What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
146 Comments
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -32/+75WHAT?!? Fine, I'll be clear:
9/11 was a national tragedy unlike anything we have ever experienced. Everyone in the country, indeed everyone in the world, was irrevocably changed that horrific morning. I distinctly remember the excruciating sadness and overwhelming sense of loss.
When the 9/11 Commission finally began, performed , and concluded their work, I found a sense of hope. Hope that we could find ways to avoid another tragedy. Hope that we could learn to grow past our sadness and anger. Hope that we could unite behind a plan to make us safer than we had ever been in the past.
That ABC has not only ignored the findings of the Commission Report but has gone the additional step of creating completely fictional events for dramatic purposes is an embarrassing disservice to those who died on that day. We cannot grow or learn if we choose to ignore the very things that caused those people to die.
That you suggest I am simply trying "rescue Clinton" is laughable. Clinton was an adulterer and he and his administration missed opportunities to make us safer. But we must not misrepresent documented history in order to make that point.
This movie should be scraped NOT because it makes Clinton or anyone in his Administration look bad (frankly, I couldn't care less), it should be scraped because it fails from the beginning to help us live up to the promises we made to those who died and their families.
We owe it to those who died and we owe it to ourselves to be completely, utterly, and excruciatingly honest about the events that caused 9/11. Until we can learn to do that, we are no better then we were before that day.
I will say it again: ABC should be embarrassed. - flernk, on 10/12/2007, -27/+62I'm amazed that they would use a fabricated event to open the movie. 9/11 was too important an event to fictionalize. ABC should be embarrassed. How can they possibl yclaim this is based on the Commission Report? The opening even simply didn't take place.
- smoothmedia, on 10/12/2007, -10/+43The slant of this piece is amazingly blatant.
One scene shows Washington (Berger) ordering the special forces to abort the mission (not factual), the soliders react negatively to this and then footage of President Clinton struggling to answer a question about having sex with Monica Lewinsky, and attempted to cover up the fact that he lied.
If that isn't direct evidence of a political agenda, I don't know what is. This documentary should be direct to DVD, or distributed on the internet only like "Outfoxed" or "Loose Change", fictionalizations for political gain do not belong on TV. - flernk, on 10/12/2007, -21/+49"Is it the truth?"
It is NOT truth. The events never took place. Regardless of what the American people choose to believe, the CIA never had agaents in place to kill Osama bin Laden. Period. I am as much for the Democratic process as the next guy, but this is about ABC inventing scenes that never happened for dramatic puposes. That is wrong. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+41"Democratic attempts at censorship fail."
I seem to remember a documentary on the Reagans that was pulled due to outrage and criticism from Republicans and conservatives. So why was that not censorship?
Typical ***** 'one rule for you, another one for us' mentality. Disgusting hypocrisy from the Right. - flernk, on 10/12/2007, -15/+39No I am not.
Let me be clear. I am not defending government censorship IN ANY WAY. I am frustrated by ABC and the specific individuals involved in fabricating these scenes. ABC should be embarrassed and should, out of respect for the events of 9/11, either change the movie or scrap it entirely. Again, I couldn't care less if some people in government feel hurt or offended by their portrayal in the movie.
I do care, however, that ABC blatantly disregards actual documented events in favor of more dramatic fiction. That is wrong and you know it. - BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -23/+44@flernk:
Not everyone in the world was changed by 9/11.
Worse things happen every day, just elsewhere, so stop being so dramatic about yourselves. - jbus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28This is not a censorship issue... And as I recall, conservatives had no problem at all with forcing CBS to pull "The Reagans" movie.
Moral responsibility and fake censorship issue aside, there are also legal issues with ABC airing this across PUBLIC airwaves. I'm not even talking about the libel issues of some of the people portrayed (that will come later), but the fact that ABC is airing a $40 million, 5 hour fictional movie with no sponsors, that is being completely bankrolled by ABC. A fictional movie that has an extreme right-wing bias, has a speech from President Bush at the end, and just happens to be right before mid-term elections. This is not a Movie, this is a illegal campaign contribution. A $40 million freebie consisting of five hours of GOP propaganda aired on public airwaves just before the elections. - hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24When the moon gives off an infrared heat signature in the first scene, it's possible accuracy wasn't the filmakers main concern.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+32"flernk, what's your opinion on Farenheit 9/11?"
Oh, look, a strawman argument! - noof, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20redstate.com must be one of the most biased page I've seen (at least that article). From the "lawyers":
"As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. `The Path to 9/11' not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fifth anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film."
