    So regardless of who is involved, the consensus here is that if a film/TV Show that is being billed as a "docu-drama" about politicians contains scenes/info that a political party or politician claims to be incorrect they should have the ability to censor it or shut it down??????

    no way

    if a such stated film is being shown at a
    crucial moment before a close election
    for political purposes
    then

    maybe showing it to children who should be
    prepping for "no child left behind" tests is wrong
    but
    i'm not calling for censorship
    (same with the sinclair swifty propaganda flix)
    just a hearty debate of the b.s.
    & made up to order portions of this questionable film
    shown for questionable reasons
    (don't they have some reality crap shows that would reap better ratings ?)
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    So regardless of who is involved, the consensus here is that if a film/TV Show that is being billed as a "docu-drama" about politicians contains scenes/info that a political party or politician claims to be incorrect they should have the ability to censor it or shut it down??????

    no way

    if a such stated film is being shown at a
    crucial moment before a close election
    for political purposes
    then

    maybe showing it to children who should be
    prepping for "no child left behind" tests is wrong
    but
    i'm not calling for censorship
    (same with the sinclair swifty propaganda flix)
    just a hearty debate of the b.s.
    & made up to order portions of this questionable film
    shown for questionable reasons
    (don't they have some reality crap shows that would reap better ratings ?)

    I agree....I just think the more important debate is the attempt by a political party to censor something they don't agree with or claim to be false.

    THAT is more dangerous than the film itself.
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts

    if a such stated film is being shown at a
    crucial moment before a close election
    for political purposes
    then


    Didn't Michael Moore come right out and say the purpose of his '04 flick was EXACTLY that reason???
  • coffinjoecoffinjoe 1,743 Posts

    if a such stated film is being shown at a
    crucial moment before a close election
    for political purposes
    then


    Didn't Michael Moore come right out and say the purpose of his '04 flick was EXACTLY that reason???

    i missed the pre-election ABC tv showing of that flick .........

  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts


    From WAPO

    Government official with knowledge of the probe said Berger removed from archives files all five or six drafts of a critique of the government's response to the millennium terrorism threat, which he said was classified "codeword," the government's highest level of document security.


    From NRO

    The documents Berger took ??? each copy of the millennium report is said to be in the range of 15 to 30 pages ??? were highly secret. They were classified at what is known as the "code word" level, which is the government's highest tier of secrecy. Any person who is authorized to remove such documents from a special secure room is required to do so in a locked case that is handcuffed to his or her wrist.


    what is your point? the 9-11 commission had and still has a copy of every document that berger took. also, the probe is over, and berger paid his fine, end of story. this isnt some huge conspiracy. whether you believe berger's explanation (that it was an accident) is also irrelevant to this discussion. ABC's script was not based in fact and Berger isn't holding onto some missing document that would justify their lies. nobody has alleged that. move on.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwnIeyWC-W4


    Sideshow Bob are the democrats, and the rakes are Rove's traps.
  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    So regardless of who is involved, the consensus here is that if a film/TV Show that is being billed as a "docu-drama" about politicians contains scenes/info that a political party or politician claims to be incorrect they should have the ability to censor it or shut it down???


    I thought the American way was to let them run it and then sue the shit out of them for slander???


    i.e. slamming the barn door shut after the big propaganda horse has gotten out...

    So you're on board with this kind of censorship??......I'm not.

    The flick we spoke about here yesterday actually takes GWB's face and super imposes it on an actor's body.....would you be OK with the Bush Administration trying to stop the release of that film??

    Unlike 9/11, the assassination of GWB never happened. If ABC were to present a miniseries about a fictional/possible invasion of the US by Islamic fundamentalists it would be speculative, and shouldn't be subject to any prior restraint.

    If ABC wants to present a miniseries about events that actually happened, and present falsehood and speculation as fact, it's a different story. While I don't believe the movie should be pulled entirely, ABC shouldn't be able to present bullshit without some kind of prominent disclaimer.

    Their intent is clear, and companies like Scholastic ought to think twice about associating themselves with deliberate misstatement of facts. Last night the correspondent on Fax made a reference to the fact that the incidents in dispute went by very quickly and wouldn't really be noticed.

    Other defenders have said that it's a "docu-drama" so the filmmakers are within their rights to take some "liberties" with the truth. I guess it's only a coincidence that they liberties they've taken include negative lies about Clinton?
    Why don't we just take some more liberties and have Washington corss the Delaware on a jet-ski, or Lincoln breakdance at Gettysburg.

    Either something happened or it didn't.[/b]
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts

    if a such stated film is being shown at a
    crucial moment before a close election
    for political purposes
    then


    Didn't Michael Moore come right out and say the purpose of his '04 flick was EXACTLY that reason???

    i missed the pre-election ABC tv showing of that flick .........


    So propaganda is only OK if you have to pay for it.....Capitalism at it's finest!!
Sign In or Register to comment.