Perhaps we were leaving the past behind, saying things like "9/11 reset the clock for me," but now we're distracted -- distracted? like a President caught in a sex scandal... -- and we start wondering why they are making such a stink about this: Are they trying to imprint the national mind with a new story, that Clinton did no such thing and there's some vast right-wing conspiracy to subvert ABC to slander him?
No, no, no, the strategy is to imprint the national mind with a new story, that Clinton did no such thing and there's some vast right-wing conspiracy to subvert ABC to slander him, not to make you ask whether they are trying to do that and certainly not to encourage you to go rummaging through the old evidence -- what's left of it -- and feel like looking at something like this:
Now, why in hell did you look at that? Don't look at that! What repulsive right-wing prurient urge made you want to look at that Limbaugh-style political porn star... Tom Brokaw.
ADDED: And everybody also wants to look at the very parts of the show that most rile its opponents.
MORE: How insanely repressive. You know, mainstream politicians really should worry about bloggers. Ironically, the bad judgment shown by bloggers here is about wishing for hardcore repression of speech, but free speech is our lifeblood!
Clearly Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright and American Airlines have good cause to sue Disney/ABC, the BBC, Australian and New Zealand television, and any local affiliate that broadcasts the show. How can we further help their lawsuit? I think a first step is paying close attention in each country to how the show is being marketed. Get us copies of ads, promotions, etc. that show local broadcasters and others promoting the show as true and non-fiction. How else can we help their suit?Oh, yeah, bloggers really ought to want to encourage lawsuits by public figures who think something inaccurate has been said about them. This is the worst case of myopia I've seen in my years of blogging. You guys are complete idiots.
AND: This post is getting a lot of links. Let's check them out. Glenn Reynolds calls the original post the "best take yet" on the contoversy. Blue Crab Boulevard calls this post "pure art" (and long time readers know that I'm in this for the art). Looking at the "You guys are idiots" addendum, Dr. Sanity wields her expertise as a psychiatrist:
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the psychological mechanisms involved--DISPLACEMENT and SPLITTING-- both of which allow these idiots (I am allowed to call them that because this is a deliberate, self-imposed psychological state to maintain their denial, delusion, and hatred ) to behave in this clueless and revolting manner with regard to a TV miniseries.Go read the analysis. Tigerhawk agrees that "the legal part of the strategy is not even slightly in the interest of bloggers" and has a lot of discussion of other blog posts, which you should read. Lawhawk hates the idea of lawsuits.
MOREOVER: Ruth Anne Adams has 11 reasons why she's watching "The Path to 9/11," one of which is that Donnie Wahlberg is giving her a Jack Bauer vibe.
Posts
107 comments:
Ann,
Good job with the Brokaw video. In 5 minutes of NBC news footage it does an executive summary of the first episode of the ABC docudrama, but with real footage.
1. OBL was striking US interests with impunity
2. we knew he was our enemy.
3. We had opportunities to kill OBL, but they might fail. don';t risk embarrassment abroad. we're embarrassed enough at home.
4. we passed the White House was looking for law enforcement solutions and the requirement was to capture him
5. we didn't listen to the military
6. Berger, Clinton and Albright, don't want to talk about it
Lee Evans -
Frank Rich's column, however excellent you find it (curiously enough, he's often cretinous, but perhaps he's been taking his potassium iodide) is a damnable waste of electrons. Use a link and surround it with your comment-droppings.
The arc absurdity of this whole thing requires a comedy of some type to be made, but where are the comedians of that stripe today?
For the first time I can remember, Lileks managed to genuinely piss me off with flippant aloofness.
"Just so you know: 9/11 reset the clock for me. [...] I’m interested in what people did after that date"
Whatever happened to learning from your mistakes? If you don't want another 9/11 to happen, figure out what caused the last one! I don't mean play the blame game, but identify things that let (prior to 9/11) the situation occur and take care of them. You don't get that by "resetting the clock" and pretending you're starting off with a blank slate.
To me, this is like saying, "Gasp! I have lung cancer, what could have caused it? Hmm, no need to think about what happened before, I'll just have another Lucky while I think about how to take care of it."
And that AmericaBlog is priceless. Oh no, Disney made anti-nazi propaganda cartoons in the 40's! Clearly this shows they're in cahoots with Bushitler!
And there you have it Ann: the pluperfect specimen of Liberalism and his talking points in one Lee Evans. All the talking points neatly woven – no terrorist links to Iraq, the horrible internal repression we are facing (can you say Bushhitler?), the demand for tax hikes (to make Americans sacrifice), the complaint that Bush identified himself with 9/11 (the nerve), and ending with the sly hint that Bush was complicit in the attack on 9/11.
What’s frightening about this is that so many totalitarian movements have had as their leaders and foot soldiers people who have lost their grip on reality and live in a world of conspiracies led by the Jews or some other easily identified scapegoat. This is no longer strange or interesting, it’s becoming scary.
In Lee Evans' worldview "Loose Lips Sinks Ships" is a fascistic call for censorship.
Unfortunately, his Stalinistic call for censorship, passes his loose lips with no sense of irony.
At the risk of sounding condescending, I've noticed that when Althouse considers herself unfairly attacked, she tends to double-down and latch on to that issue (Pajamas Media, Barrett, Path to 9/11).
BTW, I agree completely with this post. The shortsightedness of the Left is astounding. The zeal to prosecute the Valerie Plame leaker (or, should I say, sudden lack of zeal), and the current move to gag ABC.
This firestorm is a lose-lose for Dems. Any rational voter can compare the Bush reaction to Farenheit 911 and the current Clinton reaction, and draw appriopriate conclusions.
Ann,
I'd add "megalomaniacal" to your "idiots" charge. All power to the nutroots. The Mouse won't know what hit him because nothing will.
We'll watch this evening and tomorrow and wonder WTF? We blew it. What else is new?
And Clinton and his cronies will look silly, and more than a little heavy handed. The nutroots gang already look foolish. They'll simply move on to the next fantasy.
altoids1306 said...
At the risk of sounding condescending, I've noticed that when Althouse considers herself unfairly attacked, she tends to double-down and latch on to that issue (Pajamas Media, Barrett, Path to 9/11).