Quote redstate.com: "Apparently, the truth hurts."
Pretty impressive to write a few sentences even though you can't read. - jbus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23The redstate monkeys are so fearful that ABC will be forced by public opinion to pull their pet propaganda movie or edited it to reflect ACTUAL facts, that they are in damage control mode and are desperately trying to use digg and other sites to disseminate their lies and disinformation.
- SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15If don't believe the ABC special, then believe Clinton's own words:
"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with him again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he committed no crime against America so I DID NOT BRING HIM HERE because we had no basis on which to hold him though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvo2lQe81xk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eblogsforbush%2Ecom%2Fmt%2Farchives%2F007846%2Ehtml - DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@ flernk
Here's what Section 4.4 of the 9/11 report had to say about covert action in Afghanistan:
"As part of the response to the embassy bombings, President Clinton signed a
Memorandum of Notification authorizing the CIA to let its tribal assets use
force to capture Bin Ladin and his associates. CIA officers told the tribals that
the plan to capture Bin Ladin,which had been “turned off”three months ear-
lier, was back on.The memorandum also authorized the CIA to attack Bin Ladin
in other ways. Also, an executive order froze financial holdings that could be
linked to Bin Ladin."
We must put politics aside and address this threat as Americans, not Democrats or Republicans. - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14It's pretty simple:
Before 9/11 Bush didn't do anything about Al Qaeda the 9 month he had been the President and Clinton did just as little the 8 years he was in power. Nobody thought 9/11 was coming, it's just the simple facts. - hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18If that first scene never happened, Sandy Berger has been slanderized. I'm going to make a documentary containing a scene where Karl Rove clubs a baby seal and George Bush masturbates in a K-Mart. Then we'll see about censorship.
- setec, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14In case the site goes down, here are the 6 videos on YouTube
Clip1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZJ9sn3rXGM
Clip2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MTcy45lw0w
Clip3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4GtQsoxrhc
Clip4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VExKPrB17NA
Clip5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X15seyiZPVw
Clip6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNZ_s265XEo - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Those "few clips" are the problem. What do you think we're missing, the "ha ha just kidding lol!!!11" scenes?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13A film which purports to be a dramatization of actual events, but which in fact contains events fabricated from whole cloth, does not "inform the discourse." This is a deliberate attempt at misinforming people and muddying the waters of history for political gain. There is no good that can come of that, no matter how big you make the picture.
- RealityMonster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12"Is it the truth? Is it biased? Let the American people see it and make up their own minds."
That statement makes no sense. I can't present you with a random assemblage of statements and have you discern which one is the truth out of all the lies unless you already know the truth. Presenting information to people as new and factual gives the impression of truth whether it is or not. You can't have people make up their minds over it; their bias pre-disposes truth in this instance.
To make it clearer: you can't tell someone that it is a FACT that all monkeys are green and have them decide whether you're lying or not unless they already know that all monkeys are not actually green. If you tell them that Clinton had a chance to kill Bin Laden but waved it off, they'll believe that unless they already know that it's not true.
I'm a liberal kind of person, but lies don't help anything, which is why Michael Moore's 'Mockumentaries' are infuriating. There's enough truth to bury Bush without making things up. I suspect there's enough to make Clinton look bad without making things up about him, too. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Again with the ad hominems but no actual content. All you can do is spew hatred at those you think represent an opposing view.
Sadly, I am a conservative. I have no love for Clinton. But the hatred and bile being spread by ignorant people in this country, particularly those on the Right, is hard to take. You and your type are destroying this country by enacting a polarising, tribal 'with us or against us' mentality. Remember that the country is supposed to be the *United* States. You are anything but a person who supports unity, you wish only to shout down and suppress those you don't agree with. Not only is your discourse idiotic, it goes beyond that into the realm of the pathalogical.
Get a grip on yourself and realise what you are saying. You are accusing liberals of being responsible for 9/11. This is frankly insane.
You mention the draft - hey, we don't need one. You can just sign up for military service. With patriotic citizens like yourself, we will never need to reinstitute the draft, since you will be first in line when your country calls, right?
Bush recently called back 2,000 odd troops because of low numbers. We need more troops right now, particularly with the expanding war on terror. Also they've upped the age limit for enlistment to 42, so even if you're 'passed your prime' you can still join up. Now, the question is what have YOU done to support the military? I have the addresses of military recruiters in your area, no doubt, which I can gladly send you, if you need them.
