Politicians Seek to Censure Media That Portray Them Critically in the WoT [Archive]

Crazed Rabbit

09-08-2006, 18:02

That's right, American politicians are seeking to censure a company from showing a 'docu-drama' that portrays them and their associates in a very critical light regarding their actions during the time leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

This docu-drama, based in part upon the findings of the 9/11 commission, has gathered heated criticism from politicians who are trying to intimidate the company producing it, ABC, into changing it to suit their own political agenda or dropping it comepletely. One group of senators sent a letter to ABC's parent company, Disney, with veiled threats of taking away their license to broadcast if the show is not changed to suit their tastes.

Let me say that again: those with power in our nations capital are going all out in an attempt to pressure an independent company because the duco-drama they made is not favorable to them. Even now-retired officials are using all their weight to shut this down.

So why haven't you heard about it? Becuase it is democrats and ex-clinton officials, and Clinton himself, doing all the pressuring and intimidation. It is not Bush, his administration, or Republicans, but democrats seeking to pressure an independent media company into altering their show. I guess they can't stand the public seeing how Clinton and company handled Osama during his administration right before the '06 elections. Funny when you consider who whines about suppression of the press.

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-wk-channel7sep07,0,6155461.story?coll=cl-tv-features

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090601819_pf.html

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/bubba_goes_ballistic_on_abc_about_its_damning_9_11_movie_nationalnews_ian_bishop_________post_corres pondent.htm

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzcxNGZkMGQ3Y2E3NjY4NmVlMzBkMWFiMDVkYmUzNWY=

The threatening letter from some Senators:
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzMyNjE1N2UwZjk4ODY3MjYzYTdhNzgwMTkwZjYwMDE=

A thorough dissection (of some) of these politicians claims:
http://occupied-territory.blogspot.com/2006/09/dear-sandy.html

Crazed Rabbit

yesdachi

09-08-2006, 18:35

Sometimes the truth hurts, suck it up and sleep in the beds you’ve made. Crybaby bitches. If it is not true they can sue for slander (or something), I don’t think we will see many lawsuits, just a bunch of has-beens trying to spin it and rewrite history.

I don’t know why this is such a big deal, everyone already knows that when Clinton was dropping his pants for Monica his administration was dropping Americas pants for Osama.

Rush Limbaugh got an advanced copy and gave it a little review on his radio program yesterday, what I thought was funny is that many of the people (former Clinton administration) that are upset about it haven’t even seen it yet.

I can’t wait to see the program, even though I am sure it will frustrate me.

Marshal Murat

09-08-2006, 21:06

I think that this program is more entertainment and not scholastic in nature, and should be broadcast on public airways. If it's not scholastic, then why is there a show about women talking to other women about stuff, shows about doctors, and other such media that NO ONE LEARNS FROM.

Lemur

09-08-2006, 22:01

What's pathetic is that whenever somebody makes a ruckus like this, it only gives the object of their wrath free publicity. So not only are they being silly; they're promoting the thing that's irritating them. You would think people would learn.

The story is featured prominently on Google News, so I don't know about whether or not this is being soft-shoed by the (repeat after me) liberal elite defeatist anti-american ivory tower media. (Except for Fox news. They're okay.)

Interesting snippet from the coverage on E! (http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,19958,00.html?fdnews) shows that the author is not claiming he based the script entirely on the 9/11 report, which is good:

The film's writer-producer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, whose credits include the 2001 docudrama The Day Reagan Was Shot, dismissed such assertions. In an interview Wednesday with Los Angeles radio station KRLA-AM, the filmmaker explained away the contradictions with the 9/11 Commission by insisting Path was based on two other books, The Cell by former ABC journalist John Miller and Michael Stone, and The Relentless Pursuit by Samuel Katz.

He also said that he took dramatic license with certain events. "You know, when you're making a movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place. It’s the job of the filmmaker to say, 'You know, maybe we can use that.' "

Well, if I can't get a completely accurate rendition of history from an ABC miniseries, where will I turn?

Tribesman

09-08-2006, 22:52

So why haven't you heard about it?
Well who hasn't heard of it ? you managed to find plenty of links , which must have been really hard as it clearly is absent from both the mainstream media and all the little independants and certainly isn't being covered worldwide .:dizzy2:

So I take it you mean why havn't the secret sect of monks from Bhutan who have taken a vow never to view any form of media heard of it ?
Well I hate to disappoint you Rabbit , but their vow also covers the internet so they will not be able to answer you .:laugh4:

Lemur

09-08-2006, 22:56

So why haven't you heard about it? Becuase it is democrats and ex-clinton officials, and Clinton himself, doing all the pressuring and intimidation.
Indeed. That explains the 1,060 stories (http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ncl=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/washington/09path.html%3Fref%3Dus&hl=en) listed as current on Google News. Damn you, Clinton!