WRT Ann's behavior here, I think you are seeing multiple effects that reinforce themselves.
1. All have a free speech, academic freedom, liberatarian cast
2. Ann blogs for her ability to talk about whatever she wants at a given day (e.g. reality TV, Security Moms (I think of her as that among other things), squirrels, etc
3. Althouse.blogspot is also a media outlet and does care about ratings. ;)
Ann,
In case you didn't notice, you're linked to, over at Glenn Reynold's site and will get lots of new posters again today.
Derve: You've missed the point. My complaint is about the attempt to force ABC not to show its movie and specifically, in what you quote, against encouraging defamation lawsuits. I favor more speech and have not complained about the fact that they are arguing with the ABC's presentation of the story. I support that. So I'm marking your attempt at satire D-, but I'll accept a rewrite. More speech, you know.
Drill Sgt: Yeah, I noticed the link. I watch the traffic, but I've got a feeling the Instapundit crowd has been here before.
As for not talking about Lee's comment. It looked like a garbled mess, so I didn't read it. Can someone rewrite it in a crisp two lines? Did he have a point? I saw he was dumping Frank Rich text. How dull is that?
Drill SGT:
Good point(s). Each of the three issues has a free speech element to it.
Derve:
What purpose do your posts serve? To discredit Althouse? Ridicule her? If you think you are helping your cause, I hope you continue to believe so.
Drill Sgt, thank you for noting the link. I was wondering who are all these people!?
It seems to me way too much effort is spent attacking this TV show rather than focusing on what's really important. I think the same could have been said in 1998: Way too much time was spent focusing on the blue dress rather than on things that are really important. But that's the way politics run these days.
Derve,
Stop with the hijack already. Ann's trolls are usually more sophisticated.
MM,
for better or worse today, it's going to be a bumpy ride maaan.
Ann may be ready to move up to headline editor at the NYT. well maybe the NY Post ;)
Limbaugh-style political porn
bound to draw flies and links all over the blogosphere.
American Democrats living in Britain have been asked to protest against the show being broadcast there. Even better, they've been asked to use British spellings (e.g. "programme") to give the impression of being British. That's the way to campaign for honesty and accuracy, eh?
Derve: You paraphrased the first paragraph of his long comment. I got that far. What was all the other crap? Your reading is so poor. Get things right. Think before you write. I'm giving you another D-. Shape up.
Drill Sgt: "Limbaugh-style political porn" is a phrase taken from DailyKos.
Also, there is some serious trolling here. We've had the problem in the past of people who make the comments thread about them instead of debating the issues. I just deleted a comment and I'm going to be doing some more deletions, especially if this warning isn't understood as a requirement that people shape up and stay on topic.
Stay on topic. The finger of deletion is heavy today. Derves and dorks take note.
sippican -- it continues to function, Yes. But so did Clinton's, and look what it missed! Now, as to what Bush is missing, well you don't know what you're missing when you're missing it. More simply, time will tell.
Derve is not interested in talking about Tom Brokaw's five minute news article. That's because a fair viewing at least tends to undermine the Berger-Clinton-Albright talking points.
Instead a snark attack on the messenger.
Derve, it won't work here.
But your hijacking attempt is noted.
From Americablog: What other legislation can we push to ensure that companies like Disney/ABC never again try to unethically influence an American election?
Funny, they weren't so hip preventing CBS from unethically influencing an American election. Rathergate, anyone?
"And to prove my consistency, let me link to the post where I held the same exact view on those who tried successfully to pull the Reagan TV biopic, which was forced to run on pay cable... "
Yeah, damned inconsistent of me to fail to blog about that back in 2003, when I wasn't blogging.
And had been noted before I refreshed the thread. Sorry for the me, too comment.
Let's refocus on the topic. Don't respond to trolls. They're set on changing the topic, for a reason easily inferred. And the likelihood of my deleting whatever you've taken the time to respond to is very high on this one. If you've been deleted, you need to change your style or you're wasting your effort posting. You will be deleted quickly. Everyone else, please continue on topic.
Where is Freder?
Wasn't he asserting in one of the other threads that the Clinton admin had never had a chance to get OBL?
OK - Let's see what we have here.
Ann says the following:
1) Bloggers who call for public figures to sue are "complete idiots."
(I happen to agree with you on that front by the way).
2) Bloggers who call for the editor of the New York Times to be executed because he published a story that about how the government is tracking wire movements to track terrorism..... Well actually, Ann, you were pretty silent about those calls for him to tried for treason. And it wasn't just bloggers it was major columnists like Ann Coulter who were calling for him to executed.
I dunno. I think #2 is 100 times scarier in terms of crushing free speech.
And why is everyone ignoring the big picture.
Which is that Bush has had a chance to get Osama Bin Laden for the last five years, but he hasn't because he's been focusing all of his energy on Iraq, which has had nothing to do with 9/11.
Talk about taking your eye off the ball.
Ironically, the bad judgment shown by bloggers here is about wishing for hardcore repression of speech, but free speech is our lifeblood!
I agree and I'm surprised. I thought that strong support of free speech was pretty much universal among bloggers.
I think #2 is 100 times scarier in terms of crushing free speech.
A columnist vs. actual government entities threatening the use of actual government power? You think that these are equivalent?
Freeman Hunt said...
Where is Freder?
FF is a lost cause. I'm hoping Elizabeth will see the clip. She's sane ;)
She and I have had several exchanges where we both were disppointed that the ABC show wasn't more history and a bit list drama.
I think it's a shame that this clip wasn't used as the basis for a set of scenes in the ABC show, but I guess it has NBC written all over it.
anyway in my mind it destroys the whole "vast right wing conspiracy to discredit the Clinton record on the fight to bring OBL to justice" meme that Ann was addressing in this post.
Let's not get all Mark McGwire "I'm not here to talk about the past" about this. The folks who should have been alert for prospective terrorist attacks against America were clearly asleep at the switch. We were so busy keeping the CIA and the FBI apart to preserve our civil liberties from another Nixon that we kept them from talking to each other and connecting the dots.