Not that you're just a ***** keyboard-commando who's actually too ***** to put his money where his mouth is or anything, naturally. - Chip53, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Looks like Bubba and his ilk are in damage control mode. I've never heard these pigs squeal so loud.
- mjr1007, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Once again politics has gone through the looking glass. The right for you to swing your arm ends at my nose. There are such things as slander and libel. Lying is not a freedom that is constitutionally granted. It's really funny because the same crap happened over the Regan biopic. Only the sides were changed.
The really funny thing is that the accusation even if true is meaningless. The one thing we've learned is killing the top leaders of the jihadist is pointless. It does nothing. What would you expect from a group in power who have not just be ineffectual but have actually been counterproductive. We now have more jihadist then when we started.
I am utterly convinced that the war on terror is absolutely necessary and we must win it. Unfortunately the clowns now running it are only making matters worse. Sun Tzu in “The Art of War” (for those of you who don't know, it an ancient Chinese text on war which is still taught today) say “the supreme ultimate is not winning 100 battles but winning without ever fighting a battle”.
The goal here people is to eliminate the enemies will and ability to fight. Killing them, in this case would be counterproductive. Eliminating the billions of petrodollars sent over there which funds them is the right way to do. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17Oh my gosh, such hyperbole! I could almost hear the national anthem swelling behind you as I imagined you standing there in the rubble.
You don't know *****, and your rhetoric is harming this country. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Again, please remember the furore over the CBS movie about Ronald & Nancy Reagan.
Basically, free speech does not cover malicious publication of untruths which might harm a person's reputation.
Although it is difficult to imagine anything further harming the image of the adulterous Clinton, a movie that suggests his failures were at fault for the 9/11 atrocities seems to go a bit beyond free speech.
I mean if I published something about your dad, say, that made him out to be a murderer when the idea is patently false, you'd be well within your rights to try to have that publication quashed. Clinton has the right to not be tarred with false accusations. So does Bush, for that matter. - manicdvln, on 10/12/2007, -14/+21The only tragedy that I see in Sept 11 was that I didn't invest in the stock market when stocks took a huge dive after the event.
That might sound cynical to some of you, but it seems everyone wants to profit from these terror attacks. Democrats, republicans, relatives of Sept 11 victims, fraud charities, media corporations, hollywood, architects....
It was stupid of me to take the moral road instead of the opportunist road. Shame on me. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14It's funny, but the only people I see rewriting history here are at ABC. Clinton, and a lot of other people, just asked them not to do that.
- fancypantscz, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18A seemingly harmless institution such as Disney has been involved in the production of propaganda for over half a century. Here is an excerpt from The Testimony of Walter E. Disney Before the House Committee on Un-American Activities 24 October, 1947.
[ROBERT E.] STRIPLING [CHIEF INVESTIGATOR]: Have you ever made any pictures in your studio that contained propaganda and that were propaganda films?
WALTER DISNEY: Well, during the war we did. We made quite a few-working with different government agencies. We did one for the Treasury on taxes and I did four anti Hitler films. And I did one on my own for air power.
HAS: From those pictures that you made, have you any opinion as to whether or not the films can be used effectively to disseminate propaganda?
WD: Yes, I think they proved that.
http://filmtv.eserver.org/disney-huac-testimony.txt
It is the job of the entertainment business to entertain. It is up to us as individual citizens to educate ourselves about the truth of the world in which we live and be skeptical of the powers that be. This duty has been savagely neglected for far too long. Television and Hollywood has been used and abused by government and big business to wrongfully manipulate the world view of the American citizenry for generations. Our lives are all parts of an American Myth. The average American is so out of touch with the reality that exists in our government and outside the US that it’s a wonder the USSR imploded before we did. It seems pretty obvious to me that terrorists couldn’t destroy the American way of life and the American dream the burns in the hearts of individuals around the world even if it was their goal. Americans themselves will always be their own worst enemy. ABC can broadcast whatever ***** they want. I fired my television out the window just after high school and I have never looked back.
We will continue to suffer the consequences of our ignorance. - DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14@ flernk
The mainstream media has been the de facto gatekeeper of the findings of the 9/11 Report because the average American won't bother to read it. Distilling it down to a movie form will get more people to watch it, but by making such a huge stink about it will expand the movie's viewership exponentially. I can't wait until they come out with the director's cut on DVD.
Based on what I've read, it sounds like the Clinton administration's critique of the movie has to do with details of who was where, but not with what was said and done (or in their case, no done). As with any docudrama, it's going to vary from the actual events, but it attempts to convey what happened in a condensed form.