Crazed Rabbit

09-08-2006, 23:30

My question was rhetorical and certainly not intended to imply that noone has heard of it, only that the mainstream media isn't making a fuss about this, not that the AP hasn't written a story on it. As journalists know, there is a big difference between writing one story and doing a multi-part series on the front page. The point is the MSM isn't getting their panties in a bunch over this because its the democrats trying to pressure ABC.

Well who hasn't heard of it ? you managed to find plenty of links , which must have been really hard as it clearly is absent from both the mainstream media and all the little independants and certainly isn't being covered worldwide .

Strawmen (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)must shiver in fright whenever they see you. Did I say it was absent from the mainstream media? No, I did not.

So I take it you mean why havn't the secret sect of monks from Bhutan who have taken a vow never to view any form of media heard of it ?
Well I hate to disappoint you Rabbit , but their vow also covers the internet so they will not be able to answer you .

Perhaps you should try to stop making strawmen and then building your argument off that. Of course, then you might have to take advantage of what, I'm sure, is your amazing education and think a bit.

Anyways, what do you think of the politicos doing this Lemur? Surely you must have some opinion on them? It almost appears like you're trying to ignore what they're doing.

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg

09-08-2006, 23:36

Xiahou

09-08-2006, 23:53

This reminds me much of the media crisis around the Biography of Ronald Regan.

What disappoints me is what some of the Senator's and Congressmen are doing in their tactics of applying pressure in regards to a television show.
Just goes to show that all of the politicans in our current government deserve the boot.
Did sitting Senators write threatening letters demanding edits to the Reagan movie? I seem to remember it as a more grassroots protest- I could be wrong.

Redleg

09-09-2006, 00:00

Did sitting Senators write threatening letters demanding edits to the Reagan movie? I seem to remember it as a more grassroots protest- I could be wrong.

Hince you see the part about what disappoints me

Xiahou

09-09-2006, 00:07

Redleg

09-09-2006, 00:26

Well I agree it's disappointing. At least this show purports itself to be a docu-drama. Some of the dialog and specific situations are dramatized, but there's no doubt that Clinton passed up several opportunities to assassinate bin Laden. I'm afraid that the Democrats who are complaining want all references to that purged from the record.

Given that a past president signed an executive order stating that the United States does not use assassinate as a policy of state, that seems to be an acceptable response in my opinion. However it does not excuse the failure of the Clinton Adminstration to attempt to capture and bring him to trail during several of those opportunities.

Xiahou

09-09-2006, 01:03

I dont think the cruise missiles that Clinton had launched were intended to capture Bin Laden.

As to Reagan's executive order:
There was little question that under U.S. law it was permissible to kill bin Laden and his top aides, at least after the evidence showed they were responsible for the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. The ban on assassinations -- contained in a 1981 executive order by President Ronald Reagan -- did not apply to military targets, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had previously ruled in classified opinions. Bin Laden's Tarnak Farm and other terrorist camps in Afghanistan were legitimate military targets under this definition, White House lawyers agreed.

Also, the assassination ban did not apply to attacks carried out in preemptive self-defense -- when it seemed likely that the target was planning to strike the United States. White House and Justice Department lawyers debated whether bin Laden qualified under this standard as well, and most of the time agreed that he did.From Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59781-2004Feb21.html)

That whole story lends further credence to what was being portrayed in the movie (before they re-cut it to make Clinton happy) that the Clinton administration wasnt taking Al Qaeda seriously.

Tribesman

09-09-2006, 01:33

Perhaps you should try to stop making strawmen and then building your argument off that.
Rabbit you muppet , you made the strawman with your opening post.:dizzy2:

Redleg

09-09-2006, 01:59

I dont think the cruise missiles that Clinton had launched were intended to capture Bin Laden.

Neither were they assassinatipn attempts, as stated in the reasoning behind the use of the cruise missiles - they were attempting to destroy the Terrorist base camps and their command structure. But we digress from the actual topic. (The Predator drones, especially the one used in Yemen not so long ago could be considered a violation of the Executive order banning assassinations, as a policy of state.)

That whole story lends further credence to what was being portrayed in the movie (before they re-cut it to make Clinton happy) that the Clinton administration wasnt taking Al Qaeda seriously.

That has been known for some time.

Divinus Arma

09-09-2006, 02:56

This story has some legs.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/9/911_FILM_CLINTON_OFFICIALS?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-09-08-19-31-38

ABC Gets More Pressure to Toss 9/11 Film
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- ABC faced growing pressure Friday about its planned miniseries on the buildup to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Former Clinton administration officials, historians and a Democratic petition with nearly 200,000 signatures urged the network to scrap the five-hour drama.

