OT: "Path to 9/11"versus"The Reagans"
Curtin/Dobbs
From "Variety":
...Criticism of "The Path to 9/11" carries strong echoes of the barbs hurled
at CBS over "The Reagans." Reagan partisans railed against scenes showing
Nancy Reagan consulting an astrologist and Reagan condemning AIDS victims.
Conservative drumbeat against "The Reagans" started months before the mini
was slated to air and intensified after a copy of the script was leaked. Eye
ultimately decided to sell the project to sister company Showtime -- a move
that, *ironically*, prompted howls of protest from liberal groups who
accused CBS of censorship.
Cliff Kincaid, editor of publications for conservative watchdog group
Accuracy in Media, said the Democratic outcry is a bit of a surprise.
"Usually Democrats can count on the support of big media in Hollywood," he
said. "It's like things are upside down now."
===I say to the Libs, just let the miniseries air, after all, lefty,
Oscar-winning film director Paul Haggis is producing the official Richard
Clarke approved mini-series of events leading up to and after 9/11.
...Curtin/Dobbs
lugnut
<curtin...@comcast.net> wrote:
>===Examples of Bipartisan Hypocrisy===
>
>From "Variety":
>
>...Criticism of "The Path to 9/11" carries strong echoes of the barbs hurled
>at CBS over "The Reagans." Reagan partisans railed against scenes showing
>Nancy Reagan consulting an astrologist and Reagan condemning AIDS victims.
>
>Conservative drumbeat against "The Reagans" started months before the mini
>was slated to air and intensified after a copy of the script was leaked. Eye
>ultimately decided to sell the project to sister company Showtime -- a move
>that, *ironically*, prompted howls of protest from liberal groups who
>accused CBS of censorship.
>
For what it's worth, though, the producers of The Reagans never
claimed their film was "100% based on fact," did they? Seems the
people behind the 9/11 film are insistent that everything in their
film comes directly from the 9/11 Commission Report, and I think
that's what's really got them in trouble - if they'd claimed "creative
license" from the start, it might not be quite as easy to dispute the
details.
-lugnut
Frank Malczewski
> You wrote:
>
> > Seems the
> > people behind the 9/11 film are insistent that everything in their
> > film comes directly from the 9/11 Commission Report
>
> Wrong. The first frame of the ABC show explicitly states that it is a
> dramatization, not a documentary.
I think you mispelled whitewash.
>
> Face it, 9/11 was the result of fuckups from both sides of the aisle, from
> Bush 43, from Clinton, from Bush 41 (using Saudi soil to stage Desert
> Storm) and from a string of Presidents back to Truman giving blind support
> (and hundreds of billions of dollars) to Israel.
Kingo Gondo
> Oscar-winning film director Paul Haggis is producing the official Richard
> Clarke approved mini-series of events leading up to and after 9/11.
>
> ...Curtin/Dobbs
Yeah. I liked the take of this well-known commie on the whole uproar:
tomcervo
Kingo Gondo wrote:
> Yeah. I liked the take of this well-known commie on the whole uproar:
>
> http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/path_missed_real_9_11_story_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm
Oh yeah, John Normansson.
tomcervo
lugnut wrote:
Seems the
> people behind the 9/11 film are insistent that everything in their
> film comes directly from the 9/11 Commission Report, and I think
> that's what's really got them in trouble - if they'd claimed "creative
> license" from the start, it might not be quite as easy to dispute the
> details.
They could have made their own movie, based on their own story, like
"Syriana", but that demands a level of creativity that no one behind
the camera on this project has ever displayed. So they do with "based
on a true story", the hack's favorite crutch.
tomcervo
lugnut wrote:
Seems the
> people behind the 9/11 film are insistent that everything in their
> film comes directly from the 9/11 Commission Report, and I think
> that's what's really got them in trouble - if they'd claimed "creative
> license" from the start, it might not be quite as easy to dispute the
> details.
They could have made their own movie, based on their own story, like
"Syriana", but that demands a level of creativity that no one behind
the camera on this project has ever displayed. So they go with "based
Jim Reid
> (probably not)
Michael Moore's films are not documentarys as we know them. He has a
political agenda and makes no pretenses any other way. Not sure what
there is to complain about. If you don't like what he says, don't watch
his films.
David Totheroh
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
Jim Reid
Alotta Fagina wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> > Michael Moore's films are not documentarys as we know them.