At the end of the day, there's plenty of blame to go around and it seems that not addressing the threat of Islamofascism is what got us here. I think people should withold judgement until the movie is aired. We must put politics aside and address this threat as Americans, not Democrats or Republicans. - TheDrunkMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15A movie theater is different from a main television station that promotes the documentary as fact.
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18@BullyJack
I always crack up when neocons believe they have a monopoly on "conservative" (for effect).
I actually, literally, am conservative. Deal with it or laugh at it, it doesn't matter to me. Christ was ridiculed as well, I'll follow his example. - flernk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Read the Commission Report. Unlike many, I have.
Here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
When you're done, I'll be glad to talk about the difference between reality and fiction. Though, I suspect, you won't have any questions when you've finished. - thechilde, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13First liberal is a good word it stems from liberty (something garunteed in the bill of rights, and something you are argueing about the right to show things without censorship) stop looking like idiots and using it negatively.
Second (@h00ligan) you are whining about the constitution now when the president and the current government you have blind faith in has been trampeling those rights consistantly that doesnt make sense. It seems the only reason you protect this is you get your jollys off of making the evil liberals look bad, instead of actually being concerned about ones rights. What one does forget is broadcast media does not share the same rights as a person there is something called the fcc.. remember justin and janet? Im not saying this should be changed or pulled, but i think if the network would like to look responsible they had better put a disclaimer both in writing and speech at the beginning of the show. - setec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If you want to download these, it seems they have CACHE=FALSE in the html code of their page. Even if you cut and paste the URL directly into the webbrowser or quicktime, it won't allow you to save with Quicktime Pro. If you edit the HTML, for CACHE=TRUE, it still doesn't work.
But you can use the link below along with the direct urls to the MOV files in the html to get the files if you want to keep them.
http://www.hazkid.com/linkmaker/ - mjr1007, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12What exactly is Bushes legacy?
Coloring intelligence to fight a war that even his own Daddy's National Security Adviser knew was a really bad idea. Then to make matters worse his Sec-DEF put too few troops on the group to stop the obvious insurgency before it could get started.
I hope history does judge him. - blinddonkey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9So, Michael Moore makes up stuff, and Democrats love it because it makes them look good. ABC makes them look bad, and whoa, whoa, you are only allowed to make stuff up if it makes Bush look stupid, and Dems look good! Get it straight!
- zeiben, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Geez. Exaggerated propaganda aside, of course we did a poor job of getting Bin Laden BEFORE 9/11. Does that make it any less heinous for our current administration to totally give up looking for him AFTER 9/11?
- livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Strange wouldn't you say my friends, that something like rears its ugly head around election time?
- Niteryder, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Hmm smells like Whiite House funding here for the election. Clinton did
attempt to brief Bush and was dismissed along with his information. - h00ligan, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14How can people be so stupid as to not understand that there is SOME truth in this. Everyone wants to blame everything on Bush.. because he's an idiot.... that's too easy. Clinton DOES hold responsibility for al quaeda - just as many others do - on both sides. I've said it before and will take the further dig downs from people too single minded to read facts that don't fall in line with the far left - Clinton was a HORRIBLE president and one of the biggest shames that Bush has been so bad is that people, in their zealous nature, have forgotton just how bad Clinton was.
Oh and for those of you who thought 'Clintonomics' is a good thing - need to read some books on economics and enter the long existing discussions about just what part Clinton's policies played in the current state of the Economy.
www.mises.org.
try reading these two:
http://mises.org/story/2266
http://mises.org/story/2301
Once you actually READ that stuff, and lew rockwell - as well as theeconomist.com - you will see that NONE of them are leaning in any direction and that a decision to blindly follow in either direction is a decision to tread a path of ignorance.
Stop believing the media - on either side. This show is barely different than a Michael Moore Documentary - spin spin spin... the ONE difference is it's a docudrama.. where as Moore's movies are presented as Documentaries (even though they do not represent the truth) - Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually the government has complete rights and control over the public broadcast spectrum. The broadcast companies are allowed to use them for free, with the agreement that they will follow FCC guidlines concerning what they transmit.
Restrictions include Sex, Violence, foul language, and political speech within 90 days of an election.
Most likely all the broadcast stations are being given a bit of leeway because of this particular date. The question is weather or not the GoP appointees at the FCC will tow the party line, or do their jobs. - jdivis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7We need a educated democracy, not an entertained republic.
- Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I have read what those senators wrote, and I did not see a threat, what I did see was Disney being reminded that the public expects them to act in a reasonable manner. As for F-9/11 and trying to link it to this, that won't fly.
Disney would not even allow Miramax to distribute the Moore Movie.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4906829/
NEW YORK - Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which criticizes President Bush’s handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and connects the Bush family with Osama bin Laden’s, won’t be released through Miramax Films on orders from parent company Disney.
Disney chief executive Michael Eisner said Wednesday the company “did not want a film in the middle of the political process where we’re such a nonpartisan company and our guests, that participate in all of our attractions, do not look for us to take sides.”
But they want to show this in primetime with no commercials? - leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5the videodownloader firefox extension works just fine no playing with the source. you do have to rename the file to .mov though.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16Again,
Bush never said a word about having Fahrenheit 9/11 pulled or edited, yet it was a work of Michael Moore's pure delusion. Most of the movie has been proven to be completely false.
Why didn't Bush say anything against this movie or try to have it pulled? Because Bush knew it was bunk and knew most Americans were too intelligent to be fooled by it. He also knew about this little unknown amendment (unknown, apparently to Democrats) that guarantees the right to free expression. That right is free EVEN to hacks like Michael Moore. Further, Bush knew the PUBLIC had the right to see it and make up their own minds. The public did, and Bush still won.
See? Freedom works.
Clinton and the Democrats, on the other hand, are going absolutely bonkers over this "The Path to 9/11," which says way more about Democrats than this movie.
If this movie is untrue, what are they so afraid of? Don't they believe ABC has the freedom to air what they choose? Don't they believe movie makers have the right to make movies as they choose? Don't they believe the PUBLIC has the right to see what they choose?
Don't Democrats believe in FREEDOM and the FIRST AMENDMENT? Or have the Democrats become the expression and thought police?
You guys can fuss and bluster about what's in the movie, but that's entirely irrelevant. WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS TRYING TO STOP A MOVIE FROM BEING SEEN?
Further, if this movie is untrue, why stop it from being shown. If it's untrue, people will see it for that, just like they did Fahrenheit 9/11. Freedom works.
So, why are Democrats so afraid of YOU having the freedom to watch this movie?
That's the question that should be asked. - emci13, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8As much as, in my personal opinion, I feel that the program as has been indicated in news articles in the past is probably factually incorrect, the call by Democrats to censor the program is indicative of how petty the party, and politics in general, has become.
If the reports are correct, and this program is indeed a misrepresentation of facts, should ABC and the people that made the movie be ashamed of themselves? Yes, of course they should. However, free speech is a concept that has to work on all sides. It is unfair for Democrats to be upset over the airing of this movie when they allow, for example, Fahrenheit 9/11 to air. I think the program should air, and the viewers that watch the show should view it with open minds, and come to their own conclusions about the film. As much as policymakers and members of digg alike are concerned that the film will unfairly bias viewers who lack knowledge of the circumstances surrounding 9/11, it plays a larger picture in informing the discourse of 9/11. - devilman, on 10/12/2007, -30/+32ABC and Disney. Our new nazi propaganda machine. Do I sense a merger with FOX?
- Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ Hobgobbler
You won't be censored
You would get a Government grant
and Sen H Clinton would stand up for your right against censorship
and then demand that the makers of Violent Video games, Sexist musicians and performers and ABC of course be subpoenaed to testify before congress for their grievous intransigence.
And vote more money for mediocrity in television and radio support program known as PBS - Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2F 911 aired on the Sundance channel
if there are derogatory lies in the movie, sue
They can't do that because appearing somewhere under oath and facing the danger of perjury is something they won't risk unless forced to.
So all they can do is threaten to pull licenses if/when they get into power.
Take it to court, if it really is false - bitteroldcoot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4A little background about broadcast verses other media (DVD, movie theater, cable).
Broadcast spectrum is limited, so the FCC regulates who can broadcast on what frequency. Since this is a limited resource the license holder agrees to certain restrictions as part of the right to use this public resource. Like limiting sex scenes, violence and profanity. ABC could avoid the FCC restrictions by showing the film on ABC's cable channel (ABC Family).
If someone wants to produce a propaganda film the constitution says the can. They then have the right to publish it in any format they want, but that right does not extend to the public owned air waves.
I'm not a lawyer, so I will let others comment on the legality and repercussion of libeling someone. -
Show 51 - 100 of 146 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is