Bear with me, whilst I dive right in. The militant Left is escalating a firestorm with the clear goal to either censor as 'politically unacceptable', or to completely suppress the upcoming ABC miniseries, "The Path to 9-11". Rhetoric suggests the imminent breakout of hostilities, rapidly turning initial protests into a frenzied witch-hunt, akin only to our Islamofascist foes' response to the Islamic cartoons.
But, at least the Islamofascists didn't fabricate the entire basis for their grievance, and as such, there is only little evidence of chicanery, which is not what we can say for our militant lefties, since they are being caught faking evidence all the time. This excerpt is just the latest example; it's scary:
A Scholastic/ABC document titled "Student Resource Sheet 1" [page-3 left column after heading Iraq] says of Iraq, "The dictatorial government of Saddam Hussein was overthrown in 2003, following an invasion led by the United States. The U.S. government believed that Hussein had been developing weapons of mass destruction that he planned to use against American and other targets."
The "Student Resource Sheet" omits any mention of two crucial facts: We now know Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and there is a voluminous and growing body of evidence that indicates that the Bush administration knew its claims about weapons of mass destruction were unsupported
Ideological blindness doesn't cut it as the only rational explanation, how a 'belief' is distorted to mean 'confirmed certainty' in order to justify the in itself utterly misleading heading, "ABC-Sponsored teaching materials falsely suggest Iraq had WMD, link War in Iraq to 9/11".
Then there is the additional, rather subtle license to equate ABC's wording 'had been developing' with being 'finished, completed and fully tested' as a basis for the stern rebuttal, alleging now certain knowledge, that Hussein never had WMD and implying equally certain knowledge, that Hussein's army could never have managed to smuggle WMD out of Iraq into, for example, Syria; neither prior nor during the war.
But, even if we feel generous and ignore this perhaps too nuanced discrepancy, we are still left with no disagreement, factual or imaginary, between ABC's account, namely that the "U.S. government believed..." and the allegation that such beliefs were unsupported. That's the whole point of not knowing something, but rather having either faith in the religious sense or suspicion in the case of risk assessment and mistrust. And given Hussein's trackrecord, neither President Bush nor Prime Minister Blair were prepared to take any further risks.
If anything, 'The Path to 9-11' seems to be all about the catastrophic consequence of failing to take preemptive action in order to reduce or eliminate future risks of terrorist attacks.
But in order to maintain the 'Bush lied, people died' slander, their pathetic attempts to rewrite the English dictionary will continue until finally 'belief', which stands for opinion, judgment, impression, view, conviction, is finally replaced with 'knowledge'.
Then there is MediaMatters' second, even more mendacious chicanery:
The "Student Resource Sheet" also seems to link the war in Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks: "Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, the United States began a global "War on Terror" to stop terrorist groups and state-sponsored terrorism. President Bush has led the United States into Afghanistan and Iraq and reorganized the national government in an attempt to combat terrorist activity."
You'll find the quote still on Student Resource Sheet-1, page-5,
left column. They've just upped the ante. Now we're no longer debating
whether or not Hussein aided the 9-11 Jihadists, whether or not he had
prior knowledge or was in any way complicit. Now, the cunning
rabble-rousers are attempting to divorce Operation Freedom from 9-11
altogether.
Cute, if it didn't leave us with the repugnant, foul taste in our mouths as we are witnessing the militant lefties celebrating their first victorious intimidation:
Two days ago, I wrote about Scholastic Books catapulting the “Path to 9/11” propaganda. More than 400 comments were made at a crossposting that I did on Daily Kos, the vast majority of the comments containing excellent suggestions for action, and outrage that Scholastic would be supporting this crock-u-mentary with propaganda reinforcement.
Scholastic was flooded with calls and emails of protest and righteous indignation. Tonight, the material is no longer on Scholastic's website. Poof. Disappeared.
Daily Kos followed up with more systematic intimidation:
I've written a couple of letters - first to Robert Iger at Disney, then to a list of investors, PR people and board members provided by highacidity (h/t & major thanks for all that work!).
First of all, I urge all who are bothered by this miniseries to pester one and all about it. Most important are the ABC affiliates and advertisers on ABC shows. If they hear enough noise, affiliates may just decide it's not worth it to follow ABC the network over the brink. Many diaries treat this as a done deal; I couldn't disagree more.
That kind of militant rhetoric, based on utter deception, did
however do the trick. Scholastic Books was cowed into silence, leaving
a blank page,
where before over 100,000 high school teachers had been made aware of
its resource series for educators to use when discussing the ABC
docudrama with students and parents:
The Path to 9/11 offers your students and their families important information regarding the causes of and events leading to that tragic day. Encourage your students and their families to watch The Path to 9/11 and use the accompanying Resources and Discussion Guide pages to:
- Track the historical time line of events before, during, and after 9/11
- Lead critical discussions about these events
- Use critical-thinking skills and analysis in classroom debate
It is important to look back over the past five years and consider the events that have occurred, what led to those events, and how they impact the future of our nation and the world.
Objectives:
- To encourage students to gain a global understanding of communities and cultures
- To engage critical-thinking and critical-viewing skills
- To encourage student political awareness and involvement through discussion and debate
- To promote media literacy to remind students to view what they absorb from the media with a critical eye
Currently the only thing left of this foiled educational project is the supporting documentation (please let me know if Scholastic Books disables these links as well so that I can make the PDFs available from my server):
Student Resource Sheet 1 (PDF)
Student Resource Sheet 2 (PDF)
The Path to 9/11, Part 1: Classroom Discussion & Debate (PDF)
The Path to 9/11, Part 2: Classroom Discussion & Debate (PDF)
Beyond the Classroom Discussion and Debate (PDF)
I repeat, this episode is yet again exposing how militant liberals increasingly treat free speech, civil liberties and all the rest with utter contempt, for they view these constitutional cornerstones of our society as nothing more than useful tools to further their ideologies; but only as long as they conform neatly with Liberal party doctrine. Any deviation, even the rumor of it, unleashes the militant left into overdrive, mobilizing a systematic efforts to suppress and censor such political diversity.
In their own words, they explain why it is so important to prevent any diversion away from liberal doctrine:
The reason this matters so much, and why Democrats are so apoplectic at the way ABC has handled this material, is that popular culture has a way of inculcating certain concepts into people's minds, especially young minds, far more effectively than talking head programs or earnest debates among political bloggers and columnists. This is the kind of thing that could taint the debate for generations if it takes hold.
Which explains why especially in the case of Scholastic Books, anything goes, so long as it achieves the desired result: Suppression. No interest in furthering free and inquisitive minds, debate or discussion, not even when the material is as unbiased as the ABC's student documentation.
Come to think about it, we should be grateful: Chances are, that most of the 100,000 teachers are Democrats and Liberals; could have been the opening of Pandora's box, leading to truly deranged antics favored by our so called leading academics.
As to the controversy surrounding the miniseries, I wholeheartedly agree with one of my editors @ NewsBusters, Noel Sheppard:
The reality is that none of us knows all of the details surrounding this event, or leading up to it. Anyone that watched the 9/11 Commission hearings has to be aware that many of the witnesses from both administrations appeared unwilling to be completely candid. Was this due to a need to protect national security, or to cover one’s backside? Who knows? But, this Commission and everything surrounding it was highly politicized, and, as a result, we might never know all the facts.
In the end, “The Path to 9/11” is just a made-for-television docudrama…nothing more, nothing less. As such, rather than its existence further dividing our nation on the fifth anniversary of this solemn event, maybe we should all just watch it, and decide for ourselves its merit and veracity.
UPDATE: My friend @ Shrinkwrapped, who is a registered Democrat (in his case only administrative I am sure) writes a brilliant psychoanalysis of the politics of it all, make sure you read it:
[T]he salient point to me is not the truth or falseness of the TV series but the effort to silence ABC. Not only is there is no awareness that the campaign they are running against the Disney Corporation is dangerous but they revel in their ability to use all the forces at their command to intimidate a media outlet. If Republicans did this, the howls of outrage would know no bounds, yet the Democrats, champions of civil liberties as they fancy themselves to be, propose censorship without a trace of irony.