>
Would be if I had ever attended a government school, which I didn't.
It's more a ringing endorsement of having to go back into work with
three hours sleep.
Eric Stott
"Alotta Fagina" <alo...@fagina.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98399A24383...@66.26.32.9...
> You wrote:
>
>> Michael Moore's films are not documentarys as we know them.
>
Anglo-American Orthography is a truly senseless system, sanctified only by
Tradition.
Eric Stott
Jim Reid
Justin wrote:
> He got a well payed for edumacation.
Maybe one day you can get one, Justin.
Ed Hulse
David Totheroh wrote:
> 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.
Yes, because "many conservatives" have the intellectual honesty that
would be so refreshing were it more frequently found in liberals. I'm
delighted to see Mr. Totheroh quoting John Podhoretz, Brent Bozell, et
al without insinuating that they are fascists or morons, which are just
two of the labels frequently attached to gentlemen of their political
persuasion. Who *says* we can't just all get along? Liberals and MSM
types will always tolerate conservatives who spring to the defense of
Bill Clinton or denounce George W. Bush. (Witness the recent media
fawning over former FEMA head Michael Brown, who was thrashed by every
liberal pundit on television -- until he started crying that he was
just the fall guy and blaming the adminstration for the very ineptitude
that the MSM had so painstakingly attributed to him. To a man, every
one of Brown's harshest critics invited him on their various shows,
treating him with the respect and deference they didn't have the
decency to show him during the Katrina crisis.)
The truly fascinating thing about the whole PATH TO 9/11 episode, of
course, is the thoroughgoing denunication of the film by liberals who
haven't seen it, but who blithely dismissed or openly chastised
conservatives who made the exact same charges about the Reagan
miniseries and the Oliver Stone fever dreams masquerading as movies
based on recent history. The righties who called for boycotts were
importuned basically to sit down and shut up, and grant these
filmmakers "artistic license" in pursuit of their visions, letting the
historical chips fall where they might.
I'm against the falsification of history whether the subject is Bill
Clinton or Ronald Reagan or Joe McCarthy. Or any other historical
figure. I certainly hope Mr. Totheroh will join me, down the road, in
expressing reservations about the inevitable cinematic chronicle of the
Valerie Plame affair, in which the leaker tipping off Bob Novak will no
doubt be shown to be Karl Rove rather than Richard Armitage.
Lookingglass
"Curtin/Dobbs" <curtin...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pqOdnZQjsIYVBJzY...@comcast.com...
This copied from a post from another NG...
What the CONSERVATIVES are saying about it:
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]
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]
And here's what the 9/11 Commissioners who WROTE the report are saying
about it:
The people who wrote the 9/11 Commission report disagree. Here's a review
of their comments -
9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick:
"I do have a problem if you make claims that the program is based upon
the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report when the actors, scenes and
statements in the series are not found in - and, indeed, are contradicted
by - our findings." [Link]
9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste:
Some scenes in the film "complete fiction. . The mischaracterizations
tended to support the notion that the president [Clinton] was not attentive
to anti-terrorism concerns. That was the opposite from what the 9/11
commission found." [Link]
9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer:
In the scene, CIA operatives have Osama bin Laden cornered and are
poised to capture or kill him until National Security Adviser Samuel Berger
refuses to give the go-ahead. . [M]embers of the 9/11 Commission say none of
that ever happened.
ROEMER: There were plans, not an operation in place. Secondly, Osama bin
Laden was never in somebody's sights. Thirdly, on page 114 of our report we
say George Tenet took responsibility for pulling the plug on that particular
Tarnak Farms operation. [CNN, 9/7/06]
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey:
"If you're saying this is based on the 9/11 Commission report, there are
substantial factual discrepancies. You need to get [them] out. . You can't
sit there as ABC and say, 'Gee, we don't have any responsibility. They
should make a good faith effort to get this as close to the facts as
possible." [Link]
9/11 Commissioner Tom Kean:
"I don't think the facts are clear, whether it's Sandy Berger, or
whether it's the head of the CIA, whether a line went dead. I think there
are, I think there are a number of - they chose to portray it this way, but
my memory of it is that it could have happened any number of ways."
It IS clear...it was George Tenet!
