Forums Index >> General >> Cookoo Bird in the District of Columbia
Page : <1> :
Raid = dead cockroaches
Gore/obama = dead repubs.
Ah, but you Irishmen here. Danny Boy has the last word, not Keith!
Here goes: rooksandliars: Dan gets last word with "DANGER, WAR, FAMINE, FRAUD" when the pic is clicked.
But in response, no, my views haven't changed much. You?
Seriously, though.
I hope everyone on this planet gets a chance to watch Path to 911 which is on this weekend.
There may be finally some breaking of the pre-911 wall of silence.
And I may have something to say about Keith and Donald and the person you all call "BushHitlerHaliburtonChaneywithshotgunElviscontrolsEnronCowboyMcChimpy." In a more serious way (with a number of caveats about posting).
Later. On.
I like how he referrs to the President as "Mr. Bush". Not, "Mr. President".
Total disrespect.
What the country needs is more Liebermanns and less of this fellow.
I don't think he has quiiiiite the respect for him that you do for reasons that are obvious. Is is fair me to assume you referred to former as Bill or Clinton or something in between? I'm rereading *Founding Brothers* for giggles. There's a fun bit in there about the otherwise infallible John Adams getting laughed out of Senate for suggesting Washington be referred to in house as His Majesty. We rejected the monarchical tradition many moons ago.
JJ, you are aware of the scandal around this movie? Not sure why you are pushing a fictionalized account of the lead-up. People who know more than you or I who do not stand to be financially rewarded from the success of the project
have panned its invention of facts and distortions of what actually did and didn't happen. Check out the Ben-Veniste clip on crooks and liars. I wonder why the fuss about "educational materials* to go along with the program, even though they admin that the program is dramatized?
more from ickey media matters. Dude talks about the particularities of the movie's fictionalizations.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609060007
editL JJ, an addition for ya.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/07/greg-mitchell-abc-film-heavily-weighted-against-clinton-screenwriter-admitted-to-making-scene-up/
Do you still think it's important for people to see this?
Last edited: Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 2:49:56 PM
As far as the Path to 911 flick, no, actually, I don't think that movie will really add much to anyone's understanding of 911.
I could be wrong because like most people, I haven't seen it yet.
Although that hasn't stopped the uproar.
The license threat by the DNC is probably the worst.
And your Kos-ites have gone nuts , I see.
Also, Clinton did a phone call takedown, generating a funny headline: "Bubba goes ballistic"
And a lot of traffic on the blogosphere.
And, yes, it was a license threat, thinly veiled:
"The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events...."
There goes free speech? Possibly.
You can't have it both ways.
For example, Keith O can't demand that Bush not quote OBL. See quote where Bin Laden was the one who used "media" and not Bush.
Bush said:
"Secondly, along with this campaign of terror, the enemy has a propaganda strategy. Osama bin Laden laid out this strategy in a letter to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces uncovered in Afghanistan in 2002. In it, bin Laden says that al Qaeda intends to "[launch]," in his words, "a media campaign … to create a wedge between the American people and their government." This media campaign, bin Laden says, will send the American people a number of messages, including "that their government [will] bring them more losses, in finances and casualties." And he goes on to say that "they are being sacrificed… to serve… the big investors, especially the Jews." Bin Laden says that by delivering these messages, al Qaeda "aims at creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan."
Emphasis added.
Olbermann says:
Today, in the same subtle terms in which Mr. Bush and his colleagues muddied the clear line separating Iraq and 9/11 -- without ever actually saying so —the President quoted a purported Osama Bin Laden letter that spoke of launching, “a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government.”
Make no mistake here—the intent of that is to get us to confuse the psychotic scheming of an international terrorist, with that familiar bogeyman of the right, the “media.”
The President and the Vice President and others have often attacked freedom of speech, and freedom of dissent, and freedom of the press.
Now, Mr. Bush has signaled that his unparalleled and unprincipled attack on reporting has a new and venomous side angle:
The attempt to link, by the simple expediency of one word—“media”—the honest, patriotic, and indeed vital questions and questioning from American reporters, with the evil of Al-Qaeda propaganda.
Emphasis added again.
What am I missing here? Bush quotes OBL and Olby attributes that to Bush? While Olby concedes that Bush said it "without actually saying so"? Hello?
Last edited: Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 10:04:56 PM
BTW.