Apparently the Bin Laden event is "false" according to every Democrat except for the CIA agent on the ground during the event. And that CIA agent is no friend of the GOP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer He's the author of "Imperial Hubris: Why America is Losing the War on Terror".

ABC would be nuts to pull the show, given all the buzz about the miniseries.

Crazed Rabbit

09-09-2006, 03:30

Perhaps you should try to stop making strawmen and then building your argument off that.
Rabbit you muppet , you made the strawman with your opening post.:dizzy2:

Ah, the good old ad hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html). I was wondering how soon you'd resort to it. Perhaps you should try and get a refund from any debate classes you might have attended.

And you need to read the link for a strawman argument:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Did I misrepresent the actions or positions of those democrat Senators or Clinton and his gang? No, I did not. Of course, had you read the links, you would have seen that. But what time is there for learning when there are personal attacks to be launched? Perhaps next time you'll get a clue and bring some actual arguments instead of the same, tired logical fallacies. I worry for you when you seem to so fervently believe that you're actually debating. :no:

Crazed Rabbit

Pindar

09-09-2006, 03:36

Given that a past president signed an executive order stating that the United States does not use assassinate as a policy of state, that seems to be an acceptable response in my opinion.

Hello,

An Executive Order is not codified law. The Executive may change, amend, suspend, overrule or narrowly interpret such as deemed fit at any time. The Executive Order(s) (EO) in question (Reagan's being the most recent) have typically been subject to a wide array interpretation. The language of the EOs are particularly ambiguous. A simple example is assassination is never actually defined in any of the EOs.

Don Corleone

09-09-2006, 03:38

If anybody doubts that Clinton seriously underestimated the threat Al-Queda posed and gave them more free passes then they deserved, in effect encouraging them, they're delusional. If anybody similarly thinks that Bush and company didn't get blindsided without a clue, again, they're delusional. Both administrations failed their most basic task miserably. There's no covering that up.

For Congress to step in and threaten to pull the license of a major network for telling a drama that is more true in the general than anything we've seen in the past 6 years, even if it is wrong in the particulars convinces me we don't need to worry about losing our free expression any more. That train has apparently left the station.

Xiahou

09-09-2006, 04:18

That whole story lends further credence to what was being portrayed in the movie (before they re-cut it to make Clinton happy) that the Clinton administration wasnt taking Al Qaeda seriously.That has been known for some time.
Known to us certainly.:wink:
Certain members of the Clinton administration (including Clinton himself) must not think it well-known or they wouldnt be trying so hard to stifle any portayal of it. :yes:

Lemur

09-09-2006, 04:44

ABC would be nuts to pull the show, given all the buzz about the miniseries.
Amen to that. The misguided Dems who are making a ruckus, well, like I said, you can't buy that kind of publicity.

Xiahou

09-09-2006, 04:58

They should leave it un-edited and bill it as "The mini-series the politcians don't want you to see." :laugh4:

Reverend Joe

09-09-2006, 05:09

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :laugh4:

You people make me laugh so much... so the man made up a bunch of wild crap because he hates Clinton. Who cares? Don't watch it. And if you believe it- too bad! Go ahead, believe whatever comes over the glass screen... ignorance is bliss.

Divinus Arma

09-09-2006, 05:18

Reverend Joe

09-09-2006, 06:14

Actually the CIA agent is a Democrat who dislikes Bush.
You need to relax more... you people are all alike: clever people and grocers. Always weighing, always knowing the exact measurements and facts. A man makes a documentary full of lies- what can be divided about that? Only a fool sees truth in what comes on the television. It is all a pack of lies, and the sooner you see, the easier it is to laugh at.

Damn them all! Damn all the idiots who claim to know our minds, our will, our hearts!

https://img157.imageshack.us/img157/5303/zorbadances3ls8.jpg

Lemur

09-09-2006, 06:18

Judging by some of the reviews (http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-elf08.html), this miniseries is going to need all of the free publicity it can get.

It's hard to fathom a brouhaha brewed over such a bore. ABC has received tens of thousands of letters -- including one from Bill Clinton's office -- insisting "Path" is wildly inaccurate and should not air. But ABC still plans to air the two-part movie.

Controversy could boost viewership, except "Path" is the dullest, worst-shot TV movie since ABC's disastrous "Ten Commandments" remake. It substitutes shaky handheld cameras and dumb dialogue for craftsmanship. It could not be more amateurish or poorly constructed unless someone had forgotten to light the sets.

Oooh, this (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060908/ENT03/609080342) reviewer does a textbook "damning with faint praise" ...