Then there's the stealth director:
Cunningham Linked To YWAM. David Cunningham (the director) was contracted
by ABC to direct Path to 9/11. Cunningham is the son of Loren and Darlene
Cunningham, the founders of Youth With a Mission (YWAM), a Christian
evangelical group that actively tries to get "youth into short-term mission
work and to give them opportunities to reach out in Jesus' name."
YWAM Sponsored the Film Institute To Change Hollywood. YWAM created an
"auxillary" group called the Film Institute, which was explicitly aimed at
achieving a "Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and
Television industry."
Film Institute Began the "Untitled History Project." The Film Institute's
first project was simply referred to as the "Untitled History Project"
(UHP). In July 2005, Fox News reported that filming had begun on an ABC
miniseries about 9/11 that ABC officials and producers were referring to it
as the "Untitled History Project." A production company entitled "UHP
Productions," which was co-founded with Disney began filming Path to 9/11 in
late 2005.
UHP Became Path to 9/11. UHP Productions has only produced one movie.
Harvey Keitel, who stars as FBI special agent John O'Neill in the movie,
said that when he received the original script, "it said ABC History
Project."
As to the writer?
Writer and avowed conservative Cyrus Nowrasteh admitted that the films
most controversial scene was based on nothing at all. Nowrasteh told a
right-wing radio station that the scene was "improvised." From the New York
Times:
Mr. Berger's character is also seen abruptly hanging up during a
conversation with a C.I.A. officer at a critical moment of a military
operation. In an interview yesterday with KRLA-AM in Los Angeles, Cyrus
Nowrasteh, the mini-series' screenwriter and one of its producers, said that
moment had been improvised.
"Sandy Berger did not slam down the phone," Mr. Nowrasteh said. "That is
not in the report. That was not scripted. But you know when you're making a
movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted. Accidents occur,
spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place. It's the job
of the filmmaker to say, 'You know, maybe we can use that.' "
ABC is lying and backpedalling like crazy. First they claimed it was
totally based on the 9/11 Commission report. Now they say it is an amalgam
of various sources and dramatization, not a true documentary. Liars,
especially as they were in this from the very first development stages on
up, they KNEW.
Then they said:
ABC now is blasting critics of Path to 9/11, saying the movie isn't
complete. From a statement :
No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing
process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature
and irresponsible.
That's not what ABC told the National Review's Stephen Spruiell on
September 1:
I followed up on Andy's Corner post this morning by calling ABC, and
was told by a spokeswoman that the "Path to 9/11? miniseries is "locked and
ready to air," and that she hadn't heard anything about a pressure campaign
to reopen the editing process.
It's clear that the editing process reopened when people started
complaining. What's irresponsible is for ABC to lie about it.
They provided copies to all the right wingers like Rush Limbaugh but
refused to provide any for Clinton or his aides or any left leaning media.
WHY?
Enough prominent people from both sides have blasted the innaccuracy
given the recent tragedy and the need to get the facts STRAIGHT, not
dramatized. There was far enough drama on 9/11, it needs no help from hack
ideologists.
END QUOTE.......................
Tim Johnson
> You wrote:
>
>> Alotta Fagina <alo...@fagina.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You wrote:
>>>
>>> > Seems the
>>> > people behind the 9/11 film are insistent that everything in their
>>> > film comes directly from the 9/11 Commission Report
>>>
>>> Wrong. The first frame of the ABC show explicitly states that it is a
>>> dramatization, not a documentary.
>>
>> I think you mispelled whitewash.
>
> Says someone who can't spell "misspelled". Nice.
>
Nice what?
Incomplete sentence...
:)
Ed Stasiak
> > Richard C. wrote
> >
> > I am sure that you complained about Michale Moore's film too...
>
> Michael Moore's films are not documentarys as we know them.
They're not?
Then I wonder why Hollywood gave "Bowling for Columbine" an
Oscar for best documentary (LOL!) in 2003 and the International
Documentary Association awarded it "Best Documentary of All
Time" (ROTFLMAO!) the same year?
Jim Reid
Ed Stasiak wrote:
> Then I wonder why Hollywood gave "Bowling for Columbine" an
> Oscar for best documentary (LOL!) in 2003 and the International
> Documentary Association awarded it "Best Documentary of All
> Time" (ROTFLMAO!) the same year?
It's known from the top that these films have an agenda, unlike this
ABC program, which has an agenda but is pretending not to.