Well, it's all over now. Maybe next time the Republicans will be nicer and not try to smear everybody... if Iger is a Democrat, he can't be a sneaky Republican, now can he?
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, September 14, 2006 at 07:56 PM
GD: I don't think the democrats were going to shut down ABC. They were, however, threatening to go after the operating licenses of their affiliates, which is a large source of their revenue. As for "making it a propaganda statement" and "sending previews to the Rush Limbaugh family", that's not really what happened. If someone has the time and inclination, I'm sure we could come up with a list of the media members that previewed the movie and when. As I said before, I believe Rush did not see it until a week or so after Ben Veniste and Michael Barone, among others, had seen it. Aside from that, I have some more supporting information you may find helpful, as follows:
Liberal Blogosphere Fuming Over Upcoming ABC Miniseries 'The Path to 9/11'
Posted by Noel Sheppard on September 4, 2006 - 21:55.
Other than the content, the Netroots’ complaints are that the writer/producer of this series, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is an admitted conservative that is supposedly a friend of Rush Limbaugh’s. And, they are angered that conservative websites – according to them – have received advanced copies of the series, and they haven’t.
Yet, an interview on August 16 by FrontPage magazine’s Jamie Glazov didn’t present a picture of Nowrasteh as being at all biased in his viewpoints:
Early last year (2005) I was approached by ABC and asked if I'd be interested in writing/producing a miniseries based on the 9/11 Commission Report. I met with executive producer Marc Platt and Governor Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, who agreed to serve as a consultant on the project. I was provided an incredible amount of research materials and high-level advisors from the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Diiplomatic Security, etc.
Nowrasteh identified where he got most of his facts from:
The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. COLE in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing.
Does Nowrasteh blame 9/11 on Clinton, or think it could have been stopped?
Difficult question. Many experts believe it could not have been stopped. Maybe if the FBI had been allowed to look into Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop when he was arrested in mid-August, 2001, or if the terrorists on the watch list living in San Diego under their real names had been picked up. No one can say for sure.
In the miniseries we focus on weaknesses and mistakes so that we can learn from them. So that we can be safer, stronger, wiser. We do, though, highlight the heroes on the ground and the small victories (the break-up of the millennium plot) in the lead up to 9/11. Our harshest criticism in the show is for our enemies.
Does that sound like a conspiracy theory to tell lies about Clinton? The head of ABC, Iger I think, is a big money contributor to the democrats and Clinton. Think he is part of the conspiracy?
Syriana? Farenheit 9/11? Just a quick obscure thought.
Another Newsbusters post:
Regardless of Clarke’s lack of credibility, as a result of his position on what he perceived were inaccuracies in the ABC miniseries, TP’s editor, Judd Legum – who, like Kos, has apparently also not seen this “offensive” program for himself – concluded:
In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by [screenwriter] Nowrasteh.
Really? Well, pages 110 through 115 of the 9/11 Commission report quite disagreed. In this section, subtitled “The CIA Develops a Capture Plan,” the commissioners chronicled a 1997 – 1998 strategy to capture or kill bin Laden in Afghanistan:
A compound of about 80 concrete or mud-brick buildings surrounded by a 10-foot wall, Tarnak Farms was located in an isolated desert area on the outskirts of the Kandahar airport. CIA officers were able to map the entire site, identifying the houses that belonged to Bin Ladin’s wives and one where Bin Ladin himself was most likely to sleep. Working with the tribals, they drew up plans for the raid. They ran two complete rehearsals in the United States during the fall of 1997.
By early 1998, planners at the Counterterrorist Center were ready to come back to the White House to seek formal approval.
Does it sound like Nowrasteh “completely made up” this plan? As to who stopped this covert action, the Commission wasn’t sure:
Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG [Counterterrorist Security Group headed by Clarke] saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted the principals would not approve it. “Jeff” thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.
Is Iger a sneaky Republican too?
Posted by: nofate | Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 10:55 PM
And how, pray tell, were the Democrats going to shut down ABC... give me a break nofate.
I don't know if you noticed or not, all the fumbled balls for the last several years occured with Republicans in near complete control of the government.
If they would not have tried to make it a propaganda statement, there would have been no problem. There was plenty blame to go around, and we didn't have to make anything up.
Maybe if they hadn't sent previews to the Rush Limbaugh family, it would have aired without anybody being able to comment before hand.
They knew what they were doing, and they were being sneaky sneaky Republicans.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 05:06 PM
GD: Which Republican sympathizers would that be? From ABC's website on "The Path to 9/11":
The 9/11 Commission Report instantly became a national bestseller when it was published in July 2004. Writer Cyrus Nowrasteh ("The Day Reagan Was Shot") uses this historic document as the basis for a powerful story with action as gripping and far reaching as the source material itself. Shot in Toronto, Morocco, New York and Washington, DC, actors portray the famous and infamous, along with the formerly anonymous and often heroic people thrust onto history's stage.Beginning with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and ending on the morning of 9/11, the miniseries draws on detailed information from the Report and other sources to take viewers on an unforgettable journey through the events that presaged that fateful day -- to understand what went right and wrong, and what can be learned from this crucial eight-year period.
Former ABC News anchor John Miller, now the FBI's Assistant Director of Public Affairs, was also a consultant on the project. His book, The Cell, co-authored with Michael Stone, was optioned by ABC for use in the teleplay. In addition, The Relentless Pursuit by Samuel Katz was also optioned.
"The Path to 9/11" is executive-produced by Marc Platt ("Empire Falls"). The producers are Hans Proppe ("Anne Frank") and Cyrus Nowrasteh (also the writer). Governor Thomas H. Kean (Chairman, The 9/11 Commission) is senior consultant. The director is David L. Cunningham. The miniseries is a production of UHP Productions, Ltd., and is distributed by Touchstone Television.
Perhaps you can identify the Republican sympathizers that took control of the whole production? Patricia Heaton? Cyrus Nowrasteh? Maybe Rush mentioning that he was a friend has you and the liberal democrats upset. If I've got the timeline right, Ben Veniste and a number of other people saw this before Rush did, and when Ben Veniste saw it he got in Cyrus Nowrasteh's face about it. Rush didn't see it until a week or so later, and when he mentioned Nowrasteh's name as a friend, that's when all hell broke loose. I believe Michael Barone was also present at the screening that Ben Veniste attended.
"if the Republican sympathizers making the film hadn't tried to turn it into propaganda, there wouldn't have been a problem. There were plenty facts there, plenty blame to go around... nobody had to make anything up, or make any side look particulary bad."
Michael Barone tells a story here, that I think is apropos: I remember a conversation I had with a broadcast news executive many years ago. "Doesn't the fact that 90 percent of your people are Democrats affect your work product?" I asked.
"Oh, no, no," he said. "Our people are professional. They have standards of objectivity and professionalism, so that their own views don't affect the news."
"So what you're saying," I said, "is that your work product would be identical if 90 percent of your people were Republicans."
He quickly replied, "No, then it would be biased."
On June 17, 2004, the Washington Post, in a special report by Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank, dwelt on a lack of a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq." That's it. No mention of anything else except Bush lied. Cheney too!
The Washington Times reported that Bob Mulholland seemed ecstatic: "The report will be a perfect introduction to the Democratic convention on July 26," said Bob Mulholland, the California Democratic Party spokesman who says the commission's inquiry will be a political bonanza for the Democrats and Mr. Kerry's presidential campaign.
"If you had to look at its potential political impact, it will be significant. Democrats all across America will be reinforced by this report on why they don't like Bush. I don't think anything in it will bear the headline that 'Bush bears no responsibility for what happened.' That's just not going to happen. I think it will hurt Bush," Mr. Mulholland said.
The Baltimore Sun reported that Condoleeza Rice seemed to be clueless: But the congressional report states that "from at least 1994, and continuing into the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community received information indicating that terrorists were contemplating, among other means of attack, the use of aircraft as weapons."
The report says that Rice and other top officials seemed unaware of the intelligence and concludes the information must not have been widely circulated.