Though "The Path to 9/11" lacks the high-level artistic excellence of such recent 9/11 feature films as "Flight 93" and "World Trade Center," there is a worthy, nuts-and-bolts integrity to the carefully stitched dramatic quilt of the storytelling on this thoughtfully well-wrought miniseries.

I still don't plan to watch it. I can think of much more profitable ways to spend five hours. Maybe if it winds up being a true cultural phenomenon I'll catch it later ...

Xiahou

09-09-2006, 06:31

Well, I wasn't planning on watching it before- and I'm definitely not planning on watching it now that they're recutting it. I'm really disappointed in ABC for knuckling under to pressure from politicians so easily though.

Where's their righteous indignation and cries of censorship on this one? :no:

Crazed Rabbit

09-09-2006, 07:51

Dems are rather vile and foolish regarding this, and I sense more foolishness over this soon.

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

09-09-2006, 07:58

Ah, the good old ad hominem. I was wondering how soon you'd resort to it. Perhaps you should try and get a refund from any debate classes you might have attended.

Well rabbit perhaps you had better read what you wrote:oops: if you cannot remember it is in the first post of the topic written by Crazed Rabbit:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: if you need more help you could look at it when it is bolded again .:dizzy2:

So why haven't you heard about it?
Errr .......we have . Oh but thats just rhetorical isn't it you are only asking people why they havn't heard of something when they have heard of something .....errrrr ....... thats not rhetorical rabbit thats bollox .
But then you give a bollox reason why people havn't heard what they have heard.....Becuase it is democrats and ex-clinton officials, and Clinton himself, doing all the pressuring and intimidation. It is not Bush, his administration, or Republicans, but democrats seeking to pressure an independent media company into altering their show......ahhhhh of course the good old liberal media bias that doesn't report things ...but it is reported isn't it :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: So you manage not only a strawman and an ad hominen in your opening post you don't even realise .
Perhaps you should try to stop making strawmen and then building your argument off that. Of course, then you might have to take advantage of what, I'm sure, is your amazing education and think a bit.
perhaps you should heed your own words .:idea2:

whyidie

09-09-2006, 16:51

Wasn't it a local ABC affiliate that tried aired a hack piece on John Kerry during the '04 elections ? Or was it the other way around ?

Either way the difficulty is if "Some of the dialog and specific situations are dramatized" while the majority of the movie is based on fact it gives the impression that the whole docu-drama is based on reality. Its a bit devious if you asked me. Oliver Stones JFK did similar things and there was huge controversy surrounding that film as well. Senatorial involvement prior to the release of JFK ?

No, but I'd say the timing of the release of the show (purely coincidental) puts the Democratic party in a unique position. It is a fine line, and maybe one that should not be approached, but as long as they did not threaten to legislate against ABC they are protecting their interests in a legal manner. Maybe it would have been more acceptable if no politicians currently holding office were involved in sending the letter.

As for ABC caving in I'm going to have to say I would like to see why they pulled it.

Crazed Rabbit

09-09-2006, 17:51

Dems are rather vile and foolish regarding this, and I sense more foolishness over this soon.

Crazed Rabbit

Boy, did I call that one.:laugh4: :laugh4:

I think its hilarious that can never bring yourself to apologize for ad hominems, and your last post just went off on some crazy tangent.:inquisitive: :laugh4:

Even more hilarious is that you ignored most of my post explaining just what a strawman was and why I had not made one, and just bring up your tired and disproven accusation of me creating a strawman. Most hilariously, you pump out another strawman, saying I said the "liberal media bias that doesn't report things". I'll be understanding of your 'grasp' of English and assume you meant the "liberal media", as a bias cannot report things, the only problem being that I never said they hadn't reported it.
:oops: :idea2: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Thrashing your...um...well we can't call them arguments, really, so why not rants? Anyway, thrashing your rants is rather unsatisfying, though, as it's about the same intellectual challenge as debating a third grader (though they would probably stop using strawman arguments after a bit). :laugh4:

You can always tell yourself that you're awfully good at arguing against absurd positions that you make up for people, though. :2thumbsup:

To contributing members of this thread; how far should politicians reasonably object to this? I think its fair to say 'that's not how we see it, and we'd prefer they didn't show it like that.' But its going a bit far, I thnk, to demand they pull it and threaten the company.

Crazed Rabbit

Lemur

09-09-2006, 17:59

How far should politicians reasonably object to this? I think its fair to say 'that's not how we see it, and we'd prefer they didn't show it like that.' But its going a bit far, I thnk, to demand they pull it and threaten the company.
Honestly, I think any attempt to squelch a film/book/article is misguided. You can issue a corrective statement, but doing more is counter-productive.