That said, there's no use crying over spilled milk. We ALL missed it, Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. Finger-pointing now doesn't do a bit of good. Instead, we should be doing our best to prevent future attacks, and to deal rationally with those who may be our enemies. This means putting an end to lunacy like "no ethnic profiling" when the people who want to kill us are almost always Muslim men between the ages of 15-50. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims.
Freeman,
What "government entitities" are you talking about? There are of course "elected representatives" that are free to see whatever the hell they want to, just like columnists do. They are not held to a higher standard than journalists and should not be. They are people who are free to speak their mind. If the people don't like what they're saying, then they will not be re-elected.
You're trying to crush the free speech of Senators and Congressmen. Why the hell should they be forced to be silent about certain issues?
There are local representatives in Alabama who want to ban any books that portray gays in a positive light from the local library. The guy who sponsored that bill was hosted at the White House five times, including after he sponsored it. But somehow conservative bloggers think banning books from libraries is not censorship. In fact - their real goal is to get this ban applied nationwide.
That's why I think you're all a bunch of hypocrites.
There's a very simple compromise here.
ABC should ditch the show and they should show it on Showtime instead.
Then everyone will be happy, right?
You're trying to crush the free speech of Senators and Congressmen. Why the hell should they be forced to be silent about certain issues?
No one is asking them to be silent. We're asking them not to sling their government power around making threats.
That's why I think you're all a bunch of hypocrites.
I've never supported a book ban in my life. Be careful where you throw that "you."
MKL said...
I seriously doubt that Clinton, Albright, and Berger would sue. They'd have to do a deposition right? Not sure about lawyer stuff but I'd think Berger would have to say exactly what documents he took from the archives...
Yes, depositions would not be fun. I would hope that ABC's lawyers could make a backward link from the Berger charge that his actions weren't accurately reflected in the show to Berger's destruction of those records to avoid revealing his actions, etc etc.
------- going further field---
I don't know what the National Archives policies are for safeguarding those Top Secret Code word files that Berger stole, but I was a TS documents custodian once long ago. The principles that we operated under was that TS documents ALWAYS were under 2 person control. meaning that you didn't let a single man have access alone. I would not be surprised that if they let Berger go into a room alone to review the documents, that they had closed circuit TV. Very embarrassing at a slander trial. Further, there would be testimony about which 3 copies he destroyed and who had been the margin notes authors on each. That could in fact be a smoking gun to further embarrassments.
And where do you live fenrisulven? I'm just sure that terrorists are trying to get you in your hick state.
I live less than a mile from Ground Zero, so I don't need some hick lecturing me on how Bush is making me safe.
I, along with 75% of New Yorkers, realize that Bush has done nada to actually make us safer than we were five years ago. Clinton, of course, did nada either after the WTC bombing in 1993.
The solution to make us safer is very simple - get the hell out of hte Middle East and that will stop the breeding of terrorists. They hate us, because we are there. And sorry - that's not "liberal". Because Pat Buchanan has been saying the same thing.
I left the Democratic Party in 1992, not because of Clinton, but because I saw the early rise of anti-semitism within the party. The modern democrats today are all for anti-semitism (Read the comments on HuffPo or KOS about Lieberman or Israel) and they also believe in censorship. When I can freely express views within the GOP but not within the Democrats (as they to seek to curtail anyone but theirs), the Path to 9/11 shows how big a friend of free speech the dems are.
No, downtownlad, they don't "hate us because we are there," they hate us because we ARE, period.
Your very existence is an affront to them.
There is a difference between Senators using free speech to criticize media VS Senators using the powers of their office to threaten government action if the media doesn't parrot their talking points.
And as I've asked a dozen times. What "power" exactly does this sitting Senator have? Please tell me exactly how he would go about revoking the license.
ABC executives are not worried about losing a license, because they realize it has 0% chance of happening. So why are you so scared about this?
What really worries you is that liberals in ABC (and there are many of them) might actually listen to the liberal boggers and rejig the program to remove those scenese.
As I've said, this is not about censorship, it's about political posturing.
Because what idea is getting censored exactly? Because I can show you thousands of blogs where that "idea" is being discussed.
Censorship my ass. This is a fight about how history will portray the Bush and Clinton administrations in the war on terror.
Who freaking cares at this point.
Clyde said...
Let's not get all Mark McGwire "I'm not here to talk about the past" about this. ...
That said, there's no use crying over spilled milk. We ALL missed it, Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike.
While I agree with what you are saying on one level, the real threat to the Democratic party is broader and deeper than the Clinton legacy. The going forward DNC policy seems to be that military action in Iraq and Afghanistan was a mistake and that we should not use a blunt weapon on Islamic terrorists, but handle it with due process and the full panoply of the American Justice system. That brings you full circle back to Reno/Gorelick/Albright/Berger
Let me start with the perfectly obvious.
All speech is not equal. For example, consider the following categories. U.S. District Court Rulings; public pronouncements made by legislators in their official capacity; NYT editorials; TV docudramas; political speech by the man on the street; blogs; blog comments.
There are reasonably well understood conventions for each genre. For example, we could reasonably expect that opinions of the US District Court would be literate, tightly reasoned, and free of obvious mistakes, for after all, said opinions can ruin lives. We'd expect a different standard for editorials, blog posts, and blog comments, but it seems to me that much of the current controversy stems from blurring distinctions.
What's a reasonable standard for "accuracy" for TV docudramas? Did ABC meet that standard? If not, so what? What's a reasonable response? What redress? The courts? Veiled threats? Are these inacurracies the same as shouting fire in a crowded theater? Of course not.
Of course, reasonableness has little to do with it. Powerful people's oxen may have been gored. Powerful people often play very tough in that situation. Are the Clintonistas attempting to squelch political speech? Of course, and that's a bad thing. Has the right played similar hard ball in the past. Sure. Have legal lines been crossed--that's for lawyers to answer, but this layman does't think so. Have ethical lines been crossed. Sure. But why would the Clintonista's gambe with their reputations? Cough, cough.
I guess we'll find out tonight, and the Republic will survive.