Any of us could search and find countless articles in the antique press at that time that extolled the virtues of the 9/11 report, and later villified the administration for not adopting wholesale, the recomendations contained in the report. But now, when ABC, not a known right wing news and entertainment network, presents a docudrama based on that report as well as other documentation from the period, BC and minions go to work threatening licenses and whatever else they can think of. As you say, there were plenty of facts there and apparently, Bill Clinton to the contrary, ABC attempted to act in a very responsible way, showing both sides of the story. And as for the "plenty of blame to go around", even though I have not been able to see it yet, it appears that the Bush administration did not come out looking that good either. What it does show, though, is that Clinton diddled while America was being systematically attacked for eight years.
And that is the problem. So he goes into CYA mode, trying to preserve his "legacy", as he sees it, and in the process scares an educational publishing house into vaporising a whole series of lesson plans based on the docudrama, which, if we had access to them, would probably include the very points that have you upset, i.e. were things made up, use of composite characters, time compression, etc. Ben Veniste and Clinton did ABC and "The Path to 9/11" the biggest favor imaginable. They did nothing for the education of our children.
Brent Bozell posting at NewsBusters said it better:
"It was stunning, and yet it was eerily reminiscent of the extraordinary discipline of Team Clinton. Days before the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" was to air, they determined the network fudged in its commitment to follow faithfully the facts in the 9/11 Commission report. A scene or two in the otherwise remarkable presentation was false.
And this was the angle Team Clinton needed in order to pounce. The Clinton campaign kicked into high gear in the days before it aired, with the ex-president and his lawyering aides and Democrats in Congress all pressuring ABC to dump the film.
It’s important to understand that Team Clinton didn’t demand the film be edited for accuracy. They wanted everything -- including all the accurate criticisms and findings – thrown in the garbage."
When the NYT was going to break the financial terror tracking "scandal", the White House had them in and pleaded with them not to print that story, that they would have blood on their hands if they did. After "due consideration" they printed it anyway and then whined about the backlash and censorship. But at no time did Bush or his people threaten to shut down the NYT, although there is certainly valid debate as to whether or not they can be prosecuted for releasing information about a classified program. The point is, Bush pleaded with the NYT not to run the story, for the good of the country, because it will hurt the country. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, threatened to set his dogs on and ruin ABC, got an educational lesson removed from existence, because it would hurt Bill Clinton's legacy. That's the problem, with Bill, it's always about Bill, all about Bill. Polls first, security second.
Posted by: nofate | Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 12:52 AM
Well nofate (it is an "n", thanks Darrell), if the Republican sympathizers making the film hadn't tried to turn it into propaganda, there wouldn't have been a problem. There were plenty facts there, plenty blame to go around... nobody had to make anything up, or make any side look particulary bad.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 03:44 PM
GD: thanks for the continuing lectures on supercilious diversion. Here in flyover country, our leftests may not be militant, but they can certainly be looney, as in Claire McCaskill stating that George Bush intentionally left black New Orlinians sitting on their roofs to die. Daniel Pipes, in "Militant Islam Reaches America", estimates only 10 -15% of 1 billion total Muslims in the world are islamists (islamofascists to us autodidacts). That means we only have to kill 150,000,000 radical (militant) islamists before they kill us.
But the point of the whole post was not about Christopher Hitchens, or kleptocracies. It was about the arbitrary attempt to shut down dialogue by a powerful American leader and former president and his bureaucratic minions. These people have used threats and intimidation to shut down debate by school children. If this is not one of the fascist type tactics, call it whatever you like, then what is it? I'm truly curious how a film based on the 9/11 commission report, is causing such an uproar that children cannot be allowed to watch it in the context of the classroom or home and then have teachers lead guided discussions. As you said, "when these extremists come into power, the governmental style becomes dictatorial, repressive, intolerant and repressive in nature", but thankfully BC is not in a position to make good on his threats anymore.
Posted by: nofate | Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 11:48 AM
The Democratic Leadership Council is the Republican wing of the Democratic Party... Totally corporatist.
The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit corporation[1] that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. Moderate and conservative Democratic party leaders founded the DLC in response to the landslide victory of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale during the 1984 Presidential election. The founders believed the United States Democratic Party needed to shift to the center to remain viable during the Reagan era. The DLC hails President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story. Critics contend that the DLC is effectively a powerful, corporate-financed mouthpiece within the Democratic party that acts to keep Democratic Party candidates and platforms sympathetic to corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy.
The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats.
The DLC's current chairman is Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO is Al From and its president is Bruce Reed.
The Democratic Party is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States, the other being the Republican Party. The party under its present name was established by Andrew Jackson during the 1820s, but it traces its origins to Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party in 1792. It is, along with the United Kingdom's Conservative Party, one of the two oldest political parties in the world.
Currently, the Democratic Party is the minority party in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives. Democrats control 19 state legislatures and 22 governorships.
Since 1896, the Democrats have been the more liberal major party (in the modern American sense of the word, i.e. center-left). The pro-working class, activist philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt has shaped much of the party's agenda since 1933; his New Deal coalition controlled the national government into the 1960s. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its conservative Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's ideas and principles.
The Democratic Party's predominant positions since the 1930s have generally been considered liberal. Liberalism generally has a different meaning outside the United States from its meaning in the U.S. (see American liberalism), but in an international context, the views of the Democratic party are often considered liberal, as well. The Democratic Party's political views have roots in the United States progressive movement and in the ideas of intellectuals such as John Dewey.
The Party advocates most civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention. The Party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means a larger role for government and progressive taxation to pay for social services.
The principles and values of any political party are difficult to define and generally do not necessarily apply to all members of the party. In the Democratic Party, a big tent party, members may disagree with one or more of the party's political platforms. The party platform represents the views of the majority of delegates to its national convention and is usually influenced by the presidential nominee of that year.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 05:12 AM
Cute, Ghost, except it appears as "Leftist" on my screen...And it looks like "nofate' on my monitor. I guess the Leftist world view IS different and distorted.
Bill Clinton governed right-of-center whenever Newt Gingrich had a say. And when his poll numbers dropped so low he hired Dick Morris as an adviser.
Posted by: Darrell | Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 12:14 AM
Hi mofate.
My original point was that there really isn't any political force in America today that you can point to as "leftest" or "militant left". Any that exist are fringe... just like white supremecists neonazis are fringe "rightists".
Darrell thinks Democrats are "leftests", and that is silly. The last Democratic President, Bill Clinton, governed right-of-center, particularly in the area of economic policy.
This Nation is in far more danger of gradual erosion of individual liberties and citizens' rights from political forces that are trully rightest in nature, seeking to undermine checks and balances at every turn, and restrict civil liberties even if it means amending the Liberal Constitution of the United States.
Personnally, unless a writers can actually define who exactly they mean when they refer to "leftest" or "militant left", I pretty much write it off as propaganda...
Alexandra likes Christopher Hitchins, who is an interesting study.
WIKI describes him this way:
"Christopher Eric Hitchens (born in Portsmouth, England April 13, 1949) is an author, journalist and literary critic. Now living in Washington, D.C., he has been a columnist at Vanity Fair, The Nation and Slate; additionally, he is an occasional contributor to many other publications."
"Hitchens is known for his iconoclasm, anti-clericalism, atheism, anti-fascism and anti-monarchism. He is also noted for his acidic wit and his noisy departure from the Anglo-American political left. He was formerly a Trotskyist and a fixture in the left wing publications of Britain and America. But a series of disagreements beginning in the early 1990s led to his resignation from The Nation shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks."
"While Hitchens's idiosyncratic ideas and positions preclude easy classification, he is a vociferous critic of what he describes as "fascism with an Islamic face," and he is sometimes described as a "neoconservative". Hitchens describes himself as "on the same side as the neo-conservatives", and referring to his "temporary neocon allies"."
"Hitchens no longer considers himself a Trotskyist or even a socialist; yet he maintains that his political views have not changed significantly. He points out that, throughout his career, he has been both an atheist and an antitheist, and that he has always remained a believer in the Enlightenment values of secularism, humanism and reason; he is an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society."
As a Trotskyite, Chris was a "leftest" with "leftest" ideas. Leftests maintain extreme, inflexible idealistic, ideological political philsophies... usually based on abstract theories of what government, and even "Man" "should be".
The same is true of "rightists", like Fascism in its various modes. Same idealism, same inflexiblity, same extremist attempt to "fix" the human race, and its governance.