Two exceptions: (1) If you can pressure behind-the-scenes, then I suppose it's not completely stupid to twist some arms. Happens all the time, and this is more or less how I expect things to run. (2) If the film/book/article becomes a major hit, then you're going to have to respond in some way, preferably indirectly. I think the oil-company-sponsored "amateur" YouTube responses to Gore's film were much cleverer than this ham-handed blustering by the minority party.

Really, the way the Democrats are behaving, you would think they had invested in Disney stock.

Best example of what I'm talking about -- when the film "Sid & Nancy" came out, Johnny Rotten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Rotten) was portrayed inaccurately, to an extent that he could have sued, and probably won. He chose to do nothing, reasoning that any lawsuit would just create hype and publicity, so he let it slide. Now nobody really pays much attention to the film, unless it's on cable at 4 a.m.

That is the correct way to handle this sort of thing.

Lemur

09-09-2006, 18:17

Sorry for the double post, but this is a separate thing, so I took the liberty.

That (repeat after me) known bastion of liberal tree-hugging defeatist elitist east-coast ivory tower journalism, the New York Post, has put out an op-ed piece (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/path_missed_real_9_11_story_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm) by Podhoretz, who has at least seen the miniseries, which is more than most of the commentators can say:

Ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's anger is unquestionably justified. The version that I saw has her self-righteously owning up to actions that effectively tipped off Osama bin Laden to a strike against his Afghan training camp. "We had to inform the Pakistanis," the movie's Albright insists.

The real Albright says she neither did nor said such a thing and that the meeting we see in the movie never took place. The 9/11 Commission report, on which the film is partly based, says it was a senior military official who told the Pakistanis.

The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn't deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden.

Crazed Rabbit

09-09-2006, 18:38

Lemur, you don't have to call them ivory tower if you already called them elitist.

Also, I do recall that before one attempt to get bin Laden, Clinton's administration tipped off the Pakistanis, who tipped off bin Laden, who escaped, though I don't know who Albright fits into that.

I also recall that the movie's makers have admitted to streamlining some scenes and events.

You're right about the ham-handedness of the dems, though it looks like it might work. Remember, they aren't just complaining about it, but trying to intimidate ABC & Disney.

Crazed Rabbit
PS-do you have any links to the youtube oil company thing?

whyidie

09-09-2006, 20:00

Two exceptions: (1) If you can pressure behind-the-scenes, then I suppose it's not completely stupid to twist some arms. Happens all the time, and this is more or less how I expect things to run. (2) If the film/book/article becomes a major hit, then you're going to have to respond in some way, preferably indirectly. I think the oil-company-sponsored "amateur" YouTube responses to Gore's film were much cleverer than this ham-handed blustering by the minority party.

Really, the way the Democrats are behaving, you would think they had invested in Disney stock.

After actually reading the content of the letter its really pretty well crafted:

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. [...]

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. 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.

I disagree with the behind the scenes manuevring. While I expect that happens all the time. All the time, all the time. I'd prefer that they were more transparent in their dealings. Although I'm sure this was just the public face of the "assualt" on ABC.

I think this is about as far as currently employed government officials should go. The rest should be done by PAC's and other party groups.

Tribesman

09-09-2006, 20:22

I think its hilarious that can never bring yourself to apologize for ad hominems, and your last post just went off on some crazy tangent
Silly boy rabbit ..... you manage not only a strawman and an ad hominen in your opening post you don't even realise .

Even more hilarious is that you ignored most of my post explaining just what a strawman was and why I had not made one, and just bring up your tired and disproven accusation of me creating a strawman.
See even after you post a definition you don't understand do you .
Do you suffer from some sort of mental malfunction ?

Lemur

09-10-2006, 03:32

PS-do you have any links to the youtube oil company thing?
Sure, a tiny bit of digging turned it up. As I said, if you want to respond to a film/book/article that you don't like, I think this is a fairly clever way of doing it. Tip of the hat to the flack who put this op together.

Here's the video, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI) as posted to YouTube. And here is a write-up (WSJ (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06215/710851-115.stm)) from after the cover was blown:

In an email exchange with The Wall Street Journal, Toutsmith didn't answer when asked who he was or why he made the video, which has just over 59,000 views on YouTube. However, computer routing information contained in an email sent from Toutsmith's Yahoo account indicate it didn't come from an amateur working out of his basement.

Instead, the email originated from a computer registered to DCI Group, a Washington, D.C., public relations and lobbying firm whose clients include oil company Exxon Mobil Corp.