Sorry for the windage.
Fenrisulven said...
I live less than a mile from Ground Zero, so I don't need some hick lecturing me on how Bush is making me safe.
Uh-huh. I work in the Russel building, across the street from the Capitol...
Downtownlad, sometimes you can be such an a$$. It's a newyorkcentric thing I guess.
I was about ready to reply as well that I work in an DoD office building overlooking the Pentagon and my wife, when she's not in uniform, works on the North side of the Capitol for DHS.
Even red state hicks can have honest and valueable opinions about homeland security.
Oh, and Fen was a Marine and I'm a VN vet (served in GWI, but not overseas that time), so don't try the chickenhawk meme next.
downtownlad said...
, 2) Bloggers who call for the editor of the New York Times to be executed because he published a story that about how the government is tracking wire movements to track terrorism..... Well actually, Ann, you were pretty silent about those calls for him to tried for treason. And it wasn't just bloggers it was major columnists like Ann Coulter who were calling for him to executed.
I dunno. I think #2 is 100 times scarier in terms of crushing free speech.
Only if you believe that the editor is not capable of treason. Are you saying that prosecuting demonstrably treasonous newspaper editors should never be done because of the chilling effect on the non-treasonous editors?
The jihadis are the biggest threat to free speech today.
Partially off topic:
"get the hell out of the Middle East and that will stop the breeding of terrorists. They hate us, because we are there."
Incorrect, DTLad. They hate us regardless of what we do. There are many demonstrations and much suspicion of the US in Malaysia and, before the Tsunami in Indonesia and the US has presences in neither area.
The US has indeed committed acts to invite irrational animosity before Iraq - the entirely proper support for Israel in a world hostile to it is one example - but to think it's entirely or even 50% America's fault is to not pay attention to history.
The notion "get the hell out of the Middle East and that will stop the breeding of terrorists. They hate us, because we are there..." is naive and uninformed. The fact we are there is only part, and a small part of the hate. Assuming otherwise is improper assignment of blame.
We now return to your regularly scheculed programming..
And as I've asked a dozen times. What "power" exactly does this sitting Senator have? Please tell me exactly how he would go about revoking the license.
They can pass legislation, hold hearings, set appointments to the FCC board, and support challenges to license renewals.
Derve,
I agree at the level that all private parties should be able to complain about how they were treated in the ABC show. It's a free country. I'm not convinced that having failed to kill the show (assuming that since ABC has already shown in to the Aussies,they wont kill it here) that the attacks on the show have actually been useful to the Clinton legacy folks.
It's a two sided dynamic. The show has been discredited some, but the hype has caused all sorts of people to watcj who would have missed it. The jury is still out on the impact.
what do you make of the Brokaw clip above?
"The solution to make us safer is very simple - get the hell out of the Middle East and that will stop the breeding of terrorists. They hate us, because we are there. And sorry - that's not "liberal". Because Pat Buchanan has been saying the same thing."
Downtown, what are you aiming for in "out of the Middle East?" Obviously, since they tried to get the WTC in 93 and attacked us during the 90s, I wouldn't count on us going to where we were before Bush II as accomplishing this.
But, toss that aside, these are people that tried to stick ricin in the subway system of Paris in the mid-90s and attempted to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower. They also blew up a bunch of Australian tourists in Bali before Iraq - so I wouldn't withdrawing support for Israel as accomplishing either.
These are people who sanctioned beating up an old woman in street market in Afghanistan because too much of her ankle was showing. They hate us for the same reason the KKK where's pointy hats. Al Qaeda wants subservience and you'll only placate them when you give that to them.
Derve, if you had rest the comment it also tied into the idea that you guys want to censor too. What other political party created a rise in Anti-semitism and believed in limiting media exposure of their own parties flaws? If the Democrats believe in Anti-semitism and censorship, how long before you find the gas ovens for those whose opinions you disagree with.
I'm just sure that terrorists are trying to get you in your hick state...
I live less than a mile from Ground Zero, so I don't need some hick lecturing me...
The solution to make us safer is very simple - get the hell out of hte Middle East and that will stop the breeding of terrorists. They hate us, because we are there. And sorry - that's not "liberal". Because Pat Buchanan has been saying the same thing."
Wow! Condescending swipes at regular Americans in flyover country along with a soupçon of Jew-hatred camoflaged with concern over / denial of jihadis.
Keep thinking that they hate us because of the occupation. Whatever occupation, pick one, back to the Crusades. Any excuse will serve a tyrant, or a lefty insistant on denying reality. But the Crusades were a defensive war against Muslim aggression.
I know, the Hebron massacre of 1929 was due to the 1967 occupation.
Keep feeding the crocodile.
"get the hell out of the Middle East and that will stop the breeding of terrorists. They hate us, because we are there."
I guess you missed the last OBL video where they had death statements from the guys who did 9/11. They were upset about how were were in Bosnia.
Yeah, that Clinton adventure that put US troops in Bosnia to? PROTECT MUSLIMS
and that's the reason they did 9/11? make sense? not to me, but I'm not a Jihadi.
So, if Tibore and a number of others are arguing -- correctly, in my view -- that the enemy is not Arabs pissed off about Israel or a few bin Laden fans but Islam as Islam, then why is anybody concerned about what did or didn't happen a decade ago?
Are we engaging Islam as an enemy yet?
Early in the thread, Fatmouse wanted to learn from mistakes. Is anybody suggesting our policy today shows we have done so?
Derve said...
Drill Sgt:
Thank you.
Is that clip from the Tom Brokaw I watched fully on tv last night?
the youtube clip that Ann described in this post as right wing porn
it is about having crosshairs on OBL in the 90's and not being willing to take risks:
1. OBL was striking US interests with impunity
2. we knew he was our enemy.
3. We had opportunities to kill OBL, but they might fail. don';t risk embarrassment abroad. we're embarrassed enough at home.
4. we passed the White House was looking for law enforcement solutions and the requirement was to capture him
5. we didn't listen to the military
6. Berger, Clinton and Albright, don't want to talk about it
If I've deleted something and you repost it, you can expect me to delete everything else you ever write here. Go start your own blog if you want to say everything you want. I'm not stopping you.