No one has yet challenged the existence of the letter from OBL to Mullah Omar.
Maybe that will happen in the next few days. Who knows.
Olbermann called it a "purported" letter, please note.
Of course, Olbermann also called Rumsfeld's speech "baby poop"!
"Speaking of baby poop there is Secretary Rumsfeld‘s speech to the American Legion yesterday."
Last edited: Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 10:02:53 PM
Also, Clinton did a phone call takedown, generating a funny headline: "Bubba goes ballistic"
All you can say about that article is that it has a funny headline? Someone produces a 9/11 propaganda film by BLATANTLY misrepresenting facts from the 9/11 Commission Report and that's all you have to say about it?
Why even bring it up at all? Just so you can say "Bubba"?
Last edited: Friday, September 08, 2006 at 5:09:07 PM
Let's take a look at how the American heritage Dictionary defines fascism:
Fasˇcism
NOUN:
often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
3. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Now take a look through the articles linked up top. Hell, you don't even have to go through those - just look through ANY newspaper - hell, even watch Fox News! - and see how many pieces of the definition above start to sound familiar to the actions of our Current Occupant's administration.
...hold down minimum wage, but provide tax relief that mostly benefits the top few percent...
...frog-march a policy of "if you're not for us, you're against us"...
...push the idea that theatens to bring institutional homophobia close to the level of pre-Civil Rights Act racism...
Oh, and an argument that says "Islamic terrorists (aka, Islamo-fascists) look a lot more like this definition" isn't the point. The point of our Constitution is that our country's government LOOK NOTHING LIKE this definition. It's a shame that it's starting to, and a joke that our President even use the word to justify his own policies.
Last edited: Friday, September 08, 2006 at 5:36:49 PM
Even odds now that the movie gets cancelled.
The reaction is pretty typical. I understand the scandal, but do you understand how wide it is!
Facts around it:
1. Only a handful have previewed it. Yet it gets reactions like this from the Democratic Party:
The ABC television network -- a cog in the Walt Disney empire -- unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new "docudrama" called "The Path to 9/11". ABC bills the two-night production as a public service that is "based on the 9/11 Commission Report". That is false - it is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats.
"The Path to 9/11" is a conservative attempt to rewrite the history of September 11th to blame Democrats. The Walt Disney Corporation could have given Americans an honest look at September 11. Instead, the company abandoned its duty to the truth -- and embraced the fiction known as "The Path to 9/11."
Tell Walt Disney president Robert Iger that you hold his company responsible -- and that this community demands that ABC tell the truth.
Yeah, it's all about the Democrats.
2. It hasn't gotten universal condemnation. The New York Times : "Dramatic license was certainly taken, but blame is spread pretty evenly across the board. It’s not the inaccuracies of “The Path to 9/11” that make ABC’s mini-series so upsetting. "
3. Many others have called it a stiff : "September 8, 2006 -- FIRST things first: ABC's miniseries "The Path to 9/11," which will air Sept. 10 and 11, is a stiff. For those well-versed in the infuriating details of the missteps and missed opportunities in pursing al Qaeda between the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the attack five years ago, there is nothing new here."
4. It appears it did have some "factual" errors. However, who really knows what Sandy Berger did on the phone when he could have stopped OBL by force?
Last edited: Friday, September 08, 2006 at 8:58:45 PM
Well said, G. It's difficult to understand what the righties who continue supporting the administration without question are really fighting for. I find that I really don't have the energy to debate any points because there isn't an equal partner in the conversation. Every day, there is a new embarrassment or miscalculation that the coming generations and administrations are going to have to address.
At dinner last night, I was talking a little bit about Founding Brothers [ http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375405445 ]. You read about the bravery and the courage of those guys in comparison to what we have - what we all have - to look up to today, and man, it's a wasteland out there. It's time for changes and a reversion to the spirited enlightenment which gave birth to this place.
[ btw, the guy that wrote the 9/11 movie is about to be exposed in some way, stay tuned. Keitel gave a nice interview on cnn the other day voicing his displeasure with film's fictionalizations, as does crazy bill bennett and mike freaking wallace. Lastly, a stunt or what? http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/bush.sept.11.ap/index.html ]
Last edited: Friday, September 08, 2006 at 9:10:58 PM
Who's frog-marching you, George?
You just did speak out.
And spirited enlightenment?