A DCI Group spokesman declines to say whether or not DCI made the anti-Gore penguin video, or to explain why Toutsmith appeared to be sending email from DCI's computers. "DCI Group does not disclose the names of its clients, nor do we discuss the work that we do on our clients' behalf," says Matt Triaca, who heads DCI's media relations shop.

Dave Gardner, an Exxon spokesman, confirms that Exxon is a client of DCI. But he says Exxon had no role in creating the "Inconvenient Truth" spoof. "We, like everyone else on the planet, have seen it, but did not fund it, did not approve it, and did not know what its source was," Mr. Gardner says.

There's even a layer of semi-plausible deniability. Now that's a slick operation -- nothing like the blustering, bullying tactics being used by the Dems over the 9/11 film. They should sit down and take notes.

Crazed Rabbit

09-10-2006, 03:50

Tribesy, I feel sorry for you.

You crawl resolutely onward in the face of facts and actual logic.

Silly boy rabbit ..... you manage not only a strawman and an ad hominen in your opening post you don't even realise .

No, as I've shown, and you conveniently ignore, I did not. I find it funny that as you get more desperate you keep accusing me of more logical fallacies.

See even after you post a definition you don't understand do you .
Do you suffer from some sort of mental malfunction ?

Another ad hominem. Oh, I am so very surprised. The truth is, I understand, yet you obviously do not, as you used a strawman while saying that I had used one. Your entire argument consists of basically yelling 'you used a strawman' after I demonstrated how you had.

Let's review your posts:
1)

Well who hasn't heard of it ? you managed to find plenty of links , which must have been really hard as it clearly is absent from both the mainstream media and all the little independants and certainly isn't being covered worldwide .

So I take it you mean why havn't the secret sect of monks from Bhutan who have taken a vow never to view any form of media heard of it ?
Well I hate to disappoint you Rabbit , but their vow also covers the internet so they will not be able to answer you .
Whoops, strawman! I never said it was absent from the media.

2)

Rabbit you muppet , you made the strawman with your opening post.
An incorrect charge and an ad hominem. Boy, am I surprised.

My response to the above:

And you need to read the link for a strawman argument:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Did I misrepresent the actions or positions of those democrat Senators or Clinton and his gang? No, I did not. Of course, had you read the links, you would have seen that. But what time is there for learning when there are personal attacks to be launched? Perhaps next time you'll get a clue and bring some actual arguments instead of the same, tired logical fallacies. I worry for you when you seem to so fervently believe that you're actually debating.

3) The 'relevant' part of your third post,

ahhhhh of course the good old liberal media bias that doesn't report things ...but it is reported isn't it So you manage not only a strawman and an ad hominen in your opening post you don't even realise .
Another strawman. I never said the liberal media (or the bias of the liberal media :laugh4: ) hadn't reported it. Unsurprisingly, you offer nothing to back up any charges of me using a strawman, and ignore my proof that I have not used a strawman.

In summary, your whole argument consists of clamping on one out-of-context remark, erecting a strawman around it, then nonsensically crying that I had made a strawman when you get called on it. You have been the very definition of a strawman; you ignore the actual position and subsitute some distorted version and then hack away at that. I do so hope you don't actually think you're doing real debating.

EDIT: Thanks for the link, Lemur. I always wonder why publicity companies use their own emails for stuff like that. I mean, why not just go to the library? Anyways, it seems the curse of the dems to get real heavy handed whenever they see something they don't like. A quick look at dailykos turned up images of a sinister looking mickey mouse with karl rove. Some of them, the activists and polticos mainly, just can't stand people not agreeing with them publicly, it seems.

Crazed Rabbit

Xiahou

09-10-2006, 04:16

Now that's a slick operation -- nothing like the blustering, bullying tactics being used by the Dems over the 9/11 film. They should sit down and take notes.
Yup, also take note on how instead of demanding "An Inconvenient Truth" be banned, they just come up with a bunch of their own silly graphs, charts, and slideshow (crappy though they be).

Tribesman

09-10-2006, 07:30

You crawl resolutely onward in the face of facts and actual logic.

Oh thats rich Rabbit .
No, as I've shown, and you conveniently ignore, I did not. I find it funny that as you get more desperate you keep accusing me of more logical fallacies.
You have shown nothing of the sort , and the fact that you don't even realise it leads to .....See even after you post a definition you don't understand do you .
Do you suffer from some sort of mental malfunction ?
.....Another ad hominem
nope , a serious question , is there something wrong with your brain functions ?
Whoops, strawman! I never said it was absent from the media.