Because of the idealistic inflexiblity, when these extremists come into power, the governmental style becomes dictatorial, repressive, intolerant and repressive in nature. It is, in fact difficult to differentiate between them, and they ultimately, and simply devolve into plain old thuggery and kleptocracy.
A Kleptocracy, is of course, simply strongman government without the aires of having a higher social goal.
Many people who are attracted to extremist ideologies, when they become disillusioned with one extreme and idealistic pole on the political spectrum, swing to the opposite pole... often with a vengence.
We have seen this with the ideological evolution of neoconservativism. The ancestery of the neoconservative political philosphy began with disillusionment with the extreme Left, AND with Liberalism, because it was not extreme enough.
In the case of Mr. Hitchens, he exhibits some traits of the political manic-swing I'm describing, however, he seems to be settling on a more centrist and Liberal approach.
Thus, on the certain matter of concern, Islamic Extremism, he finds himself allied with neoconservatives, but realizing he is, at the same time, not exactly like them.
So, he is an interesting case where a "Leftest" becomes best described as a Liberal... even though the ideas of the Liberal, while revolutionary in their own right, lack the manic rush of extremist points of view.
In other words, our "Leftist" didn't simply become a "Rightist". He is a Liberal, yet he is not the perfect example of a Liberal, because there is no such thing. A Liberal while potentially quite opinionated, is as much dedicated to the process, and will tolerate other's points of view and other's solutions short of implementing extremist policies... see above.
That is why, if you read through the Hitchens piece on the WIKI, you'll see that he is actually quite a complex individual, holding a considerable number of positions that would be anethema to purist ideologies of the "Rightest" or the "Leftest".
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Monday, September 11, 2006 at 06:27 PM
I am late to the thread here, but whoa! The Senate Godfathers have given ABC an offer they can't refuse. But they did refuse, sort of. David Brock, whose past history makes his veracity suspect, manipulates, through Media Matters, a true coup for the communists among the left by truly rewriting history by making it disappear. All of this over a movie, that a network not known for it's conservative leanings, that attempted to follow events from the 9/11 Commission Report. They were blindsided by the vitriolic response from Ben-Veniste, who, along with Gorelick, did their best, while sitting on the commission, to turn the 9/11 Commission into the "Blame 9/11 on George Bush Commission". I don't remember the conservatives being exactly enamoured of that report, but the liberals seemed to be OK with it. Able Danger did not exist, according to the "official" last word report.
Then the PC police show up from Brock World. Tano insults our blogstress multiple times, then whines about "all the insults directed at me". Boo-hoo. And GD graces us all with a lesson on the various types of communists. Refer to The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression or The Gulag Archepelago for detailed accounts of what it is like to be part of the collective. I wait with baited breath for the morally relativistic rejoinders. I don't know anything about the difference between Trotskyites vs. Leninists vs. Stalinists. I do know that they were all a bunch of murdering bastards that thought the state, i.e. the despot in charge, could make better decisions than the people under their "care". The decision to summarily "disappear" the SB lesson plans smacks of communism/islamism, whatever you want to call it. It doesn't fit the template, so it doesn't exist.
Posted by: nofate | Monday, September 11, 2006 at 01:07 PM
I know the Left reserves the right to revise history and spin their lies. It's part of your entitlement. ABC shouldn't have tried to use the public record. They should have let the denizens of Kos and the DU write the script, think "Snakes on a Plame." I love the scene where Rove and Rummy push down the handle on the old-fashioned t-handled detonator and the WTC falls. And when they are finally dragged to the gas chamber as the children's choir sings "Truthiness to Power." It brings a tear to my eye! Vote for Dems in November and see it all happen. Guaranteed.
Next up, "It's a Pathetic Life." A Leftist remake of the Christmas classic where George decides to stay unborn. Who blames him?
Posted by: Darrell | Monday, September 11, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Just sayin' Darrell...no need to get your massive pectorals in a ripple! If ABC wouldn't have spun Republican propaganda, there'd be no issue... and the only reason you're all upset is because they tried to smear Clinton again and got called on it. :)
Dubya's incompetence has made Iraq quite the play ground for al qaeda and all kinds of other unsavory characters... helped install a shia-dominated, iran leaning Islamic Republic... what's to criticize?
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 05:10 PM
C'mon Ghost. The original production, without the hour removed by Dem censors was hardly a love letter to Bush. Right-wing Hollywood? Right-wing ABC? Get serious! Must you always lie? Did you read the whole 9/11 report? I did. It bore no relation to the Media accounts that circulated at the time. Did the Dems threaten to cut off ABC from their daily talking points, thereby forcing ABC to get those points after the other networks and newspapers had run them? Or, heaven forbid, hire actual reporters to dig up the news? We've been fighting Al Qaeda in IRAQ since the beginning of the war in 2003. Aren't they the guys WHO CLEARLY STATED THAT THEY EXECUTED THE 9/11 ATTACK? Are you guys stupid? Or just liars? Or do you just think the American public are stupid? Maybe ABC can just hire James Earl Jones to read the 9/11 Commission Report on TV with the text appearing on screen. Wouldn't THAT just flush your toilet? And ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et.al., news divisions? People would really get a chance to see just how far removed 'news' is from reality today. Sandy Burger said he didn't hang up the phone and he said he accidentally slipped those copies in his pants and socks...Why wouldn't we believe him? Clinton said he never had sex with that woman. He said a lot of things. Funny how that doesn't make them true.
Heard from Ossama lately? Besides old tapes... OBL lies a'moldering in his grave....May he burn in Hell!
Posted by: Darrell | Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 10:33 AM
You know Darrell, if "The Path to 9-11" hadn't been an attempt to play the Republican spin, guys like you wouldn't even care.
The Republicans wanted their version of events, dramatically showing the Clinton administration in a bad light, out there before the mid-terms.
Maureen Dowd says (NYT, 9 September 2006), "Sandy Berger is lucky they didn’t show him stuffing government documents into his bra."
"Regarding ABC’s tarted-up 9/11 movie that sparked a furor among Clintonites who felt they were unfairly blamed for the rise of Osama, I hate to be so quaint as to defend reality. There’s not much point. It’s as dead as dial-up."
"In Hollywood, reality comes with quotation marks around it, as in fixed and scripted “reality” shows. In New York, hybrids of fiction and nonfiction are lavishly rewarded; publishers want the reality part to sell the fiction part and the fiction part to enhance the reality part."
"Conservatives are crowing at the prospect of an ABC movie written by one of their own that blames 9/11 on a flaccid Clinton national security team."
"Bill was distracted by the Monica fallout, just as W. was distracted, on Osama and Katrina, by his insistence on living life as usual in Crawford. Bill had no natural inclination to use American force and fumbled on how to strike back at Osama. W., petulantly, did not want to focus on terrorism because his predecessor had."
"W. had a clear narrative thread in 2001; all he needed to do was go after the bad guys who hit us. Instead, he obsessed about other bad guys who happened to pose no danger to us."
"Why do presidents and filmmakers dealing with the most stunning events in recent American history feel the need to go beyond facts? Isn’t the dire actuality enough? Oliver Stone implied that Lyndon Johnson and Nixon might have been in some tortuous way connected to plots to kill J.F.K."
"The ABC movie promoted itself as a serious work based on the 9/11 commission report and featuring Tom Kean, the commission’s co-chairman, as a co-executive producer. (It’s impossible to imagine Earl Warren producing a movie about the events in Dallas.) But if it’s making a claim upon people’s attention as a trustworthy and accurate description of events that bear on all our lives, you’ve got to stick with the truth. You can’t pick and choose when you want it to be history and when you want it to be art. (Quel art.)"
French... I think it means something like "art for whatever reason, or maybe art for art's sake"
For Republicans in particular:
Le réalité et toi, vous ne vous entendez pas, n'est-ce pas?
Dowd nearly concludes with a question.
"They distorted history to throw in a standard cliché of melodrama? (The 9/11 Commission Report as Douglas Sirk would have filmed it.) Why compromise your movie by adding tacky things that don’t increase its aesthetic power and detract from its moral power?"
We all know the reason why, don't we Darrell? To leave in the minds of those who don't read much, research much, study or reflect much, a cliche' Republican theme that somehow, it was the Democrats in office that caused, or at least failed to respond to the threat that materialized on 9/11.
