Dems crying over factual depiction?

BDA116 · 09-07-2006, 6:39 PM

Say it aint so!!!
Democrats urge ABC to withdraw 9/11 movie - Yahoo! News
It is so amusing that they want this show pulled because of facts, yet they love to push any anti-Bush and anti-republican show and story possible.
Remember the dem backlash when the reps tried to get CBS to not run their bogus story on Bush?
What a crack-up.
they are so hell-bent on revising history that they will force ABC to manipulate the facts in the story. Of course, ABC is very left leaning like the other broadcast networks so they will comply.

Freedom of speech and expression is only good when those words and expressions are given the dem green light.

luvtolean · 09-07-2006, 6:41 PM

Hehe.

Well, the dems, or Fox news.

navydevildoc · 09-07-2006, 9:53 PM

Letter from Clinton's Lawers to ABC

Oops, Writer admits he made parts up

FBI Consultant quits halfway through production because they were 'Making Things Up'

Member of the 9/11 Commission Blasts the ABC Production

ABC Admits it's a Drama, Not a Documentary

The last link there should tell you something.

Mojave954 · 09-07-2006, 10:14 PM

I bet they don't want it aired. Had the democratic gov't of the 90's had a spine among them, they would of taken Bin Laden out and finished off Hussien back then. PANSY-ASS POSIE PUSHERS.

sheepofblue · 09-07-2006, 10:33 PM

Seems this has upset a few. Of course just because it is riddled with falsehoods does not change the fact that Clinton supported Bin Laden. Or does that only apply to forged letters about Bush

I have no idea the quality of this movies facts but find it amusing the groups that have played so loose with the facts are now demanding 100% accuracy. Oh and I do have a good grasp of the character of Sandy Burger he is a thief of classified documents and should be in jail. Despite any gripe he has with the facts in this movie THAT is a fact.

seamus · 09-07-2006, 11:51 PM

What about when we were all supporting Bin Laden while he was fighting the Russians?

luvtolean · 09-07-2006, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seamus

What about when we were all supporting Bin Laden while he was fighting the Russians?

Well, then he was a Freedom Fighter, not a TERRORIST!!, so it was ok.

ccwilli3 · 09-08-2006, 12:03 AM

exactly. That was an anti-communism movement. Which is noble and family oriented. We had to protect them from the evil superpower. Oh, wait, nevermind.

BDA116 · 09-08-2006, 12:09 AM

Of course some of it is dramatized, it is a made for TV movie.
But the facts remain that klinton did nothing to stop Bin Laden and twice had the opportunity to either take him into custody or kill him. The second time he was too busy playing golf to answer his phone.
I know that makes klintonites cry, but facts are facts, and because of him we were made more vulnerable to terrorists.
Cry on lefties.

luvtolean · 09-08-2006, 12:19 AM

And the CIA, under the Republican's watch, trained and armed Bin Laden.

This issue is not partisan...

seamus · 09-08-2006, 9:07 AM

I'm not saying Clinton (sp? I've seen it spelled with a K, so I may have this wrong

) didn't have his faults but the faults lie with all politicians.

Without understanding the culture of the region, we continually go places and try to impart democracy (which we ourselves don't truly have), western values (which ain't so good to begin with) and western morals (

) on other cultures. We supported Bin Laden, Saddam, all the wacked out Shahs in Iran, and multitudes of dictators who later turn against us.

What ever happened to learning from your mistakes? You can fight terrorism without having to impart some other form of government or culture on a region that won't respond to it. We're wasting time, money and valuable resources trying to execute a political and cultural conversion.

To place blame on one particular administration in this case is to ignore the decades of faulty logic that preceded it and ultimately led to it.

edit: and I ain't no lefty.

sheepofblue · 09-08-2006, 9:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seamus

I'm not saying Clinton (sp? I've seen it spelled with a K, so I may have this wrong

) didn't have his faults but the faults lie with all politicians.

Without understanding the culture of the region, we continually go places and try to impart democracy (which we ourselves don't truly have), western values (which ain't so good to begin with) and western morals (

) on other cultures. We supported Bin Laden, Saddam, all the wacked out Shahs in Iran, and multitudes of dictators who later turn against us.

What ever happened to learning from your mistakes? You can fight terrorism without having to impart some other form of government or culture on a region that won't respond to it. We're wasting time, money and valuable resources trying to execute a political and cultural conversion.

To place blame on one particular administration in this case is to ignore the decades of faulty logic that preceded it and ultimately led to it.

edit: and I ain't no lefty.

Not believing it look at that arm

steingar · 09-08-2006, 10:47 AM

What has the government done to make you safe? I do mean the government that has been in place for the last 6 years with one party rule.

They did invade the coutry from which the 911 attacks were organized. However, the bad guys that were supposed to be eradicated have wormed their way back in, and the whole place is lawless. That does not seem like much of an accomplishment to me, although I do admit my bias.

The Iraq invasion was almost completely unrelated to terrorism in any real way, except that we have given them convenient targets in their homeland, where they have a tactical advantage.

What has been done to secure America? Washington has been fortified, with gates, fences, blockades, and all sorts of other things to keep the members of the government safe. Your capital is now a fortress. The lengths they have gone to to keep themselves safe are stupendous; every aircraft flying within 40 miles of D.C. must be identified and in communication with air traffic control; AWACs patrol the skies night and day at a cost of millions. No aircraft save specially designated jet liners can penetrate within 10 miles of downtown DC, and that no fly zone follows the President and Vice-President wherever they go. Obviously they take their own security very seriously.

What have they done for you. Considerably less. Ports are insecure, as is our southern border. Events in England have shown that the airline security, a continuing hassle for everyone, is still porous, and recent reports have shown that air cargo could be targeted. What I see is a series of publicity stunts that affect our safety nominally if at all.

All this with the security-minded party in charge for over half a decade. Of course, this is all just my opinoin.