oh I see , in rabbits world saying something hasn't been heard by people doesn't mean it hasn't been heard by people from the media ......errrr ....where do people hear news rabbit , is it from the media ? So this news that people havn't heard about , where is it absent from according to your strange mind . .....strawman
Then you follow with .....Becuase it is democrats and ex-clinton officials, and Clinton himself, doing all the pressuring and intimidation.
Ahhh an explanation why the existing news coverage doesn't exist . Ummmmmmm.....but it does exist doesn't it ........ strawman .
Now....It is not Bush, his administration, or Republicans, but democrats seeking to pressure an independent media company into altering their show.
Oh look , a rabbit rational on why the coverage that exists doesn't exist , its because of anti-Bush bias ....not only strawman but an ad-hominem on both the media and the democtrats .
Such a pity , you take a potentially good story and make a complete balls of it .
Try sticking to gun control stories instead , oh but perhaps you might want to learn some gun laws first so you don't make a complete fool of yourself over that subject again and again . Because ....Thrashing your...um...well we can't call them arguments, really, so why not rants? Anyway, thrashing your rants is rather unsatisfying, though, as it's about the same intellectual challenge as debating a third grader :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
though of course its not only gun laws where your knowledge is of a very bad level is it ., would you like a vey long list of topics where You crawl resolutely onward in the face of facts and actual logic.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

Now that's an interesting piece from the letter Whydie , it would seem that with the fictionaliation and time compression of certain aspects and events from this docu-drama , there is more to this issue than just the democrats worrying about some of their failings being shown to a gullible TV audience .

Kanamori

09-10-2006, 07:43

Disney w/ political bias in its media is awful.

:no:

Crazed Rabbit

09-10-2006, 19:34

More of the same from tribesy.

I've already dealt with it all before, so I'll just write what I believe to be the cause of his innane behavior.

Tribesy, you are fundamentally ignorant, willfully or otherwise, of American media. At the heart of your ignorance is your assumption, apparently reached after you saw "So why haven't you heard about it?", that any story, no matter how small, is instantly heard by the great majority of people around the nation. You seem to think that the average person not hearing of it means that no media has written about it - the heart of your strawman.

In typical style, you ignore everything else from my post and show up in another attempt to cause a pain out of yourself without actually presenting any argument.

I'll let you search around a while and try to learn about the American media. I don't think its too different from other countries, but you need to learn that a single printed story does not extensive coverage make. Here's a hint; read about the NYT's coverage on Abu Ghairib, and compare that with this.

oh I see , in rabbits world saying something hasn't been heard by people doesn't mean it hasn't been heard by people from the media ......errrr ....where do people hear news rabbit , is it from the media ? So this news that people havn't heard about , where is it absent from according to your strange mind . .....strawman
No, its not a strawman, as you would understand if you weren't so ignorant of American media. For a cure, see above.

Ahhh an explanation why the existing news coverage doesn't exist . Ummmmmmm.....but it does exist doesn't it ........ strawman .
I never said media coverage doesn't exist. Oops, another mark against tribesy.

Oh look , a rabbit rational on why the coverage that exists doesn't exist , its because of anti-Bush bias ....not only strawman but an ad-hominem on both the media and the democtrats .
I never said media coverage doesn't exist. And you display your ignorance of ad hominems, too;
From the Logical fallacy website:
# Person A (dems) makes claim X (are they making a claim in my post?).
# Person B (cr, supposedly) makes an attack on person A (um...what attack?).
# Therefore A's claim is false (again, what claim?).
I have done nothing of the sort. Nor am I falsely representing the actions of either most of the media or democrats.

Now that's an interesting piece from the letter Whydie , it would seem that with the fictionaliation and time compression of certain aspects and events from this docu-drama , there is more to this issue than just the democrats worrying about some of their failings being shown to a gullible TV audience .
No, not really, as the dems just are desperate for a better excuse than 'it shows what a buffoon clinton's admin was'.

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

09-10-2006, 20:02

More of the same from tribesy.

So it doesn't stop you from making a ***** of yourself , keep digging rabbit , your problems in cognative function are all too apparent .:juggle2:

In typical style, you ignore everything else from my post and show up in another attempt to cause a pain out of yourself without actually presenting any argument.

Errrrrrrr....nope Such a pity , you take a potentially good story and make a complete **** of it .

I'll let you search around a while and try to learn about the American media.
hmmmmmmm....Bubba

No, its not a strawman, as you would understand if you weren't so ignorant of American media. For a cure, see above.

Oh look , more Bubba .

face it rabbit , you took a potentially interesting and far ranging topic and made a balls of it . :juggle2:

No, not really, as the dems just are desperate for a better excuse than 'it shows what a buffoon clinton's admin was'.
Ah I see now , Clintons administrtion was full of buffoons , completely unlike the current administration that is bursting at the seams with buffoons .
Its all so clear now .:inquisitive:

Mithrandir:edited for language

doc_bean

09-10-2006, 20:03

Here's the video, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZSqXUSwHRI)

Damn, that's bad !