That is art for propaganda's sake.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 07:21 AM
One correction. CBS DIDN'T change their Reagan docudrama. Thye moved it intact to cable(Showtime) and DVD. And people did have a chance to read about it in advance. A crew member sent a copy of the script to Drudge and Drudge "published' all the relevant parts--truthiness and all.
Yes, Clinton destroyed an aspirin factory, killing a security guard. And the Clinton people tried to take credit for averting the Millennium bombing plots, but the people actually involved in stopping the perps are on record as saying they had no recollection of any special alerts when they started their day.
If we only had those marked-up copies that Sandy Burger stole from the NA. They weren't just regular copies, you know. According to the NA staff that spoke at the time, they were working copies given to all relevant people for review prior to a report going to editing. That makes them originals--they had handwritten notes from each person in the margins and above the text. One of the reviewers was Bill Clinton. Obviously, the other copies would not have his comments in them. Did he write "Ossama who? Why are we wasting our time with this clown?" I don't know. But when Sandy stole the copies and destroyed them, it gave me the right to speculate. Now, did Sandy really destroy them? Would he do this before his legal troubles were resolved? That would leave him hanging unprotected...and so vulnerable. So very vulnerable. And he did know what happened to Dan Rostenkowski. The Dems let him pay for all the sins of the Dems in their check-kiting and Franking scam. Even though Barbara Boxer and all those current Dems were the biggest offenders in the House Banking Scandal. I wonder if Sandy will have any break-ins in the near future? Like all those women involved in making charges against Bill...Like that flight attendant during Campaign 1992 who lost those pics and other mementos of her association with Bill.
Posted by: Darrell | Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 12:37 AM
If members of the Clinton administration feel that this program slanders them, then they have the right to attempt redress through the court system, bearing in mind of course the higher bar for slander cases in which the aggrieved party is a public figure.
The attempt to exercise prior restraint by threatening the network and/or its affiliates is contemptible.
Posted by: david foster | Saturday, September 09, 2006 at 09:53 AM
Brian,
Yes I did notice, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Since the Democrats are desperate most of the time, their manic actions are always over the top. You only have to check the main page @ Daily Kos now to see how much organization, which by the way people like Tano take seriously, it requires to mobilize an onslaught of covering every Republican oriphise on this issue all over the Blogosphere. It's kinda amusing...I just popped over to see my friend Shrinkwrapped to send him a TrackBack with my Update below, and Tano was there sowing his stuff....typically commenting before bothering to read Shrink's post. They are all simply covering ground as all good Democratic foot soldiers would.
UPDATE: My friend @ Shrinkwrapped, who is a 'registered' Democrat (in his case only administrative I am sure) writes a brilliant psychoanalysis of the politics of it all. Make sure you read it:
[T]he salient point to me is not the truth or falseness of the TV series but the effort to silence ABC. Not only is there is no awareness that the campaign they are running against the Disney Corporation is dangerous but they revel in their ability to use all the forces at their command to intimidate a media outlet. If Republicans did this, the howls of outrage would know no bounds, yet the Democrats, champions of civil liberties as they fancy themselves to be, propose censorship without a trace of irony.
Posted by: Alexandra | Saturday, September 09, 2006 at 09:07 AM
I enjoyed Ghost Dancing's comment. I agree that Bill Clinton did more against terrorism than most people give him credit for. Despite what some people seem to think, Bill Clinton understood the potential danger of extremism / terrorism and tried to do something against this growing problem.
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Saturday, September 09, 2006 at 04:21 AM
Bill Press. That's your source, Bill Press. OK.
Posted by: brian | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 08:50 PM
This is outrageous!
Educational media giant Scholastic, Inc. announced it's dropping its original classroom companion guides to a controversial new docudrama, and replacing them with materials stressing critical thinking and media literacy.
"After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues," said Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic, in a press release.
"The attacks of September 11 were only a few hours old when conservative Congressman Dana Rohrbacher, R-California, blamed Clinton, not the terrorists: “We had Bill Clinton, backing off, letting the Taliban go, over and over again.”
Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh trumpeted on the pages of the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Clinton can be held culpable for not doing enough when he was commander-in-chief to combat the terrorists who wound up attacking the World Trade Center and Pentagon.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who resigned in disgrace, also chimed in, citing Clinton’s “pathetically weak, ineffective ability to focus and stay focused.”
Don't you love it? Gingrich and company derail the president and the country for two whole years over a minor sex scandal in the White House -- magnifying one act of oral sex into a full time, $50 million Independent Counsel investigation, weeks of House Judiciary Committee hearings, impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate -- and then they accuse Clinton of not staying focused on government business!
The truth, of course, is just the opposite. Given how distracted he was by the Lewinsky scandal, (which was of his own making, but blown out of proportion by his political enemies), it’s amazing Clinton was able to continue governing at all. And during that time, as The Washington Post reveals, he did a great deal to combat terrorism, much of it behind the scenes.
Clinton’s most public response, of course, were the cruise missile attacks of 1998, directed against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan, following the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- U. S. strikes missed bin Laden by only a couple of hours.
Even so, Clinton was accused of only firing missiles in order to divert media attention from the Lewinsky hearings. A longer campaign would have stirred up even more criticism.
So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas."...
"Conclusion: Rohrbacher, Limbaugh, Gingrich are dead wrong when they blame Bill Clinton for September 11. Did Clinton get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive?” No, but he came close, several times -- long before tracking down terrorists became a national priority."
For more of the trip down memory lane, follow this URL:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress/
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 07:25 PM
two wrongs do not make a right.
the democratic party is wrong to threaten ABC/CBS inorder to censor them. this is regardless of whether this is a documentary, a work of fiction, of some docudrama.
but it is understandable for the democratic party to get lathered up for political reasons.
what is not excuseable if the the mainstream media to remain so quiet about it. for proponents of free speech to remain in silence. and ofcourse, for the lame ass excuse to say that since the Reagan fanatsy movie was cancelled, this should be too.
Posted by: Huan | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 02:40 PM
One more thing. The request from the dems has morphed from "correct the record", "address inaccuracies" to this:
We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
He said "cancel", as in spike the whole five hours, and quick. Did you notice that little shift, Alexandra, and what do you make of that?
Posted by: brian | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 01:31 PM
Heh. Alexandra, I think there's a bloggy-crush developing here:)
Tano said:
"If Dems were advocating that the government pull this program, or shut down ABC, then you would have a point with your scurrolous charges. But putting public pressure on the network, or SB, to get it right or not do it at all, is consistent with the exercise of free speech. Yes, even your political opponents have that right."
Then the Dems undercut his statement with their offer you really should consider not refusing if you know what's good for your little network there.
Seems your "scurrolous charges", Alexandra, now have a valid point, as admitted by this foolish commenter.
Tano is toast, and Alexandra's stature rises more everyday. Heehe.
Well done ma'am.
Posted by: brian | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 01:17 PM
There's a web petition to keep Path to 9/11 in its original, unClintoned, form. Worth signing.
http://www.webpetitions.com/cgi-bin/print_petition.cgi?99500799
Posted by: Dick | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Awesome Blog! Can't believe how it continues to blow me away!
Keep up the GREAT work!
Posted by: Rightwinger | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 10:26 AM
Not by the government, but by individuals yes. Bill Clinton is not a member of the US government anymore, he now is just a citizen. When someone spreads lies about him, he is able and should be able to sue the heck of out them.
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 05:55 AM
Tano,
Now you are engaging in hyperbole. ABC most certainly never 'admitted' to 'fabrication' in the way you portray it here - no need to prove it to you, because we both know what ABC did mean when they used the term 'fabrication' and 'dramatization'. In fact, the way you distort ABC's statement is testament to Alexandra's charge. The truth here is, that ABC's docudrama doesn't suit the Left at this moment in time. Deny this and you are everything you accuse Alexandra of. To say, that some parts of the series is 'fabrication' in the sense that, in your own words, they were "Promoting debate over a foundation of lies", and then to back it up by quoting ABC's 'own admission', is just being silly apart from being untrue.