Make a logical argument. Categorical.
Major and minor terms with the middle term distributed at least once in the premises. Three terms. Middle one not in conclusion. Yeah, middle distributed once. If term is distributed in conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises. Two negative make a negative. One negative means a negative conclusion. Two positives always mean a positive. Conditional later on.
"if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention?"
That's about the stupidest statement. What a headache.
Jj puttin' the grr in anger. Fun fun. I can smell your teeth grinding, dude.
^ hehe
The Republican Terrorist Party.
Get ready for the Republican Fear & Smear campaign. Apparently ABC is struggling to keep up with the Republican-Fox-al-Jazeera channel.
Fool us once shame on you,...
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
"I find that I really don't have the energy to debate any points because there isn't an equal partner in the conversation."
And there never ever was. JJ -- you are back? Your political philosophy is absolutely bankrupt, and has been exposed for all to see in the cleansing light of day...and now you show up peddaling what exactly? Hard to say, really. More prose, I suppose...what exactly is a republican anymore? I'm wondering what tally was wondering...what exactly is it that you guys want?
Your side can't do anything right...and you personally come down on the wrong side of everything. Your guys can't govern, have no credibility nor conpetence and can't even get their lies straight. I took your prior absense for a sense of shame and had at least that much respect. Now you come back "blogging" at us. But what is it like to have no sense of right or wrong...ironically...what's it like to be a republican moral relativist? That is what a "neocon" is, isn't it? Borrowing much from the liberal tradition of reason and logic, but eschewing the critical aspect of humility...is that the core difference between a liberal and a neo-con? You guys are working at overcoming that "human" aspect? But relativists have no right to claims of absolute truths... Your meandering prose demonstrates some understanding of this principle...some awareness of your own sense of perspectivism and of the tentativeness of your positions...but you hammer away at something you imagine is bigger than the parts...impervious of...yourself.
You really ought to have some shame. But then...that's too much to ask of a shadow or an echo. In that case, have some more silence. I enjoyed your absence.
I respectfully disagree with the topic of this thread
"Cookoo bird in DC"
Everyone knows I live in NY.................
Yeah, yeah.
You lefties are just as bad, but currently don't have as many opportunities to blunder. Did any of you hear about the current legislation dealing with horse flesh? How does this affect individual rights? It violates some peoples' and protects nobodies. This is the recurrent theme that we should be concerned about. Our government is run amuck and both sides are to blame. Take a good hard look in the mirror.
Until we learn to think in principle and identify the correct ones to persue, we are on a downward slide to a place next to bin laden et al.
^
?
I don't get where you're coming from.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
If there is a word that raises red flags in the post 9/11 world it is "docudrama.'' ABC's, "The Path to 9/11,'' was not only controversial because Democrats said it falsely portrayed events, it was generally considered a lousy piece of work. Again, it was an attempt to tap into those emotions from that day with the aim of leaving us all in tears once again.
So, "The Path to 911" falsely portrayed events. And only the Dems can say what is falsely portrayed. So "The Path to 911" was controversial because the Dems said it falsely portrayed events.
Fine piece of thought.
"It was an attempt to tap into emotions..."?
Ah, Path to 911 was an attempt to follow the path to 911. The movie indeed did follow the "path" theme. It showed both the Clintons and PRESIDENT Bush's executive branch's politicizing good intelligence. So, the New York Times was correct about it being equal in pointing blame.
Shame on the Democrats and the Left for wanting to stop free speech.
Nice argument, JJ, in that two wrongs making a right sorta way.
Page : <1> :
: :
Thought I'd throw a link over to the ol' safe-haven crooksandliars.com as this election season nears us, but in constructing my thoughts and reactions to the news of the past few days, I'm sort of overwhelmed. Olbermann is providing an outstanding (I literally mean out-standing; nobody else is doing this) amount of clarity to the abuses coming from the capital. I wonder if anyone, in the past year or so since I've white-flagged the non-league threads, has changed their mind on where they stand.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/05/olbermanns-latest-special-comment-targets-bush-“have-you-no-sense-of-decency-sir”/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/05/bob-kerreys-response-on-bushs-role-in-911-bushs-straw-man-11-09-04/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/04/more-on-ayatollah-ali-al-sistani/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/02/olbermann-rummy-reloaded/
gore/obama 2008-2032, btw.