Lincoln Spector
"Jim Reid" <jimr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1157824892....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
never heard anyone suggest that objectivity was part of the definition of
"documentary." Indeed, I took a class in documentaries in college and we
studied Triumph of the Will.
All documentaries are trying to sell a point of view. Moore is just very
open about it.
Now, you could reasonably argue that Moore's unwillingness to take the other
side's point of view seriously hurts the quality of his work; that other
documentaries are better because, even though they are biased, they let the
other side have it's say. That's a legitimate criticism.
But his films (except Canadian Bacon of course) are clearly documentaries.
Lincoln
Eric Stott
"Lincoln Spector" <notm...@address.com> wrote in message
news:AF2Ng.74$ov2...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Now, you could reasonably argue that Moore's unwillingness to take the
> other side's point of view seriously hurts the quality of his work; that
> other documentaries are better because, even though they are biased, they
> let the other side have it's say. That's a legitimate criticism.
>
> But his films (except Canadian Bacon of course) are clearly documentaries.
>
> Lincoln
There is a fine line between Documentary and Polemic, and I think Moore
crosses it. His approach is more like: I'm going to throw mud at you and
I DARE you to retaliate.
Stott
sirb...@hotmail.com
Ed Hulse ha escrito:
> David Totheroh wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, because "many conservatives" have the intellectual honesty that
> would be so refreshing were it more frequently found in liberals.
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh and thanks
for that magnificient *snip* of comic relief i just *snipped*
David Totheroh
Ed Hulse wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, because "many conservatives" have the intellectual honesty that
> would be so refreshing were it more frequently found in liberals. I'm
> delighted to see Mr. Totheroh quoting John Podhoretz, Brent Bozell, et
> al without insinuating that they are fascists or morons, which are just
> two of the labels frequently attached to gentlemen of their political
> persuasion. Who *says* we can't just all get along? Liberals and MSM
> types will always tolerate conservatives who spring to the defense of
> Bill Clinton or denounce George W. Bush. (Witness the recent media
> fawning over former FEMA head Michael Brown, who was thrashed by every
> liberal pundit on television -- until he started crying that he was
> just the fall guy and blaming the adminstration for the very ineptitude
> that the MSM had so painstakingly attributed to him. To a man, every
> one of Brown's harshest critics invited him on their various shows,
> treating him with the respect and deference they didn't have the
> decency to show him during the Katrina crisis.)
It's amazing how telling the truth (even to the MSM) engenders "respect
and deference" in ways that completely transparent CYA statements ("We
just learned about the Superdome") don't.
>
> The truly fascinating thing about the whole PATH TO 9/11 episode, of
> course, is the thoroughgoing denunication of the film by liberals who
> haven't seen it, but who blithely dismissed or openly chastised
> conservatives who made the exact same charges about the Reagan
> miniseries and the Oliver Stone fever dreams masquerading as movies
> based on recent history. The righties who called for boycotts were
> importuned basically to sit down and shut up, and grant these
> filmmakers "artistic license" in pursuit of their visions, letting the
> historical chips fall where they might.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the objections to the Reagan bio were that
it depicted truths that were considered disrespectful; Nancy's
astrologer, Ronnie's contra involvement. That, to me, is a different
category than direct factual misrepresentations (according to the FBI
agent who resigned as a technical advisor to the film when his
objections to portrayals were consciously ignored) known by even those
who have not viewed the final cut. The attitude toward truthtelling
indicated by those actions of the producers/director over the course of
the film's production is very telling.
>
> I'm against the falsification of history whether the subject is Bill
> Clinton or Ronald Reagan or Joe McCarthy. Or any other historical
> figure. I certainly hope Mr. Totheroh will join me, down the road, in
> expressing reservations about the inevitable cinematic chronicle of the
> Valerie Plame affair, in which the leaker tipping off Bob Novak will no
> doubt be shown to be Karl Rove rather than Richard Armitage.
I'm more than happy to join you. Mr. Hulse, in expressing reservations
that just because Armitage ALSO leaked classified information, that
that fact somehow negates all the documentation that shows a concerted
effort on the part of the Bush administration to try to discredit
Wilson. The evidence is clear. Rove DID "tip off" Novak, he's (finally)
admitted to doing so, and on the same day Armitage talked to Novak. The
only thing the evidence is NOT clear about is whether Rove was the
primary source or the confirming second source.