Again and again and again, you guys are being untidy at best and duplicitous at worst (btw, that's not meant as an insult; it's an observation based on your own conduct and statements just here today). How can you possibly believe, that ABC 'admitted' to 'lying'? Neither you nor anybody else has any support for accusing ABC of 'lying' or of any deliberate 'fabrication' in the sense of intentionally misleading people. It just isn't there - and misrepresenting ABC's statements on 'fabrication' and 'dramatization' ain't gonna change that. Yet that's all you are about: "...bring yourself to stand up for the truth?"
Yes please, truth please: "events are depicted that did not happen. Converstations take place that did not happen", were explained by ABC as necessary because there simply were no facts available or dramatization required it but ABC also stressed in the strongest possible terms, that they had made every conceivable effort to ensure that these 'fabrications' stayed as close as possible to a truth, which could otherwise not be determined (call it approximation). Nothing could be further from an 'admission', as you put it, and upon which you all seem to be basing your assertion, that "These are, plain and simple, falsehoods". No they are not, and they never have been. You are free to mistrust ABC's statements, but that doesn't make it 'truth', just conjecture on your part.
As to, "You began your post with an outright falsehood. That the "militant lefites" totally fabricated their grievance.". No, Alexandra did not. MM did very clearly fabricate (now here is a correct use of the word if ever there was one) their charges against ABC and SB. It's here for all to see, no need to rely on hearsay. MM simply did not have any shred of evidence to support, what again truly were scurrilous charges (again, a proper use of the word backed up by incontrovertible evidence - it's your problem that you can't be bothered to check the facts, an arrogance, which btw does not aide your case). There was absolutely no basis for MM's claim that ABC were "engaging in the worst kind of political propagandizing and misinformation campaign", but in your speak, MM was caught out lying! And not just any old lies, but some pretty heavy stuff: "worst kind of political propagandizing and misinformation campaign". I mean, come on, get a grip you guys.
Posted by: North by Northwest | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 05:38 AM
The below letter was sent by the Democratic leadership of the US Senate. The liberal Americablog openly says the below letter "is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney", proud of the fact that oooh Disney is in big trouble "The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before."
AllahPundit has it right when he summarizes the letter with a script more akin to the movie 'Godfather': "Wonderful network you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it:"Which part of the official ABC statement issued about the miniseries has not been understood, when the word "fabricate" is constantly used to describe scenes in 'Path to 9/11': "It is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews".
As for libel, what action would you think appropriate to have been taken by the Government as a result of the Michael Moore billed 'documentary' from 2004, for which he received endless praise from the left, and which is used as the liberal '9/11 bible' despite containing no less than 59 serious factual inaccuracies according to Dave Koppel, and most of which involve the President and or the Administration. Needless to say no such action was taken by the Republicans, despite the fact that Moore billed the movie as a 'documentary'.
Posted by: Alexandra | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 05:19 AM
I agree or if they fabricate scenes they should just say so (for instance before the movie really starts or afterwards). In Bill Clinton's case, it's close to libel, perhaps it even is.
In such a case, people should be allowed to sue, since making stuff up does not have anything to do with an opinion.
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 04:41 AM
Would that be the "Crypto-Trotskyite" or the "Anti-Schachtmanite" wing of the Democratic Party?
Unless you get the "Crypto-Trotskyites" and the "Anti-Schactmanites" to agree, I doubt if you could get a united front from the Democrats on the ABC issue.
"Retracing the steps of the long march from Trotskyism to Neoconservatism", May 11, 2006
Reviewer: Tim in Sydney "Tim in Sydney" (Sydney, Australia) - See all my reviews
Great eye for detail. Author traces the rise of "neoconservatism" (surely a contradiction in terms) in the US from it's beginnings amongst 1930s Trotskyites and hard line anti-communist liberals and social democrats in the cold war.
Justin Raimondo shows how these groups were alienated by the developments on the American left during the post-Vietnam era and thus migrated to the right becoming a key part of the Reagan coalition. This faction displaced older line isolationist conservatives. It's not just the defection of former leftists to right as individuals, it was a factional migration.
The trail for the neocon migration of the 1970s was blazed for them by a previous generation of National Review affiliated "New Right" thinkers in the 1950s such as James Burnham.
There is a most interesting profile of Trotsky's main US apostle, Max Schactman. Max had raced to Trotsky's death bed after Stalin had him killed. Max never had the actual elective surgery that converts leftists to a fully fledged neocon, he remained a lifelong socialist. Max saw Washington as the real centre of the true revolution for global social democracy. He even saw the JFK / LBJ's interventions in Cuba and Vietnam as the historically "progressive" force versus Fidel and Ho Chi Minh, essentially reactionary fascist nationalists in marxist drag. The shadow of Max and Leon now influences US policy. Unfortunately.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 04:23 AM
The Democrat Party: 60-100 Million. Not counting convicted felons and illegal aliens recently added.
The "Path To 9/11" is a dramatization, recreating various scenes where a complete transcript is not available. For example, since the terrorist did not consult on the show, a fair amount of guesswork went into those scenes. However, no ambulances were removed from a junkyard to approximate Reuters coverage of an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon. That doesn't mean it strays from the 9/11 Commission Report in substantive ways. The Media coverage of that same report did stray, as reported by dozens of bloggers at the time, giving line-by-line comparisons.
The Left has its "truthiness" as proclaimed by Kos and the DU, meaning their interpretation of an event divorced of the facts. That used to be known as lying, and still is in some places. Now go "GoogleStorm yourselves into a stupor. You do know that Google is Left-leaning, right? Thruthiness to Power!
Posted by: Darrell | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 11:56 PM
I wish ABC would release it straight to the web for a pay-for download. That might shut some whiny people up quickly!
Posted by: Greta (Hooah Wife) | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 10:42 PM
Alexandra,
Wow. It is rather rich to be called "pompous" by someone like you. And to be castigated for being "insulting"! Don't you ever read your own writing? Care to do an "insult-count" of my comments vs. the standard fare that you serve up? Pompous, condescending, insulting and over-the-top mischaracterizations of your political opponents, along with lecturing people you really know nothing about seems to be your stock in trade.
As to "actually seeing the thing", well, I admit - I am perfectly willing to base my conclusion that ABC fabricated scenes, on the simple fact that ABC has admitted to fabricating scenes. We have all read scene descriptions - from rightwingers, not liberals -, plus transcripts have been circulating, and the particpants aver that those scenes did not occur. And the commission report backs that up. And no one has argued that they did occur. And ABC admits the fabrication. What more do you want?
As to the big picture. Why not simply stand up and demand that ABC gets the facts right? You began your post with an outright falsehood. That the "militant lefites" totally fabricated their grievance. By now it is clear that ABC totally fabricated some scenes. Why cant you seem to bring yourself to stand up for the truth?
Posted by: Tano | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 10:08 PM
Northwest,
Cutting through all your insults directed at me, you seem to come down on the position that ABC should cut out all the factual mistakes, and then the production could serve a useful purpose.
That is all that I am asking for too. I have no fear of the debate, I have no desire to demand the elimination of embarrassing portrayals. All I object to is are the factual inaccuracies. Promoting debate over a foundation of lies is not a valuable contribution.
Maybe you should save your speechifying for those who seem to take glee in the portrayals of falsehoods. Maybe they are revealing thier own fear of a fact-based debate.
Posted by: Tano | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 09:54 PM
Tano,
two things:
1) I am inclined to mistrust the denials and rebuttals, because that's all they are at this stage - stop selling politician's yarn two months before elections as gold standard. Just accept that you too don't know the facts and are just as clueless as everybody else at this stage.
2) ABC never suggested that the miniseries be 'taught' like a history lesson, so don't say they did. Instead they promote debate/discussion. How can that scare you? What do you guys have to hide? Could it be, that carefully fabricated liberal spin might be exposed? If not, what's the harm.
Actually you seem to be missing the bigger picture for all your partisan paranoia. The bigger picture of 'How Come?' transcends party politics. The debate is just as indispensable today as it will be 5 years from now. In SB's case, it should damn well have been given the benefit of the doubt instead of channeling a hysterical Communist Party of China facing the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. A dramatized version of the 9-11 commission report is an excellent way to facilitate such a debate, as long as reasonable efforts were made to ensure as much accuracy as possible given the format, and factual (not embarrassing or inconvenient) discrepancies are being rectified.
