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]
Please to make gremlin of Washington on jet ski screaming "5 pager!!!!"
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]
We agree......ABC should say up front that some of the info in the film has been disputed as fact and should be viewed as such.....we don't want another "propaganda let out of the barn door" like that whole Plame episode....jeeez....soon they'll have to make a similar disclaimer before the evening news.
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]
We agree......ABC should say up front that some of the info in the film has been disputed as fact and should be viewed as such.....we don't want another "propaganda let out of the barn door" like that whole Plame episode....jeeez....soon they'll have to make a similar disclaimer before the evening news.
ABC already said there was a disclaimer, but that's not really going to help. Christ people still think you should suck venom out of a snake bite with your mouth even though it's in a totaly ficional movie that they know is not real.
People believe stuff they see on TV and yes, that's more of an inditement of the viewers intelligance, but still television needs to show a little more responsibility.
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]
We agree......ABC should say up front that some of the info in the film has been disputed as fact and should be viewed as such.....we don't want another "propaganda let out of the barn door" like that whole Plame episode....jeeez....
Did Disney and ABC make a movie outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative (I thought that was various underlings in the Bush admin)?
soon they'll have to make a similar disclaimer before the evening news.
Considering the quality of network news in this country, they ought to...
We agree......ABC should say up front that some of the info in the film has been disputed as fact and should be viewed as such....
no, they should not air it. there is a difference between "disputed facts" and making shit up. there is an agenda behind this film to discredit the democrats before the congressional elections. its propaganda and belongs on fox news.
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]
We agree......ABC should say up front that some of the info in the film has been disputed as fact and should be viewed as such.....we don't want another "propaganda let out of the barn door" like that whole Plame episode....jeeez....
Did Disney and ABC make a movie outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative (I thought that was various underlings in the Bush admin)?
soon they'll have to make a similar disclaimer before the evening news.
Considering the quality of network news in this country, they ought to...
Politics by it's very definition in 2006 is the act of being sleazy self serving liars who think the public can be easily manipulated and prove it by doing so every day.
And everyone I know believes this.....it's just that most think it's only the "Other Side" that does it while I recognize that they ALL do it.
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]
We agree......ABC should say up front that some of the info in the film has been disputed as fact and should be viewed as such.....we don't want another "propaganda let out of the barn door" like that whole Plame episode....jeeez....soon they'll have to make a similar disclaimer before the evening news.
ABC already said there was a disclaimer, but that's not really going to help. Christ people still think you should suck venom out of a snake bite with your mouth even though it's in a totaly ficional movie that they know is not real.
People believe stuff they see on TV and yes, that's more of an inditement of the viewers intelligance, but still television needs to show a little more responsibility.
Of course it wouldn???t be complete without some obnoxious condescending questioning the intelligence of the poor masses they claim to represent. Im glad we have smart people like you looking out for our best interests.
ABC already said there was a disclaimer, but that's not really going to help. Christ people still think you should suck venom out of a snake bite with your mouth even though it's in a totaly ficional movie that they know is not real.
People believe stuff they see on TV and yes, that's more of an inditement of the viewers intelligance, but still television needs to show a little more responsibility.
Of course it wouldn???t be complete without some obnoxious condescending questioning the intelligence of the poor masses they claim to represent. Im glad we have smart people like you looking out for our best interests. I don't claim to represent the masses. There a bunch of idoits!!!! That's why I spend my time alone on the internet arguing with people I don't know.
I just like the fact how everyone has an opinion on something they haven't even seen yet. How many people have seen this thing? 0.000005%? Last I heard, ABC was still editing it.
Side question.
Does this show what steps were taken right after the first world trade bombing to make sure something didn't happen again?
But then, that question is moot, since it was an inside job!
Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities The CIA had pictures. Why wasn???t the al-Qaida leader captured or killed? By Lisa Myers Senior investigative correspondent NBC News
Updated: 6:40 p.m. ET March 17, 2004 As the 9/11 commission investigates what Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush might have done to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, one piece of evidence the commission will examine is a videotape secretly recorded by a CIA plane high above Afghanistan. The tape shows a man believed to Osama bin Laden walking at a known al-Qaida camp.
The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn???t he captured or killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.
Over the next three nights, NBC News will present this incredible spy footage and reveal some of the difficult questions it has raised for the 9/11 commission.
