Clinton Demands ABC PULL Miniseries

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 7 2006, 04:27 PM) [snapback]315966[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, you're right, it was really a bold faced lie but I was toning it down to be nice. My bad.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Sep 7 2006, 02:36 PM) [snapback]315973[/snapback]</div>

Do you deny that he agreed to give them two light-water nuclear reactors?

Wildkow

 

http://www.housedemocrats.gov/news/library..._content_id=876

I tried to do a little reading on this, and to the extent that it can be shown to be factually inaccurate (not just a dramatization of events with some creative license taken in the places that cannot be filled in), it should probably be re-edited. 911 is a part of "our" history, and changed America in some big ways, and care should be taken not to misrepresent events in which there is known fact.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 7 2006, 04:58 PM) [snapback]315933[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

They should AIR it..

But funny reply kow.. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 7 2006, 05:56 PM) [snapback]315985[/snapback]</div>

Why won't anyone talk about Reagan giving the Taleban stinger missiles. I sense the republicans don't like this bit of history coming up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 7 2006, 03:15 PM) [snapback]315894[/snapback]</div>

The worst part is the ABC is incouraging Schools to show the film to students !!!!! I always thought we should teach facts in school.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Sep 7 2006, 08:38 PM) [snapback]316061[/snapback]</div>

Here you go.

Hmmm, R.Reagan~

Reagan supplied the Mujahedin with weapons (not the Taliban) to fight the soviets who invaded Afganistan in 1979.. I dont hold Reagan responcible for the creation of the Taliban as there was no such group at the time.. Osama Bin Laudin was a member of the Mujahedin at the time and he was concidered a freedom fighter. Somewere down the road Osama turned to the DARK SIDE if you will and formed the Taliban..

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=13802

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1832


http://backword.me.uk/2005/March/aclarification.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/278.html

 

Hey, as long as Fox continues to represent themselves as unbiased then ABC should be able to show anything they want. If the American public looks at anything on television and believes it to be absolute truth then we are truly losing our minds.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 7 2006, 09:42 PM) [snapback]316087[/snapback]</div>

The Mujahedin always hated the western world. It was playing with fire to arm them, and it was playing with fire to finance them.

And it burned us in the end.

RR was directly responsible for 9/11 with these actions.

 

Didn't Ronald Reagan have something to do with Iraq and Saddam Hussein?

I seem to recall a miniseries about a certain political figure (Reagan). It was scheduled to air on a major network(CBS) but the GOP and his family made such a stink it was reworked and then shown on Showtime, limited to those willing to pay to see it.

Once more, it's that pesky double standard at work again. It's OK for the GOP to pressure a network to shelve a movie that doesn't reflect favorably on a Republican, but heaven forbid a Democrat should object when he is the object of a questionable piece of TV entertainment.

BTW ABC can do what they want. I won't be watching it anyway.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 7 2006, 01:33 PM) [snapback]315909[/snapback]</div>

As I understand the controversy, the show has an account where CIA operatives are in Afghanistan and near OBL, waiting on word to "take him out" or not. The word comes back to let him go. This incident, as portrayed, never happened. The writer of the mini-series claims that he used the fictional scene to dramatize several decisions that had the net effect of "letting him go" but would be hard to portray in a movie.

I hate this kind of stuff. Why not simply leave that scene out, and have dialog of one of the characters make that point? Or clarify the questionable legality of killing OBL under our laws at that time?

I also understand that the mini-series is not very complimentary of any Administration, going back to the Beirut bombings where we retreated and lobbed some big shells into Lebanon, then sailed away during the Reagan administration. The truth is we simply did not take the threat of terror very seriously, in either party or in any administration, until 9/11.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 7 2006, 11:51 PM) [snapback]316163[/snapback]</div>

Yep. The Reagans in 2003.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22754-8502r.htm

Matt Drudge was interviewed for the article and said:

 

I don't have a TV and have not seen the show, so I'll only speak in generalities:

Much of the American public is so out of touch with reality that they cannot distinguish between TV fiction and the real world. They cannot distinguish between an actor and the character he plays. Ronald Reagan himself once made a remark in an interview about when he was in some battle or other in WW II. He never served in the war. He had played a soldier in a movie!

Given that climate, it is the height of irresponsibility to air fiction that appears to represent actual events, but distorts them to the point of libelling public figures.

If the series misrepresents Clinton's actions (or the actions of any other public figure) it should be pulled.

However, TV in general is principally a propaganda machine (e.g. misleading advertising) and in my opinion, the medium itself should be shut down.

 

ABC has said they will air disclaimers stating that the account is fictional, but as we all know that simply does not work with the way our mind thinks.

unless its 100% fictional, the disclaimers might as well be in sign language on a blank screen.

simply mix a few facts in with the fiction and the point will be made, right or wrong. using real names like clinton and others will be more than enough to do the trick... pretty underhanded deal that im sure bush is getting all warm and gushy over.

doesnt matter. i dont see it helping his popularity anyway

 

I think it would be irresponsible and wrong of ABC to air the show, and here's why:

1. It's a major network, with a very broad reach, and spreading misinformation like that I think is irresponsible. As Dave stated, people are supremely gullible, and since probably most of what's in the show is real and true, and much of it will be pulling at the heartstrings of the American public, more people will more readily blieve it as "documentary." I think it's a greater offense to lie about those kind of things in that context.

2. The timing is clearly political. Bush and the Republicans have only 1 leg to stand on, and that's 9/11. Not Iraq, not security, but 9/11. A couple months before the elections and we're suddenly hearing an awful lot about 9/11 again? Bring it up if you like, but don't lie about it to so many people all at once because they will believe you.

I guess I just described precisely why Republicans definitely will be in favor of showing this piece (of garbage). I'm just gonna have to wait to overhear conversations after it airs with people talking about how shocking it was that Clinton had OBL in his sights and decided to let him go.

And I really got a kick out of PriusGuy04's defense of arming and supporting OBL & co. because at the time they were "FREEDOM fighters." LOL!! At the time they were the only option for combatting the Soviets without sending Americans there to die. Just because they were on the US payroll doesn't mean they were fighting for "freedom" or that OBL was ever a really good guy who just eventaully went bad.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 8 2006, 10:04 AM) [snapback]316296[/snapback]</div>

there is a difference between free speech and responsible free speech.

adding fiction to fact and presenting it as one (er, lying to the american public) is not responsible.