That's the problem with you guys. You don't place enough trust in your youth and their ability to form their own opinion.
Posted by: North by Northwest | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 08:52 PM
"The militant Left is escalating a firestorm with the clear goal to either censor as 'politically unacceptable', or to completely suppress the upcoming ABC miniseries, "The Path to 9-11". Rhetoric suggests the imminent breakout of hostilities, rapidly turning initial protests into a frenzied witch-hunt, akin only to our Islamofascist foes' response to the Islamic cartoons."
I always love your introductions Alexandra... however it would appear in your case the goal was not achieved. Congratulations :)
The "militant Left"... Would that be one of the following, or all of them collectively?
Socialist Labor Party; DeLeonist, 50 members
News and Letters; Hegelian Marxist, 50 members
Spark; Workerist, 50 members
Sparticist League; Left-Trotyskyist, 200 members
Industrial Workers of the World; Anarcho-Syndicalist, 1000 members
Socialst Action; Trotskyist, 50 members
Freedom Socialist Party; Left-Trotskyist, 100 members
Progressive Labor Party; Anti-Revisionist, 50 members
Solidarity; Trotskyist/Shactmanite, 300 members
Freedom Road Socialist Organization; Post-Maoist, 100 members
http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.html
I don't want to type them all... but they certainly do form a monolithic political force in the United States looming like a gargantuan... thing... ready to fall on our liberties like a brick wall crashing to the ground, or something.
I would be particularly concerned about the Maoist Internationalist Movement:
"A tiny sect of Maoist revolutionaries, formed in October 1983 from an old SDS splinter, "RADACADS." Originally known as the "Revolutionary Internationalist Movement" (RIM), the MIM changed its name in 1984 after the Revolutionary Communist Party took the name RIM for its international organization. The MIM broke with the RCP officially over the issue of the war in El Salvador and the role of the FMLN. Virulently anti-Trotskyist, the MIM labels nearly every group it dislikes as demonstrating some form of "Trotskyist revisionism." They even label their fellow Maoists at the RCP "Crypto-Trotskyists"! Their organization's line also includes right-wing moralist ideas, including homophobia and refusing a woman's right to abortion. Obviously a group of aging New Left kooks, the MIM has only a small clustered membership in Western Massachussetts, Detroit and the Berkeley area. If the MIM used its time for positive organizing instead of blasting possible allies, perhaps some good could be accomplished."
Crypto-Trotskyists... small, but vicious.
With respect to the ABC 9/11 docudrama, the Leftest Broadcast Network, CNN, featured former Secretary of Defense William Cohen, of all people... a member of the Republican "Trotskyist" wing, who had the audacity to say certain scenes where Sandy Burger was restraining the attacks on Bin Ladin were not "factual"... which is OK because docudramas don't have to be "factual", however it would be nice to depict specific incidents, detailed in the 9/11 Report, in accordance with the 9/11 Commission's report, since that is what ABC said it was using as its basis. But hey!
I hope they broadcast the docudrama... I wonder if they will accurately depict Clinton's military actions against al qaeda as the diversions from the Lewinsky scandal, which they trully were.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 07:56 PM
Tano,
I write a long response, you pick the last sentence to which you say "horescrap", then you proceed to lecture me at length on failing to understand the Constitutional guarantee of free speech, having previously told me that you "have zero confidence that [I am] even capable of recognizing something that is unbiased and nonpartisan, if it bit [me] in the behind. All preceded by "Y'know, if you really want to rise above the level of being a hypocritical hack, you really have to work at it."
What a pompous ass you really are, I should have just told you where to go the first time you insulted me instead of wasting precious time responding to you as if you were capable of civilized discussion. You would do well to rein in that unwarranted superciliousness and condescension if you are constitutionally capable of doing so, and stop giving people who you know nothing about, lectures.
I am not sure which part of ABC's statement: "It is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews" you fail to understand; or what "scurrolous [sic] charges" you are averring I am guilty of making, but the idea that you are "not inclined to accept [my] word that [the supporting material is] non-problematical" is an irrelevant insinuation suggesting that I am asking you to take my word for it, when in fact you are the one not possessed of the time to read the evidence provided.
The fact that "[I] don't seem all that upset with the problems in the video" may have something to do with the fact that I reserve my judgment until I have actually seen it. Since you seem to believe to be the epitome of unbiased liberal thought you may consider doing the same. As for dealing with "the bigger picture", don't read one post on ATB and lecture me of micro-managing political debate.
Posted by: Alexandra | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 07:16 PM
As to the SB support material.
It is explicitly intended to support the viewing of the miniseries. As such, if anything, it should directly raise issues that may be problematical in the video, to encourage debate on issues that deserve debate. I dont see that it does that.
I dont have time to read all the supporting materials. I am not inclined to accept your word that they are non-problematical, since you dont seem all that upset with the problems in the video. But even if they are perfectly straight, there is no need for them if the video itself is to be shunned. As it should be.
ABC tries to have it both ways. On the one hand it claims that the video is not a documentary, and they admit that it fabricates scenes and dialog. And yet they then present it with supporting material, to be taught in schools. Thats pretty outrageous. You seem intent on spending your time defending the supporting material, but dont address the larger picture.
There are an enormous number of issues that should be debated about 9/11, using a factual recounting of the events as a foundation. ABC has failed miserably here, and the debate should proceed on more credible foundations.
Posted by: Tano | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 06:24 PM
"a great opportunity has been lost to stimulate urgently needed geopolitical debate"
Oh horsecrap. Just assign the 9/11 commission report itself. Or any of the hundreds of things written about those events from hundreds of diverse sources.
You seem to want your "free speech" all one way. ABC can say what they will, and "indoctrinate" our children with it. But if anyone objects, then they are for censorship.
Free speech is, as you point out, but fail to understand, a Constitutional guarantee. It means the government cannot act to supress free speech. It does not, in any way, prevent free people from objecting to the speech of others, or from actuating their objections in the marketplace, by boycotting networks, or advertisers, or generally making a stink. If Dems were advocating that the government pull this program, or shut down ABC, then you would have a point with your scurrolous charges. But putting public pressure on the network, or SB, to get it right or not do it at all, is consistent with the exercise of free speech. Yes, even your political opponents have that right.
Posted by: Tano | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 05:43 PM
My understanding is that this "documentary" features a scene wherein the CIA literally has a gun pointed at Osama through his window and Clinton insists that the operation be called off, presumably while screwing an intern and shooting Vince Foster.
Why should such crack-addled fantasies be inflicted on the public airwaves?
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 05:17 PM
Alexandra. I greatly appreciate you having an open mind, but allowing illiterates to comment truly goes too far.
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 05:06 PM
Wow, this is where the keep all the crazy when it's not needed.
Posted by: Fred | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 04:43 PM
Tano,
By now you couldn't have missed the point, that I am outraged about the way in which MediaMatters have fabricated their argument to support their condemnation of ABC's student material so as to torpedo ABC's reach into American classrooms. It is my case, that the material is nonpartisan and unbiased and as such perfectly suitable to support and stimulate classroom discussion surrounding what may turn out to be a more controversial miniseries - nothing could be better to provoke proper engagement. My case is that it was wrong to cow Scholastic Books into submission on the basis of trumped up charges specifically involving the student material.
Yet you again ignore the issue of Scholastic Books and instead give me a lecture about the content of the miniseries, about conversations which did not take place in a movie you didn't even see. That makes you a sound-bite carrier.
Again, you reiterate your charge of hypocrisy and dishonesty, but you fail to specify where my post contains either hypocritical or dishonest assertions.
I challenge you to substantiate your charge by dealing with my assertions regarding MediaMatters and Scholastic Books, not the miniseries. To start you off, let me repeat, the only information I have had sight of first hand, is the ABC student material. Read it and show me where it is partisan and biased - your general exegesis of your and/or my propensity to bias is misplaced in relation to this concrete issue.
Now, assuming we can establish common ground on the neutrality of the student material, I aver that it was very much in the interest of both parties and beyond political confines to encourage this debate on the back of said neutral fact sheets. In fact, even if certain artistic license were to plague one side or the other, that should only be welcomed and incorporated into the discussion.