The 'new' information regarding Armitage (I first read reports to that
effect 5 1/2 months ago) in no way changes the fact that at least 6
other reporters were informed of Plame's status and involvement during
the same timeframe by several administration officials.
Ed Hulse
David Totheroh wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong...
You are. Again.
> ...but the objections to the Reagan bio were that
> it depicted truths that were considered disrespectful; Nancy's
> astrologer, Ronnie's contra involvement.
Well, there *was* that little matter of making up conversations
wholesale and attributing to Reagan remarks he never made -- like the
one about AIDS being God's way of punishing gays.
> I'm more than happy to join you. Mr. Hulse, in expressing reservations
> that just because Armitage ALSO leaked classified information, that
> that fact somehow negates all the documentation that shows a concerted
> effort on the part of the Bush administration to try to discredit
> Wilson. The evidence is clear. Rove DID "tip off" Novak, he's (finally)
> admitted to doing so, and on the same day Armitage talked to Novak. The
> only thing the evidence is NOT clear about is whether Rove was the
> primary source or the confirming second source.
It's not clear only to people whose entire worldview depends upon the
propagation of conspiracy theories and a continuing, relentless
demonization of the Bush administration. Novak has stated
unambiguously that Armitage was his primary source for the assertion
that "Wilson's wife" was instrumental in having the former ambassador
sent to Niger; he then found Plame's name in Wilson's WHO'S WHO entry
and added it to his column. Armitage, thou art the man! Mystery
solved. Officer, take him away.
As for the effort to "discredit" Wilson -- well, notwithstanding the
question of whether an administration has the right to question those
who make very public and forceful denunciations of its foreign policy
in wartime, I would say the guy did a pretty good job of discrediting
himself. He lied, and his lies are now a matter of public record,
thanks to a Senate investigation. (The MSM had no interest in
verifying or challenging anything Wilson said once he went public.)
That there was some truth sprinkled amidst the lies doesn't qualify him
for the role of Innocent Victim Targeted by Big Bad Adminstration
Boogey Men. If anyone is responsible for ending Valerie Plame's career
in the CIA, it's Joe Wilson, who put partisan considerations and a
desire for 15 minutes of fame above her government service.
RArmant
What lousy cinematography! This movie makes me sea sick.
Steven Ruth
"RArmant" <rar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vrkbg29on5ekme19r...@4ax.com...
> Were the cameramen drunk at the time they taped this movie?
> What lousy cinematography! This movie makes me sea sick.
>
You don't get out much do you?
David Totheroh
Ed Hulse wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
>
> > Correct me if I'm wrong...
>
> You are. Again.
>
> > ...but the objections to the Reagan bio were that
> > it depicted truths that were considered disrespectful; Nancy's
> > astrologer, Ronnie's contra involvement.
>
> Well, there *was* that little matter of making up conversations
> wholesale and attributing to Reagan remarks he never made -- like the
> one about AIDS being God's way of punishing gays.
You're absolutely right. Reagan didn't say that. His communications
director Pat Buchanan said AIDs was "nature's revenge on gay men" and
Reagan never had him retract or amend the statement.
>
> > I'm more than happy to join you. Mr. Hulse, in expressing reservations
> > that just because Armitage ALSO leaked classified information, that
> > that fact somehow negates all the documentation that shows a concerted
> > effort on the part of the Bush administration to try to discredit
> > Wilson. The evidence is clear. Rove DID "tip off" Novak, he's (finally)
> > admitted to doing so, and on the same day Armitage talked to Novak. The
> > only thing the evidence is NOT clear about is whether Rove was the
> > primary source or the confirming second source.
>
> It's not clear only to people whose entire worldview depends upon the
> propagation of conspiracy theories and a continuing, relentless
> demonization of the Bush administration. Novak has stated
> unambiguously that Armitage was his primary source for the assertion
> that "Wilson's wife" was instrumental in having the former ambassador
> sent to Niger; he then found Plame's name in Wilson's WHO'S WHO entry
> and added it to his column. Armitage, thou art the man! Mystery
> solved. Officer, take him away.