Crazed Rabbit

09-10-2006, 21:43

blah blah blah blah blah

face it rabbit , you took a potentially interesting and far ranging topic and made a balls of it . :juggle2:

What the? You come here and do your best to prattle on like some **** about basically nothing and then you say I'm the one who's screwing up the topic?

Errrrrrrr....nope

Yes. You've presented no argument. You just do your best to be obnoxious while ignoring everything that contradicts you.

hmmmmmmm....Bubba

I guess you've taken the cover off your true intellectual depth.

Crazed Rabbit

Mithrandir : edited for language

Gawain of Orkeny

09-10-2006, 22:07

Originally Posted by Lemur

Here's the video,

Damn, that's bad !

Damn, thats funny.:laugh4:

yesdachi

09-11-2006, 04:56

I was able to watch some of part 1 tonight and thought it was decent and relatively realistic. Lots of people all worried about covering their a$$’s rather than doing anything meaningful. Definitely showed the Clinton administration in the poor light they shined on themselves.

- Good to see you G of O.

Incongruous

09-11-2006, 05:14

The other night (it finishes tonight) there was programme which Ibelive is the one you refer to. I felt quite angry at the apathy and plain stupidity of the U.S government in concern to the welfar of its own citizens, like the fact that the U.S were going to launch a rocket at Osama in Afghanistan, but an hour before it hit the U.S secratary of state phoned the Pakistani secret service (who had close connections with the Taliban) and told them of the attack. The result being the desruction of the Northern Alliance and Al-Quiada
declaring war on America and Isreal. I just sat there in stunned amazement.
S

Crazed Rabbit

09-11-2006, 06:36

And sadly, that's pretty much how it happened. And it is why the dems wanted to take this out so badly. Security issues aren't going away before the midterms, after all.

Crazed Rabbit

Lemur

09-11-2006, 06:39

And sadly, that's pretty much how it happened.
Um, I'm not going to dispute the overall accuracey of the film, for two reasons: (1) I'm not going to watch it, and (2) the Clintons certainly deserve a heapin' helpin' of blame for ignoring the rise of Al Qaeda. However, the event Bopa was describing (Albright phoning the Pakis, saying "hey, we've got a missile on the way") is the one thing I'm aware of that has been discredited.

Crazed Rabbit

09-11-2006, 07:03

I'm not sure how it portrayed Albright in that situation, but I do know that Clinton's admin did tell the pakis (some military officer), and Albright might have known of it, and approved. In that case, it would not have portrayed her totally out of line with her beliefs. It's a mark against the film, but not a major flaw.

Crazed Rabbit

Ironside

09-11-2006, 08:53

Only because our local newspaper had something about this story at the same time as the story in this thread.
AFA complains to FCC about swearing done by firefighters in the 9/11 documentary on CBS. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14657719/)

Comments?

Tribesman

09-11-2006, 08:58

I guess you've taken the cover off your true intellectual depth.

Nope , it is a comment on your state of mind rabbit and intellectual ability . and an accurate one at that bubba .

Look .....I've already dealt with it all before, no you havn't . You cannot even see the fault so how the hell have you dealt with it ?

I felt quite angry at the apathy and plain stupidity of the U.S government in concern to the welfar of its own citizens, like the fact that the U.S were going to launch a rocket at Osama in Afghanistan, but an hour before it hit the U.S secratary of state phoned the Pakistani secret service
Now thats interesting , would it be prudent to launch a strike that would be crossing a "friends" territory without telling them ?
If it is not prudent then is it accurate to portray it in a negative light ?
Like with the strike against those involved in the USS Cole attack , the administration had to inform the Yemeni authorities and give them assurances that the agreed arrangements about US personel not operating over Yemens territory would be followed , they also had to inform the authorities in Djibouti and the French whose base they were using about the strike .
However it does raise the issue of who your "friends" are and the wisdom of having those "friends"(though in reality there is little choice in having to deal with Pakistan unless you want to try another regime change) . Clintons administration had no real choice about telling thePakistanis , just as Bush has had no real choice , and on those occasions when they did choose not to inform them they have created even worse problems for themselves .
Now you can argue about the wisdom of having to deal with a "friend" who is also somewhat "friendly" with the opposition . But wouldn't that make the current administrations actions even worse than the previous ones when you consider the two peace deals the Pakistanis have made with the militants since the war with the Taliban really started .
Now to the major issue with this , from the letter ....
We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
......does anyone have an issue with flawed and factually inaccurate information being taught in schools or should students be recipients of innacurate propoganda passed off as a factual documentary?