As it is, a great opportunity has been lost to stimulate urgently needed geopolitical debate and discussion in American classrooms, which, I am quite certain, would have angered the Right more than the Left.
Posted by: Alexandra | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 04:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The Path To 9/11″ is taken straight from the 9/11 Commission Report.
THAT IS THE OFFICIAL RECORD.
Barring anything that comes along later. Your little Leftist fantasies ARE NOT the official record. Or fact. Or truth.
Keep this in mind when you’re trying to reconcile what you see with what was reported by the Media after the report came out. The fact that ABC has ALREADY changed the program somewhat is a MAJOR blow to their credibility. The fact that what you should see won’t jibe with was reported in already etched in their tombstone. Keep these things in mind when you hear the media say that the Dems are poised for unprecedented election victories in November. That’s what they were saying in 2004. And 2002, and during the Clinton years for the House and Senate. Why do they say this? To get you to stay home and not vote. Then it will come true. The Dems maintain that they have been in an ongoing election campaign since 2002. Do you remember when it started? The Dems launched their “Talk Down The Economy” campaign(formulated in invitation-only meetings, attended by representatives of the Media as participants, not reporters, in Nov. and Dec of 2001-when the rest of the Nation was planning out response to 9/11). They stated that they would gain 6 seats in the House and, I forget how many seats in the Senate, for every 100-point drop in the Dow. Also recall that the Dow HAD recovered from its post-9/11 lows and we had a strong Christmas season before the campaign began. Also recall how much money YOU lost when the market declined. And recall how reporters never asked Dems to justify this campaign or whether they(the Dems) sold out their portfolios before they launched the attack on the American economy. Now recall that all the Dems were saying that we can’t invade Iraq because George Bush WON”T do what is necessary and commit US troops to Iraq for maybe the decade necessary to insure security in the region.(see Charlie Rose tapes and transcripts). That would make Iraq MORE dangerous that it was under Saddam. Now vote in November. Tell the Democrats YOU remember.
The Left's Post-WWII US Agenda--
1) Take absolute control of education.
2) Take absolute control of the media.
3) Take absolute control of all government.
They're batting two out of three so far...
By the way, the CBS Reagan miniseries was NOT a documentary--it was a work of FICTION. I know how the Left always confuses those two. The author confessed to not relying on official documents, but "putting herself in Reagan's mind" to create dialogue and event never reported or recorded. It is the first use of "Not true, but accurate..." in the modern period. CBS would go on to make it the cornerstone of their news operations.
Posted by: Darrell | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 04:17 PM
Why should a slanderous, fictitious account of 9/11 be presented to anyone, much less to students? What's the point? If it's fiction, where's the educational value?
"The Path to 9/11" obviously and admittedly is designed to catapult even more divisive, tired, anti-Clinton, pro-Bu$h propaganda just before a national election, so just who is attempting to indoctrinate whom?
allthingsbeautiful, indeed. Lies are ugly.
Posted by: OleHippieChick | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 04:01 PM
Kenny, is it safe to say that you're not really fond of that Brock? ;)
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 03:36 PM
Alexandra,
Everything you write, and everything about this blog reflects a point of view. I love freedom of speech - you just keep doing what your doing. Though I strongly disagree with most of what you say, I will die to defend your right to speak.
But neither you, nor I, are unbiased and nonpartisan. And I have zero confidence that you are even capable of recognizing something that is unbiased and nonpartisan, if it bit you in the behind. The reason is obvious. You occupy and expound from your own perspective. I believe that you truly are sincere in your beliefs. You believe what you say. An unbiased account of any subject that you deal with, will look diffently than your account of it. And so you will see it as wrong. I dare say that anything that you would ever praise as being unbiased and nonpartisan, would be something that you basically agree with. Such are the blinders we all tend to wear.
The facts here are quite simple. 9/11 is the defining event of our generation. On the fifth anniversary of the event, a major network produces an account of the events that lead up to it. It is not cast as some allegorical work. Real people's names are used. Real events are depicted. It is packaged as an educational event. Students are even encouraged to study it. And yet, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, events are depicted that did not happen. Converstations take place that did not happen. These are not matters of opinion, or simply seeing the world from a different perspective. These are not the raw materials for honest debate about how to interpret events. These are, plain and simple, falsehoods.
You have not at all evaded the hypocrisy charge. These are EXACTLY the issues that Republicans and conservatives raised over the Reagan docudrama. Their campaign to silence the production was successful. It was pulled from CBS and cast into the obsucrity of a minor cable channel. That would be an appropriate fate for this production as well.
Y'know, if you really want to rise above the level of being a hypocritical hack, you really have to work at it. It isn't always comfortable to be honest. Not everything that anyone who agrees with you does or says is always the right thing. If you are unable or unwilling to argue against interest, in defense of principle, even in as obvious a case as this, then you deserve a reputation different from the one you imagine for yourself.
Posted by: Tano | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 03:32 PM
Unintentional Comedy Award:
Hee hee hee...ah, yes right up until this documentary that had the temerity to imply criticism of Saint Bill, no major network had ever misinformed our children on recent events...it's as if the long and never-ending string of discredited attacks on Bush never happened. Or at least, were never discredited...which, come to think of it, in Brock's pitiful little excuse for a mind, they probably never were. After all, in Brock World, I'm sure you could flush down a toilet not only a Koran, but the Vedas -- if it would reflect badly on Bu$hHitler. And in Brock World, Microsoft Word was the word processor of choice for Vietnam-era National Guardsmen...and in Brock World, a missile makes a hole in a van that looks exactly like the hole you make when you pull the air ventilator out, and shrapnel holes rust overnight; and in Brock World, the Tet Offensive was a military loss; and in Brock World...
[chuckling delightedly at the follies of mankind in general and the Erstwhile Anita Hill Character Assassin in particular]
Posted by: Kenny | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 03:25 PM
Tano,
And exactly how do you know that it is factually inaccurate before watching it?
Don't answer that, because I am really not that concerned with scoring points over Republicans vs CBS and Liberals vs ABC. It's only a side-show.
The real outrage is that Scholastic Books have felt the need to bow to militant lefties' intimidation and the fact, that MediaMatters' claims were entirely bogus. I read the PDF documents and can tell you with absolute confidence, they are completely unbiased and truly nonpartisan - just as a heavy left leaning ABC team had intended. No matter what the verdict on the Series will be, the student material does not pose any threat to any party - it's as dry as it could possibly be. Which is why this particular incident involving Scholar Books is so despicable
Has it not occurred to the rabid militants, that, even if the alleged omissions were not so completely bogus as I have shown above, ABC could not have remained neutral if it had added any partisan assertions, irrespective of whether they are supported by the Left or by the Right. Do they not worry losing credibility, when it is so blatantly evident, that all MediaMatters had in mind was to discredit ABC and its promotion via Scholastic Books at all costs; that the only purpose for referencing these sorry quotations as so called 'evidence', was to shout out preconceived accusations?
Does it not pain to realize, when such harsh and heavy-handed accusations are based on nothing but complete fraud and fabrication?
Do they not realize, how damaging such display of total dishonesty will be? Are there no more standards to uphold and protect, no moral high ground to defend?
I suggest a lot of soul searching is in order if any integrity of the Democratic/Liberal message is to remain. Start with your own mates:
As for your I believe I have shown beyond any doubt that the only hypocricy here has been committed by MediaMatters and those who have eagerly jumped onto their band-wagon to suppress the dialogue and debate in American schools. So much for the liberals' liberty.If you would like to engage in a discussion deal with what I am saying and don't just repeat unrelated sound-bites from liberal blogs flapping about CBS' Reagan documentary and their Michael Moore versions of 9/11.
Posted by: Alexandra | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 02:53 PM
The Liberals putting up such a tantrum of repulsion for ~untruths~ truly remind me of how Totalitarian governments ~educate~(re:brain-wash) their youth into believing the opposite- to the point of fabrication(&)illusion.
Michael, that goes beyond Socialistic, eh? No wonder they have such an affinity for the plight of Terrorists- not that they want to be terrorized any more than the average Conservative, or anything. heh.
Posted by: karen | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 01:58 PM