Novak has said lots of things, like that he used the term "Agency
operative" when he says he meant 'employee.' For someone who's been in
Washington as long as he has, it doesn't pass the smell test. What he
says contradicts your implication that his confirmation came from
"WHO'S WHO." "Novak will later write that he originally acquired the
information from an official who is "no partisan gunslinger." Novak
says, "When I called another official for confirmation, he said:
'Oh, you know about it.'"" The documents are ambiguous about who
he met first, Armitage or Rove. And in any case, documents show that
Libby leaked the info more than 2 weeks before Novak spoke to both
Armitage and Rove.
>
> As for the effort to "discredit" Wilson -- well, notwithstanding the
> question of whether an administration has the right to question those
> who make very public and forceful denunciations of its foreign policy
> in wartime, I would say the guy did a pretty good job of discrediting
> himself. He lied, and his lies are now a matter of public record,
> thanks to a Senate investigation. (The MSM had no interest in
> verifying or challenging anything Wilson said once he went public.)
> That there was some truth sprinkled amidst the lies doesn't qualify him
> for the role of Innocent Victim Targeted by Big Bad Adminstration
> Boogey Men. If anyone is responsible for ending Valerie Plame's career
> in the CIA, it's Joe Wilson, who put partisan considerations and a
> desire for 15 minutes of fame above her government service.
If that's true it sorta begs the question of why it was 'necessary' for
the administration to do anything more than point out the falsehoods in
Wilson's statement itself instead of jeopardizing intelligence on one
of the most critical areas to US security, ie. Iranian WMDs. It also
doesn't explain all the inter-office memos that preceded the
publication of Wilson's op-ed piece (unless you accept that the Bush
doctrine is valid and also includes preemptive character assasination
of American citizens as well as preemptive invasions of sovereign
nations).
Ed Hulse
David Totheroh wrote:
> > Well, there *was* that little matter of making up conversations
> > wholesale and attributing to Reagan remarks he never made -- like the
> > one about AIDS being God's way of punishing gays.
>
> You're absolutely right. Reagan didn't say that. His communications
> director Pat Buchanan said AIDs was "nature's revenge on gay men" and
> Reagan never had him retract or amend the statement.
And that, I take it, justifies putting similar words in Reagan's mouth.
So much for the concern about fictionalizing history....
> Novak has said lots of things, like that he used the term "Agency
> operative" when he says he meant 'employee.' For someone who's been in
> Washington as long as he has, it doesn't pass the smell test. What he
> says contradicts your implication that his confirmation came from
> "WHO'S WHO." "Novak will later write that he originally acquired the
> information from an official who is "no partisan gunslinger." Novak
> says, "When I called another official for confirmation, he said:
> 'Oh, you know about it.'"" The documents are ambiguous about who
> he met first, Armitage or Rove. And in any case, documents show that
> Libby leaked the info more than 2 weeks before Novak spoke to both
> Armitage and Rove.
Mr. Stone, meet Mr. Totheroh.
David Totheroh
Ed Hulse wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
>
> > > Well, there *was* that little matter of making up conversations
> > > wholesale and attributing to Reagan remarks he never made -- like the
> > > one about AIDS being God's way of punishing gays.
> >
> > You're absolutely right. Reagan didn't say that. His communications
> > director Pat Buchanan said AIDs was "nature's revenge on gay men" and
> > Reagan never had him retract or amend the statement.
>
> And that, I take it, justifies putting similar words in Reagan's mouth.
> So much for the concern about fictionalizing history....
No, but neither does it justify putting words in MY mouth. I said
nothing about justifying false quotes, I merely presented what I
believe to be an accurate quote by an official spoksman for the Reagan
administration (the truth or falsity of which, I note, you fail to
address while you're falsely accusing me).
>
> > Novak has said lots of things, like that he used the term "Agency
> > operative" when he says he meant 'employee.' For someone who's been in
> > Washington as long as he has, it doesn't pass the smell test. What he
> > says contradicts your implication that his confirmation came from
> > "WHO'S WHO." "Novak will later write that he originally acquired the
> > information from an official who is "no partisan gunslinger." Novak
> > says, "When I called another official for confirmation, he said:
> > 'Oh, you know about it.'"" The documents are ambiguous about who
> > he met first, Armitage or Rove. And in any case, documents show that
> > Libby leaked the info more than 2 weeks before Novak spoke to both
> > Armitage and Rove.
>
> Mr. Stone, meet Mr. Totheroh.
