Liberal revisionists to the rescue!!!
ClintonBetrayedAmerica
editing or altering this series should be impeached.
Liberal revisionists to the rescue!!!
It seems that the moonbat left is circling the wagons, and calling in the
cavalry!
Historians urge ABC to scrap 9-11 TV movie
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- Nine historians, headed by Pulitzer
Prize-winner Arthur Schlesinger are calling on ABC to scrap a controversial
mini-series about Sept. 11.
The script "distorts and even fabricates evidence," they wrote to Robert
Iger, the chairman of Disney Corp., ABC's parent company. "Broadcasting
these falsehoods, connected to the most traumatic historical event of our
times, would be a gross disservice to the public... We strongly urge you to
halt the show's broadcast."
Looks like the light of truth is being shone, and the roaches are scurrying
for cover.
Brings me back to the old saying--"Me thinks thou dost protest too much!"
Angry Young Man!
"EmuBetrayedAmerica" <B...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5GBMg.15440$Ca4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> Any democrat senator or congresswoman who intimidated & coerced ABC
> into editing or altering this series should be impeached.
Does that go for all the Pugs too, Emu?
Many are against the lies.
Have you forgotten "The Reagans?" The right wing nuts put up such a
fuss on Fox and talk radio and even in Congress that CBS cancelled the
broadcast entirely.
Spartakus
[...]
> Liberal revisionists to the rescue!!!
>
> It seems that the moonbat left is circling the wagons, and calling in the
> cavalry!
Moonbats like...
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analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage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]
THOSE moonbats?
Adam Albright
<B...@aol.com> wrote:
> Any democrat senator or congresswoman who intimidated & coerced ABC into
>editing or altering this series should be impeached.
You should have an immediate CAT scan of your head to see how it is
possible to remain alive without a functioning brain.
blazinglaser
<B...@aol.com> wrote:
> Any democrat senator or congresswoman who intimidated & coerced ABC into
>editing or altering this series should be impeached.
GOP logic-manglers are at it again, redefining words. They abused the
word 'liberal' for so many years that today most people think it means
'anyone we dont' like'. Now they're working on 'revisionist'.
Apparently, to neo-cons, 'revisionist' means 'anyone who insists on
telling the truth even though it's not flattering to Republicans.'
Dr. Ernst Primer (again)
Ooooh. You get five Google stars for that one. Nailed it.
Angry Young Man!
<CL...@KNICKLAS.COM> wrote in message
news:1b16g2h3kdb5ccl9b...@4ax.com...
>> into
>>editing or altering this series should be impeached.
>
> URGE...."---what does that actually register in your
> brains as?
>
>>Liberal revisionists to the rescue!!!
>
> false, wouldn't most rational people think the
> "revisionism" is being done by a republican (who
> advised the producers)?
>
>>It seems that the moonbat left is circling the wagons, and calling in the
>>cavalry!
>
> dumb cocksuckers to not only circle the wagons, but
> threaten to burn down the entire planet?
>
>
>
>> WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- Nine historians, headed by Pulitzer
>>Prize-winner Arthur Schlesinger are calling on ABC to scrap a
>>controversial
>>mini-series about Sept. 11.
>
>
>>scurrying
>>for cover.
>
> as any given moron who listens to rightwing propaganda.
Emu is typical of republicans on welfare who literally live in a trailer
park in Floriduh.
They can only see what their syphiletic minds allow them to see.
Sad.
Remember what Emu did to Terry Shiavo?
Buster
> Any democrat senator or congresswoman who intimidated & coerced ABC
> into editing or altering this series should be impeached.
Why, Emu? Explain yourself.
Angry Young Man!
"Buster" <none> wrote in message
news:200609091526...@news.giganews.com...
"A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the
falsification of history, except to expose it," they wrote.
http://dwb.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/3368313p-12395713c.html
robw
You think tv is real life.
Sad.
"ClintonBetrayedAmerica" <B...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5GBMg.15440$Ca4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
tolerating...@yahoo.com
Any democrat senator or congresswoman who intimidated & coerced ABC
into editing or altering this series should be impeached.
November is coming. Those who do survive this may very well be
impeached. First Amendment issue here
tolerating...@yahoo.com
censorship
tolerating...@yahoo.com
"A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the
falsification of history, except to expose it," they wrote.
Where were you doing Michael Moore's movie. I say let the people
decide. This is NOT cuba. Those within our federal government who sent
threatening letters to stop a movie may very well be facing
impeachment. First Amendment Rights are at stake.
There's a big difference between the people boycotting a movie or a
book and the government stopping it. It's against the consitution.
Impeachable!
Angry Young Man!
<tolerating...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157864257....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> There's a BIG difference between public boycotts and government
> censorship
Emu doesn't even know that impeachment is an investigation. The simpleton
doesn't see that his actions and opinions are counter to the American Way.
ABC is licensed by the FCC with the Public's trust in mind.
If anyone should be investigated it's ABC and the people who want to air
this rubbish to cover Bush's ass.
Angry Young Man!
<tolerating...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157864484.0...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
You are overreacting. MM didn't put words in peoples mouth. MM didn't lie.
When MM asked that Congressman why his kids weren't in Iraq and he said he
had a nephew in Iraq, HE LIED and MM only pointed out what a bunch of
hypocrites are in power in the USA.
It's our right to know the truth but the people who want to air this utter
bullshit are only interested in passing the buck backwards to Clinton and
further excusing Bush's 6 years of daily failures in order to keep Congress
in the republican cave.
MikeC
Where you this passionate about censorship when the Republicans went ape
shit over Janet Jackson's errant tit?
t1gercat
And just how would a Democratic congressperson intimidate or coerce
anyone in the media? The Pugs run congress, the senate, the white house
and the supreme court. Jus how would any Democrat be able to threaten
anyone with anything?
All the Democrats have asked for is a suspension of the lies and
fabrications in the show. ABC is pretending to document current history
and instead they've pulled a Pug hatchet job with the truth. As for
First Amendment issues, was it also a First Amendment issue when HBO
produced a movie about the Reagans that used actual quotes from Ronnie
that the Pugs thought so distasteful they didn't want them aired and --
being in power -- got the show censored, delayed and shifted to
Showtime?
Wexford
blazinglaser
airwaves that belong to the public so stations are supposed to provide
a public service. Lies and propaganda are not public service, nor are
opinions labelled as 'fact'.
When it comes to films the standards are much looser--like books and
newspapers. If you don't like them you're free to make your own
film, or print your own newspaper. You can't do that with
broadcasting.
Kevin Cunningham
"Angry Young Man!" <tossE...@bush.net> wrote in message
news:2dNMg.8345$tU....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
stations and their affiliates are in a lot of legal trouble.