In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.
In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.
Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.
In 1998, President Clinton announced, ???We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.???
NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.
In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.
Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures ??? a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.
Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. ???You see a tall man???. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.???
Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.
Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.
???It???s dynamite. It???s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn???t happen every day.??? I guess you could say we???ve done it once, and this is it,??? Arkin added.
The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
???We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,??? said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.
???We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles ??? either air- or sea-launched ??? very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,??? Downing added.
Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.
What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA???s ability to get bin Laden? ???It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,??? said Schroen.
A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.
Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, ???The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.???
In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What???s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.
NBC News contacted the three top Clinton national security officials. None would do an on-camera interview. However, they vigorously defend their record and say they disrupted terrorist cells and made al-Qaida a top national security priority.
???We used military force, we used covert operations, we used all of the tools available to us because we realized what a serious threat this was,??? said President Clinton???s former national security adviser James Steinberg.
One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, ???We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.???
Tuesday: How close the U.S. may have com to getting bin Laden? Wednesday: What more could the Bush administration have done to get bin Laden? Thursday: Did Bush take terrorism seriously before 9/11 or was focus too much on Saddam?
Lisa Myers is NBC???s senior investigative correspondent
i find it interesting that people are making a big deal about this considering it is some crappy tv movie...i mean i challenge someone to name ONE good tv movie in the history of tv movies.
i never thought clinton was that great of a president in the first place but i did sign the FOUR petitions that were emailed to me just because i think it would be better for the survival of the species of man to not have neo cons in the white house and congress anymore. and this special is definatly timely for the 'publicans.
it's abc cashing in on this tragedy to make some bucks. they could give a fuck whether it's "liberal" or "conservative" though.
i do find it funny how quickly cbs pulled that reagan documentary because it showed ronnie in an unfavorable light.
so much for believing in basic rights. saw an article today by one of the dudes involved in the project lamenting about protecting the most sacred right of speech. he sure wasn't speaking out when they canceled that reagen shit.
ain't no chance abc is going to pull this either especially after all the hype that has been created by this campaign to get it stopped. now people are definatly going to watch it just to see what all the big fuss is about.
what a godforesaken mess these men have created using ONE THIRD of your PAYCHECK TO DO IT we deserve better foreign ploicy for our dollars these guys are driven by their stock portfolios and that of their friends at the Petro/Defense/Aviation/Aerospace /Pharma/illicit drugblack market country club
how can you deny 60 years of US imperialism,Guatemala,IRAN,IRAQ,CUBA,Quatemala,Pick a coup any coup. As we squabble in a pathetic atempt to lay blame for 9/11 they are still stealing our money. lying bastards all of this while the next CIA created Frankenstien [read terrorist] Rises toward the Lightning Strapped Into His Gurney.
what a godforesaken mess these men have created using ONE THIRD of your PAYCHECK TO DO IT we deserve better foreign ploicy for our dollars these guys are driven by their stock portfolios and that of their friends at the Petro/Defense/Aviation/Aerospace /Pharma/illicit drugblack market country club
how can you deny 60 years of US imperialism,Guatemala,IRAN,IRAQ,CUBA,Quatemala,Pick a coup any coup. As we squabble in a pathetic atempt to lay blame for 9/11 they are still stealing our money. lying bastards all of this while the next CIA created Frankenstien [read terrorist] Rises toward the Lightning Strapped Into His Gurney.
hey kala i don't know you but have you seen the documentary the power of nightmares ?
Comments
that's all i was trying to say
Please to make gremlin of Washington on jet ski screaming "5 pager!!!!"
We agree......ABC should say up front that some of the info in the film has been disputed as fact and should be viewed as such.....we don't want another "propaganda let out of the barn door" like that whole Plame episode....jeeez....soon they'll have to make a similar disclaimer before the evening news.
ABC already said there was a disclaimer, but that's not really going to help. Christ people still think you should suck venom out of a snake bite with your mouth even though it's in a totaly ficional movie that they know is not real.
People believe stuff they see on TV and yes, that's more of an inditement of the viewers intelligance, but still television needs to show a little more responsibility.
Did Disney and ABC make a movie outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative (I thought that was various underlings in the Bush admin)?