Again, I note your unwillingness (inability?) to even try to refute the
facts of the matter that I present, and instead substitute personal
innuendo and attack of my character. It may, in this day and age be a
pragmatically effective approach short term, but it is a very weak
argument, logically speaking. I don't know you Mr. Hulse (just as you
don't know me) but from what I've heard from mutual acquaintances, I
expected a higher level of discourse.
Ed Hulse
David Totheroh wrote:
> > And that, I take it, justifies putting similar words in Reagan's mouth.
> > So much for the concern about fictionalizing history....
>
> No, but neither does it justify putting words in MY mouth. I said
> nothing about justifying false quotes, I merely presented what I
> believe to be an accurate quote by an official spoksman for the Reagan
> administration (the truth or falsity of which, I note, you fail to
> address while you're falsely accusing me).
Please, Mr. Totheroh, don't be disingenuous. What reason would you
have for introducing Pat Buchanan's remark into the conversation, other
than to imply that by not specifically condemning it Reagan somehow
endorsed it? What Buchanan said has absolutely no bearing on the fact
that entire conversations were fabricated for the Reagan miniseries,
and that they occasionally included inflammatory and derogatory remarks
that were out of character and to which the series' critics objected.
You can argue that the dramatist has the right to distort history in
this way; that's another discussion. But the high dudgeon is
unwarranted inasmuch as you chose to drag in a red herring in a rather
futile attempt to refute my main point.
> > > Novak has said lots of things, like that he used the term "Agency
> > > operative" when he says he meant 'employee.' For someone who's been in
> > > Washington as long as he has, it doesn't pass the smell test. What he
> > > says contradicts your implication that his confirmation came from
> > > "WHO'S WHO." "Novak will later write that he originally acquired the
> > > information from an official who is "no partisan gunslinger." Novak
> > > says, "When I called another official for confirmation, he said:
> > > 'Oh, you know about it.'"" The documents are ambiguous about who
> > > he met first, Armitage or Rove. And in any case, documents show that
> > > Libby leaked the info more than 2 weeks before Novak spoke to both
> > > Armitage and Rove.
> >
> > Mr. Stone, meet Mr. Totheroh.
>
> Again, I note your unwillingness (inability?) to even try to refute the
> facts of the matter that I present, and instead substitute personal
> innuendo and attack of my character. It may, in this day and age be a
> pragmatically effective approach short term, but it is a very weak
> argument, logically speaking. I don't know you Mr. Hulse (just as you
> don't know me) but from what I've heard from mutual acquaintances, I
> expected a higher level of discourse.
Sorry to disappoint you. Perhaps I've been listening too much to Air
America and it's rubbed off on me.
Frankly, I didn't think that any attempt "to refute the facts of the
matter" was worth the time it would take to compose, nor worth the
amount of cyberspace it would consume. For this reason: it's evident,
Mr. Totheroh, that you're not prepared to accept anything as fact that
doesn't bolster the conclusions to which you have already arrived.
Several times now Novak has stated, publicly and unambiguously, that
Armitage was his primary source, and that he got Plame's name from
Wilson's WHO'S WHO entry. (I didn't *imply* the latter point, by the
way, I simply reported it.) But this isn't good enough for you; it
doesn't pass your "smell test." If sworn first-person testimony won't
convince you, what could I possibly produce that would alter your
preconceived notion?
Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting your remarks as quoted above, but
from them I take a suspicion that Novak is not to be taken at face
value. If this is so, is it your belief that Novak was part of the
"conspiracy" to discredit Wilson? That would be most odd, because
Novak has been a critic of the Iraq War since the idea was first
bandied about in 2002. On occasions too numerous to list here he has
expressed views that put him, like Buchanan, squarely in the Republican
Party's isolationist wing, which would hardly make him an ideological
comrade to, or accomplice of, the neocons pushing a preemptive strike
on Iraq. Furthermore, he has been sharply critical of the Bush
administration in many ways. In fact, he has taken exception to nearly
every domestic-policy initiative of the administration save the tax
cuts. So if you're spinning a web of conspiracy theories, you surely
must know that the Novak strand doesn't really mesh with the others.