Republicans think that are always right and can do no wrong.
Democrats think that they are always right and can do no wrong.
It gets really tedious after a while.
Guess what? People are biased. And they are going to use whatever power is possible to have themselves presented in the best light.
Republicans do this. Democrats do this.
Shocker.
Go read up on your current events. The Bush Administration has used the FCC to censor way more than any prior administration, i.e. Janet Jackson and the Super Bowl etc.
Not to mention how they use the power of the federal purse (Solomon Amendment) to silence universities from defending gay rights.
Republicans think the New York Times committed treason and it's perfectly alright to execute the editor. Even though he did NOT commit treason.
One Democratic Senator thinks that ABC is committing slander and its perfectly alright to revoke it's license. Even though ABC did NOT commit reason.
I think both are wrong, but I can understand why they hold their viewpoints.
Unfortunately, the others are completely incapable of understanding why people might think a certain way, even if they hold a different viewpoint.
Rather than arguing the dumb point of revoking a license (zero possibility), why not address Democrat concerns as to why this is not slander. After all, ABC is making up history and presenting it as truth. Why is that not slander?
(Note: I DON'T think it's slander - since it's really no different than what Oliver Stone did with the JFK movie).
Derve, I'm glad you are willing to allow to express my views and beliefs. As far as proof, again, look at the comments section of KOS and HuffPO whenever the discussion of Israel or Lieberman show up. That is the proof. And censorship? Isn't using the power of the state by the Senators ro look at renewing ABC's license's around the country a way of shutting them down if they broadcast "The Path to 9/11". I'd like to believe the Democrats are against censorship and anti-semitism, but no one is standing up to the Kossites or the Huffpo's. I hear, to quote Simon and Garfunkle, "the sounds of silence"
Freder: I don't get your comparison to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They have a movie out. I've never said that it should be yanked. If someone were applying for a job as a history professor with scholarship that was badly done, I'd have a problem with that. I have a problem with whatever inaccuracies are in a film that presents itself as historical truth, but I might still accept it as a good film, and I certainly wouldn't argue for not showing it or for bringing lawsuits for damages. So, really, what is your point? If you're going to make analogies, do it analytically or it's not an argument.
The solution to make us safer is very simple - get the hell out of hte Middle East and that will stop the breeding of terrorists. They hate us, because we are there...
DTLad: WARNING: I'm a hick from Tennessee!
Shame on you, as a gay man, to imply that Bush's actions will somehow make radical islamicists stop hating us. As much as you claim to fear and despise republicans as bigots, you should be terrified of these people. As--this goes without saying--should all women and Jews. If the Islamicists were to somehow gain any foothold of power in the world, the Jews would be first for extermination, then the gays. As for women, I don't really know what we'd be doing, because we'd all be locked up in our houses in burqas.
This is an example of why I am so dismayed with the democratic party's take on this war. Every one of my beliefs that I understand to be liberal positions: pro-gay rights, feminism, freedom from religion in government; stand in absolute opposition to everything the Islamicists stand for, yet, I see democrats trying to minimize the threat at every turn, make Bush the real enemy, etc.
It is utterly confounding and frustrating. Had we tried to deal with Hitler in this way, tracked the body count in WWII as ticks against Roosevelt... it's a tired point but utterly fair.
Knoxgirl,
I don't understand your point. As a gay man and as a Jew, I don't need to be educated that the Islamists in the Middle East would love to kill me.
But guess what? That is not going to change. And Jews and gays should stay out of Arab occupied areas of the Middle East. In fact - all Westerners should avoid the Arab Middle East.
Israel is tough enough to derend herself. They have 400 nukes after all. They'll be fine.
But if we were to get our troops out of the Middle East, Islamic terror in the United States would lessen and probably come to a halt. In fact, if we never had troops in Saudi Arabia after the first gulf war, 9/11 would never have happened.
By the way Knoxgirl - gays are a hell of a lot worse off in Iraq now, under the American backed regime, than they were under Saddam Hussein.
No intelligent gay person should rely on George Bush to protect their interests. He couldn't give a crap if gays are being massacred in Iraq now.
There is a core reason to blog. And that is to express yourself using your own thoughts, ideas, words and observations. When done very well or uniquely, even one time, a blogger's words can spread across the globe instantly.
The political parties are scared to death of this phenomenon. Because it is shrinking their power and influence.
Bloggers are best when they ignore the party's position and just speak to their own personal beliefs and ideas. Someday, I hope, individual identifiaction with one party will wane as the blogopshere matures making ideas not parties paramount.
Bloggers are generally uninteresting and at their worst when they become an extension of one of the two dominant parties.
Googling "Bin Laden in Sudan" I find...
"By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities."
LA Times, Dec. 5, 2001.
I also find claims that Sudan never offered Bin Laden to the US.
The first time I heard it, though, was in a television documentary a year or more ago.
If it's *not* true it needs more than someone screaming "liar liar liar" until the other side shuts up. It needs supporting evidence and rational explanation.
Is the NBC clip that Ann has linked to a lie?
And in the end, is it *really* that significant that the Clinton Administration did not take Bin Laden, a person who had attacked us and actually *formally* declared war on the US seriously? No one was taking it seriously.
When Lileks said that 9-11 reset the clock I doubt seriously that he means not to look at mistakes in order to make changes. Changes don't require fault finding or blame.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... if it weren't for the fact that some people *today* want to view Islamic terrorism as a criminal/judical issue and believe that if we don't do anything they'll eventually get over it, there wouldn't be *any* reason to be upset about this, even if it *weren't* an accurate account of Clinton Administration attitudes toward the problem.
The problem is that no one on the anti-war side can honestly say, "Yes, but we realized our error."
The most damning thing you can say about the Clinton administration specifically, and Democrats generally would be that their current "War on Error" is being fought with a vigor they lacked when they were in power.
Bin Laden was at war with us throughout the 90s. There is no 'root cause', just a nihilistic hatred for all things unlike themselves.
It's unknowable whether or not had Pres. Clinton waged a vigorous War on Terror whether or not it would have prevented an event along the lines of 9/11.