Considering the quality of network news in this country, they ought to...
no, they should not air it. there is a difference between "disputed facts" and making shit up. there is an agenda behind this film to discredit the democrats before the congressional elections. its propaganda and belongs on fox news.
Politics by it's very definition in 2006 is the act of being sleazy self serving liars who think the public can be easily manipulated and prove it by doing so every day.
And everyone I know believes this.....it's just that most think it's only the "Other Side" that does it while I recognize that they ALL do it.
Of course it wouldn???t be complete without some obnoxious condescending questioning the intelligence of the poor masses they claim to represent. Im glad we have smart people like you looking out for our best interests.
Of course it wouldn???t be complete without some obnoxious condescending questioning the intelligence of the poor masses they claim to represent. Im glad we have smart people like you looking out for our best interests.
I don't claim to represent the masses. There a bunch of idoits!!!! That's why I spend my time alone on the internet arguing with people I don't know.
Side question.
Does this show what steps were taken right after the first world trade bombing to make sure something didn't happen again?
But then, that question is moot, since it was an inside job!
Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities
The CIA had pictures. Why wasn???t the al-Qaida leader captured or killed?
By Lisa Myers
Senior investigative correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 6:40 p.m. ET March 17, 2004
As the 9/11 commission investigates what Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush might have done to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, one piece of evidence the commission will examine is a videotape secretly recorded by a CIA plane high above Afghanistan. The tape shows a man believed to Osama bin Laden walking at a known al-Qaida camp.
The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn???t he captured or killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.
Over the next three nights, NBC News will present this incredible spy footage and reveal some of the difficult questions it has raised for the 9/11 commission.
In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.
In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.
Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.
In 1998, President Clinton announced, ???We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.???
NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.
In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.
Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures ??? a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.
Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. ???You see a tall man???. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.???
Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.
Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.
???It???s dynamite. It???s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn???t happen every day.??? I guess you could say we???ve done it once, and this is it,??? Arkin added.
The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
???We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,??? said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.
???We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles ??? either air- or sea-launched ??? very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,??? Downing added.
Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.
What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA???s ability to get bin Laden? ???It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,??? said Schroen.
A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.
Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, ???The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.???
In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What???s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.
NBC News contacted the three top Clinton national security officials. None would do an on-camera interview. However, they vigorously defend their record and say they disrupted terrorist cells and made al-Qaida a top national security priority.
???We used military force, we used covert operations, we used all of the tools available to us because we realized what a serious threat this was,??? said President Clinton???s former national security adviser James Steinberg.
One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, ???We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.???
Tuesday: How close the U.S. may have com to getting bin Laden?
Wednesday: What more could the Bush administration have done to get bin Laden?
Thursday: Did Bush take terrorism seriously before 9/11 or was focus too much on Saddam?
Lisa Myers is NBC???s senior investigative correspondent
?? 2006 MSNBC Interactive
So how could george bush have seen what he said he saw?
Because he didn't see it. He's an idiot and got confused when someone asked him a tough question.
i never thought clinton was that great of a president in the first place but i did sign the FOUR petitions that were emailed to me just because i think it would be better for the survival of the species of man to not have neo cons in the white house and congress anymore. and this special is definatly timely for the 'publicans.
it's abc cashing in on this tragedy to make some bucks. they could give a fuck whether it's "liberal" or "conservative" though.
i do find it funny how quickly cbs pulled that reagan documentary because it showed ronnie in an unfavorable light.
so much for believing in basic rights. saw an article today by one of the dudes involved in the project lamenting about protecting the most sacred right of speech. he sure wasn't speaking out when they canceled that reagen shit.
ain't no chance abc is going to pull this either especially after all the hype that has been created by this campaign to get it stopped. now people are definatly going to watch it just to see what all the big fuss is about.
we deserve better foreign ploicy for our dollars
these guys are driven by their stock portfolios and that of their friends at the Petro/Defense/Aviation/Aerospace /Pharma/illicit drugblack market country club
how can you deny 60 years of US imperialism,Guatemala,IRAN,IRAQ,CUBA,Quatemala,Pick a coup any coup.
As we squabble in a pathetic atempt to lay blame for 9/11 they are still stealing our money.
lying bastards
all of this while the next CIA created Frankenstien [read terrorist] Rises toward the Lightning Strapped Into His Gurney.
hey kala i don't know you but have you seen the documentary the power of nightmares ?