But then, in debating this and other Bush-related issues over the
years, I have found that no facts are sufficient to change the minds
--or even soften the perceptions -- of rabid Bush haters (or, to use
Krauthammer's term, suffers of BDS [Bush Derangement Syndrome]). If
Karl Rove says "up," they will automatically say "down." If Dick
Cheney says "white," they will forcefully argue he means "black." And
then, of course, there are documents. Always, documents. Seldom
actually seen but always referenced -- documents that offer irrefutable
proof that Bush is responsible for every injustice suffered anywhere,
by anybody, since he took office in 2001. That these documents
frequently fail to materialize, and that when they do they are
sometimes fraudulent (as in the National Guard case), matters little to
the confirmed Bush hater. He will brandish them proudly, like the
sword of truth. Except, of course, for documents that provide
exculpatory evidence -- which are dismissed out of hand as having been
trumped up by Bush loyalists.
You make several claims that "documents" show this or that about the
Plame affair. Could you please cite these and direct me to them?
Surely they must be posted somewhere on the web; a URL would be much
appreciated. Obviously you're not referring to Patrick Fitzgerald's
documents; as part of grand-jury proceedings they would be sealed,
wouldn't they? In the interest of maintaining "a higher level of
discourse," I should review the documents to which you've obviously had
access.
Ed Hulse
David Totheroh wrote:
> > And that, I take it, justifies putting similar words in Reagan's mouth.
> > So much for the concern about fictionalizing history....
>
> No, but neither does it justify putting words in MY mouth. I said
> nothing about justifying false quotes, I merely presented what I
> believe to be an accurate quote by an official spoksman for the Reagan
> administration (the truth or falsity of which, I note, you fail to
> address while you're falsely accusing me).
Please, Mr. Totheroh, don't be disingenuous. What reason would you
have for introducing Pat Buchanan's remark into the conversation, other
than to imply that by not specifically condemning it Reagan somehow
endorsed it? What Buchanan said (yes, he said it) has absolutely no
bearing on the fact that entire conversations were fabricated for the
Reagan miniseries, and that they occasionally included inflammatory and
derogatory remarks that were out of character and to which the series'
critics objected. You can argue that the dramatist has the right to
distort history in this way; that's another discussion. But the high
dudgeon is unwarranted inasmuch as you chose to drag in a red herring
in a rather futile attempt to deflect my point.
> > > Novak has said lots of things, like that he used the term "Agency
> > > operative" when he says he meant 'employee.' For someone who's been in
> > > Washington as long as he has, it doesn't pass the smell test. What he
> > > says contradicts your implication that his confirmation came from
> > > "WHO'S WHO." "Novak will later write that he originally acquired the
> > > information from an official who is "no partisan gunslinger." Novak
> > > says, "When I called another official for confirmation, he said:
> > > 'Oh, you know about it.'"" The documents are ambiguous about who
> > > he met first, Armitage or Rove. And in any case, documents show that
> > > Libby leaked the info more than 2 weeks before Novak spoke to both
> > > Armitage and Rove.
> >
> > Mr. Stone, meet Mr. Totheroh.
>
> Again, I note your unwillingness (inability?) to even try to refute the
> facts of the matter that I present, and instead substitute personal
> innuendo and attack of my character. It may, in this day and age be a
> pragmatically effective approach short term, but it is a very weak
> argument, logically speaking. I don't know you Mr. Hulse (just as you
> don't know me) but from what I've heard from mutual acquaintances, I
> expected a higher level of discourse.
Sorry to disappoint you. Perhaps I've been listening too much to Air
must know that a Novak strand doesn't really mesh with the others.
But then, in debating this and other Bush-related issues over the
years, I have found that no facts are sufficient to change the minds
--or even soften the perceptions -- of rabid Bush haters (or, to use
Krauthammer's term, suffers of BDS [Bush Derangement Syndrome]). If
Karl Rove says "up," they will reflexively say "down." If Dick Cheney
says "white," they will forcefully argue he means "black." And then,
of course, there are documents. Always, documents. Seldom actually
seen but always referenced -- documents offering irrefutable proof that
tomcervo
Ed Hulse wrote:
> > ...but the objections to the Reagan bio were that
> > it depicted truths that were considered disrespectful; Nancy's
> > astrologer, Ronnie's contra involvement.
>
> Well, there *was* that little matter of making up conversations
> wholesale and attributing to Reagan remarks he never made -- like the
> one about AIDS being God's way of punishing gays.
I think they were trying to come up with a reason for his cold, total
indifferance to human suffering.