What is knowable is that his administration was a miserable failure with regards to answering the challenge presented by the hatred directed our way.
Bin Laden was at war with us throughout the 90s. There is no 'root cause', just a nihilistic hatred for all things unlike themselves.
Oh - give me a break. The root cause was that we had troops in Saudi Arabia. It's not because they hate our freedom. If you don't believe me - just ask Osama. He's been quite explicit as to why he attacked us.
Boy, lots of whiny little liberals here. So somebody made a movie that puts Clinton in a less than flattering light, oh boo hoo hoo. If we can put up with Michael Moore's stupidity, you weenie liberals can surely put up with this.
And so goes the litany: *Bush* makes us more unsafe, not the terrorists; America is at fault for terrorist actions; terrorism is a law-enforcement issue; and finally: Israel can take care of herself! Let's pull out of the Middle East altogether and just sort of mind our own business as the neighborhood bully blows up more and more people all over the world. As long as they're not blowing up Manhattanites, it really doesn't matter...
???
Fair enough, if that's how you feel. I'm afraid for you on your behalf.
It's not because they hate our freedom.
Now if all the women and gays over there would just leave the Middle East, they'd be treated just fine! Oh wait...
I have no opinion on what ABC/Disney is up to, as I haven’t seen the program or the clips. But I did want to make a comment about this sentence:
“To say the portrayal is inaccurate is to focus everyone on the issue, to highlight how sensitive you are about it, and to set off a vigorous effort to show that it is accurate.”
Not sure that I agree with any or all of these conclusions. Certainly they could be plausibly drawn from the protest activity, especially some of the more strident aspects of the protest. But none of them necessarily follow from the act of protesting. I assume that the word “issue” above refers to the portrayal’s accuracy (or lack thereof). The first one is the strongest, as calling attention to something is likely to cause at least some examination of the contested topic (though, as is repeatedly demonstrated in this country, attention to a dispute does not entail the conclusion that a clear factual record or a coherent meme will emerge). The second is a subjective conclusion regarding a protester’s personality and as such has no necessary connection with a particular protest or protester. The last one is a speculation about a specific consequence that may or may not occur coupled with the implication that raising the issue is somehow a bad idea (the ground(s) for this implication are unclear but here are two possibilities: it would only be bad for the protesters if either (a) their version of the facts was rejected or (b) the opposition managed to reframe the debate in a fashion favorable to it).
But let’s assume they are all valid conclusions in the sense that they are plausible outcomes. Protests could arise for a variety of reasons, but I want to mention two: (1) a belief that the program is factually inaccurate in important ways or (2) a political stance that holds it is important to contest a perceived framing of the issue in ways that are unfavorable to one’s party or ideology. As to reason (1), if the belief is sincerely held that the facts are incorrect, it is difficult to see how conclusion one would be harmful, and conclusions two and three would be either irrelevant or a positive for protesters. A decision to not protest arising out reason number (2) would be rational if the conclusions above were the necessary outcome. But is protesting irrational (that is, counterproductive) if the conclusions above are not the necessary ones with respect to reason (2)? It’s certainly possible to argue that it would be irrational to not protest unless all of the conclusions above are the only possible outcomes (or even the most likely outcomes) AND reason (1) is not a ground for protesting.
That said, ABC/Disney is a publicly held company, and it ought to be able to tackle whatever topics it wishes, for whatever reasons.
Lincoln, no place in the political spectrum can truthfully claim to be devoid of whinyness. I recall plenty of whining from the right side of the political spectrum re: Fahrenheit 911 or The Reagans. This is the same thing, only in the mirror. Soon to be forgotten, mostly, I hope.
geoduck2:
Soccer players too, it looks like. (and not so great for women's rights, or Olympic athletes, or secularism, or alcohol drinking...) But don't confuse people with facts."
Wasn't it Saddam's darling baby boy, Uday, who terrorized, or rather "headed" Iraq's Olympic committee, at least when his rape rooms were closed for cleaning?
If you don't believe me - just ask Osama. He's been quite explicit as to why he attacked us.
And we'll just assume he's being truthful about his reasons, will we?
This thread shouldn't degenerate into a debate about how the war in Iraq is going. Remember the topic!
all the lawyers on this thread need now is an ambulance to chase, a sidewalk fall in manhattan, and michael jackson doing just about anything to make this complete.
more speech of course madame professor as long as it is what? true? quantity over quality?
when there were fines handed out to howard stern a while back the judgment call became completely clear. you don't have to tell the truth...heck, you can lie your head off, but you just can't be profane about it.
i take lying and lying liars as profanity.
happily leaving this blog. leaving this shovel full of earth to someone else to dig through.
good luck to many of you. .. particularly those who think the nytimes lies on a consistent basis, that network news is slanted to the left... go ready your washington times and your WSJ and think it truth, listen to rush and o'reilly (if he can pull the sponge out of his ass), throw in the gang of felons who have found their way onto the talk show airwaves, mix in a little anthrax annie coulter so you get your daily shot of bile...
see ya after the election.
George: ...I saw part of the... movie "The American President" on TV last night. In it, the beautiful Annette Bening falls in love with the Clintonesque widowed president played by Michael Douglas.
In the movie Libya attacks and kills U.S. servicemen.... They decide to launch a midnight cruise missile attack on some Libyan military headquarters. ....
He approves the reprisal, after being assured that it might mean killing only a few Libyan janitors. The President seems to feel badly about this.
And Clinton was a big fan of the movie.
Let's compare:
Michael Douglas in The American President: Somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor is working the night shift at Libyan intelligence headquarters. And he's going about doing his job because he has no idea that in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion.
Bill Clinton, after ordering the attack of the al Shifa plant in Sudan: I was here on this island up till 2:30 in the morning, trying to make absolutely sure that at that chemical plant there was no night shift. I believed I had to take the action I did, but I didn't want some person who was a nobody to me—but who may have a family to feed and a life to live and probably had no earthly idea what else was going on there—to die the needlessly.
(Hat Tip: Christopher Hitchens)
Hdhouse offers the following:
"All the lawyers on this thread need now is an ambulance to chase." Lovely non-sequitur.
"More speech of course madame professor as long as it is what? true?"
And who is going to be the judge of whether it's true? Evidently H. volunteers himself for the job.
"I take lying and lying liars as profanity."
H. is apparently one of those who believe that a "lie" is any statement they don't agree with. And it's clear he's not willing to take being disagreed with lightly.
There was a time when the left stood for raucous, let-it-all-hang-out free speech (what a dated phrase). Why in one short generation did they reject free speech in favor of the iron Stalinist repressive zeal seen in H's and Freder's posts?
tjl: Yeah, hdhouse wrote one of the most garbled comments I've seen. If the lawyers are all saying there should be fewer lawsuits, we're the opposite of abulance chasers. And the idea of only permitting true speech with truth narrowly defined is so repressive and dangerous that I'm just amazed people don't see it.
Folks,
Have I mis-read my TV information or has ABC cut an hour from the broadcast?
My WaPo TV section show the show running for 3 hours tonight and 2 hours on Monday.
However: www.abc.com shows 2.5 hours tonight and 1.5 hours on Monday?
more speech of course madame professor as long as it is what? true? quantity over quality?
Hdhouse by emphasizing Prof. Althouse's femininity with the phrase, "madame professor" exhibits an antipathy towards women expressing their ideation in a forceful way.
Any and all feminist should be shocked and horrified at this use of sexist language to belittle a distinguished professor as she expresses herself.
I'm sure Prof. Brian Leiter wouldn't be amused, either.
Ann said
"And the idea of only permitting true speech with truth narrowly defined is so repressive and dangerous that I'm just amazed people don't see it."
If more people could be persuaded to see it, then political discourse in this country would cease to be like children shouting past each other to drown out words they don't want to hear.
...as a fan of the first amendment, I find it very disturbing that Democratic senators think it's ok to throw around threats and all this talk of "the public airwaves" is chilling.
Of course, it's A-OK when Republicans do it.
Asswipe.
Dave, what is your problem? "Asswipe?" You're in a public place. Grow up.
As for the, ah, substantive part of your last comment, you're trying to say the Democrats who are threatening ABC's licenses over "The Path to 9/11" are no better than the Republicans who threatened Viacom over "The Reagans."
And...you're right. They're no better. The Democratic party and its Senate leadership have sunk to the same "asswipe" status as the Republicans. Happy now?
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I found what the Republicans did over the Reagan show deplorable. Which is why my disappointment over what the Dems are doing is so acute. I don't know what the hell Democrats stand for anymore, but I thought for sure free speech was part of it.
You hysterical, "myopic," thuggish left-bloggers have probably done more damage to your purported cause in the past four days than in the past four years of idiocy. How much is Karl Rove paying you?
Well, this is a long one. I scroll to the bottom and find the last comment ending with "STFU"; what's that about?
Drill Sgt., yep, I'd be more accepting if I thought this production relied on clips like the one from Brokow, and actual evidence, the 9/11 commission, etc. Instead, it's likely to be a Frankenstein's monster of ignorant entertainment producers and a writer with a right-wing agenda. I'm not watching it, because there aren't enough hours in life to waste 'em like that. I didn't watch much Katrina 1-year coverage either, for the same reasons.
The going forward DNC policy seems to be that military action in Iraq and Afghanistan was a mistake and that we should not use a blunt weapon on Islamic terrorists, but handle it with due process and the full panoply of the American Justice system.
I think, or I hope, the argument for the DNC is that Iraq was a mistake, not Afghanistan, and that our Iraq invasion has hindered what we set out to do in Afghanistan, which of course included bringing OBL to justice. OBL attacked us on 9/11, not Saddam. As for the other point, surely we need both options, blunt force and our justice system? I'd much rather see OBL's body being carried from a battlefield than watch a spectacle of a trial, but there are so many layers to the terrorist threat across the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Europe and here, that our entire arsenal, from military to intelligence to diplomacy to economic pressure to prosecution are of use. I don't think any administration, including this one, writes off any tool in the box.
10 years ago there were 3 or 4 Amy Fisher movies, with completely different scripts etc...
Amy Fisher, Jon Benet, shark bites, when Killer Hurricanes Attack!, 9/11...yeah, that's all pretty much the same. Bring on the entertainment!
Nothing is free, and free speech carries with it responsibilities, you have forgotten that. A free society cannot exist if the right to free speech does not carry with it some responsibility.
Freder, this is such a slippery slope, I would warn you to get off it quick.
One person's definition of responsibility will be completely different than another's -- as this comment chain should persuade you.
When people of my generation talk about "free speech," they are talking about protecting the rights of people much, much farther out of the mainstream than this ABC movie will be. The ACLU protecting the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, and of Communists to work in government and the media. Angela Davis keeping her job at (I think) UCLA.
The limit on free speech is generally summed up by the cliche "shouting fire in a crowded theater." Obviously that doesn't apply here. Other limits are defined in libel laws and court decisions. Those limits give very strong protection to ABC to talk about public figures. There is no "responsibility" footnote to the First Amendment, and I hope there never will be one.
The process by which this country would reach a point where upsetting Bill Clinton's vanity becomes the definition of irresponsible speech, is a process I should think you'd desperately want to avoid.
God, since when have Democrats been so in the bag for people in power!? Weren't you alive when LBJ and Nixon were in power? Defaming the president was a sign of how liberated you were. Even after both men were safely out of power, they were depicted as evil, and lampooned as idiots. If they could take it, so can Bill.
Freder,
Wipe the spittle off your keyboard, please. It doesn't make your argument more convincing.
What we are talking about here is the equivalent of ABC presenting a show as fact (or a "dramatization of history") that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion were an actual historic document.
Really? Wow, that would be quite something if they strayed that far from the truth. I'm dubious, but we'll all see for ourselves soon.
I assume you have no connection to the Democratic Party. If you did, it would be a problem for the party's credibility if you led viewers to expect the equivalent of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and instead they saw a show that was largely true--with maybe some room for debate at the margins and some questions over the judgments on how to dramatize certain decisions.
I live less than a mile from Ground Zero, so I don't need some hick lecturing me on how Bush is making me safe.
Uh-huh. I work in the Russel building, across the street from the Capitol...
But I am from Texas, so thanks for the "hick" ad hom. Whats next? Redneck? Nigger? Yet another example of how the Left doesn't really beleive what they lecture us about.
Fen, thanks for the defense of all of us "hicks". It hard to believe that such bigotry still exists in this day and age.
Downtownlad, thanks for saving me the considerable amount of time it would have taken me to read any of your subsequent posts.
Speaking as one of the "hicks", I do live hours away from NYC or DC. I don't, however, live miles away from an identified military target.
When they put military targets away from large population centers, where do you think they end up?
Shanna, I didn't miss your point, I just thought it was insubstantial. There's a qualitative difference between Amy Fisher movies and 9/11 movies.
As for your little non-sequitur, I guess that shows your rhetorical depth and breadth. Someone disagreed with you, and all you get from that is "Republicans bad."
I'm not going to watch the show. What purpose would it serve me?
Then again, I have followed the rise of militant Islam pretty closely since 1983. I don't need any dramatization of missed opportunities. I am well aware of what they were, and my opinion of why they were passed by has long been confirmed by observation and study.
Why the frothing from the Left? In my humble opinion, the Left spent the first week after September 11 grateful that Gore wasn't president. They spent the first month terrified - waiting for the people to ask "just why was OBL still around?" after the previous eight years.
If the Left had found themselves facing a 9/11 following eight years of a Republican administration with the same transparent record of "kicking the can down the road", they'd be all over it for political points, even before the bodies were buried.
But that didn't happen. The early months following 9/11 allowed the country to shine; the immediate state target of Afghanistan was a deadbang certainty to happen. But the administration was already looking beyond one terrorist organization and looking at the entire culture that had been fermenting for the last fifty years . The Bush Doctrine called on Americans to support western democracy as the state model best equipped to end terrorism.
Which was where we lost twenty percent of the citizenry and that part of our political caucus that depended on the hard Left for their grassroots support.
Our war on terror has yet to be declared. There are no resolutions, much less declarations, from our legislature defining the entity we will pursue, capture, or destroy, whenever/whereever we find them.
The Left still fears the mob they seek to rule more than the Islamists who seek our destruction. Clinton dodged the tough calls for years; by the end of his administration it was expected. But in one two-part miniseries the timeline is crunched pretty hard and events follow events unencumbered by punditry, spin... or the ignorance of what was to come. No matter how accurate or how fanciful the dialogue the writers actually came up with to retell the events, the events happened. Some peoples' minds might change. Maybe a lot of people will ask questions...
That's why the senate minority leader will take pen to paper and threaten a domestic network's broadcast license but not to express solidarity and support toward accomplishing our missions already underway. That's why Left bloggers who have spent the last six years bemoaning the death of our civil liberties are vociferously calling for the suppression of this show.
Bugs was right. "What a bunch of maroons."
Shanna, I saw the asswipe swipe; pffft to him.
We'll have to disagree. I just can't care about conflating some characters or creating dialogue with Amy Fisher type stories. This story is different. Showing people doing and saying things they didn't do, things that should generate disgust and blame from viewers, is a crappy way to tell a story. I can't just write it off as "well, that's what docudramas do." It's fair game to criticize how they do what they do.
Ruth Anne, I saw your list and like the quote from Guiliani as well. Don't know if you saw his speech from the 04 Republican Convention, but I'll never forget when, talking about the Iraq war, he said: "Saddam Hussein is himself a weapon of mass destruction." ...this statement followed a long listing of all the atrocities committed by Hussein while in power, and all the behaviors that made him a threat to us. Anyway, I remember thinking that was a pretty apt observation.
***This comment is meant for Ruth Anne, NOT to redirect the thread to the Iraq war!***
Showing people doing and saying things they didn't do, things that should generate disgust and blame from viewers, is a crappy way to tell a story. I can't just write it off as "well, that's what docudramas do."
Not just docudramas, but most non-fiction books and articles. All but the most scrupulous rely on recollections of what people said, which can differ dramatically. There is no record of what Sandy Berger "said." To be strictly accurate, you'd only use his written or recorded words -- thus no docu-drama unless you wanted to show a power point.
But for about 2500 years, consumers of historical accounts have been willing to accept a certain amount of dramatic license in service of presenting history as a coherent story. The downside is that there is a subjectiveness about it. The upside is, this is far from the last word.
**This comment is meant as a reply and NOT to derail this thread**
Knoxgirl: I recall Rudy's speech. I also remember that the Republicans, simply holding their National Convention in NYC, was risky. Not a real Red-state bastion. But the speakers all delivered each night. I still remember Arnold Schwarzenegger saying he became a Republican because of NIXON! And don't get me started on Zell Miller or Ron Silver, going into the belly of the beast. 9/11 matters.
Such a sad comment about the state of affairs in the US. Is this all that we have to wonder about. Is this really our biggest problem.
The left's flat-out refusal to see the enemy before us and prefernce for a 9/10 mindset is exmplified in the attack on a minor TV docudrama.
I wish they would have gotten this worked up over Isalamofascism, but they cannot even say the word without choking and sputtering. Better to attack the messenger, they think.
Looks like another stellar steal-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory Democratic gameplan.
Re: "Isalamofascism"
Well, they might be able to say it if I could spell it.
One Party, One People, One Government.
Freder, Geoduck,
Did you really intend to suggest parallels between Nazism and current Republican leadership?
I'd like to think not, but that's the way it came across.
Well, I don't like getting drawn into Godwin's Law ... Let's just say I'm glad the Congress has a good sprinkler system ;).
You compare Republicans to Nazis with sly takes on "ein volk, ein reich" and allusions to the Reichstag fire, but then coyly state you don't want to get drawn into Godwin territory?
Cripes, Freder, you are the limit.
I don't have to paint the Clintons as politically expedient first and last.
They came of the line in those colors - no paint required.
Which is a good thing; any known coating technology would probably slide right off...
Post a Comment