ABC Chickens out

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lukster
Perhaps not from the pressure exerted by Clinton but if it's true that US senators threatened pulling their broadcast license then I disagree with you.

Exactly how would the Democrats in a GOP controlled House and Senate accomplish this?

[lukster]

Originally posted by Sandman
Exactly how would the Democrats in a GOP controlled House and Senate accomplish this?

It would likely be an unsuccessful attempt to violate the first amendment but is an attempt nonetheless. All the more reason to ensure democrats remain a minority.

Actually, since ABC bowed under this pressure perhaps the attempt wasn't unsuccessful afterall.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Yeager
Fahrenheit Lie #1

National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is depicted in the movie telling a reporter, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”
The scene deceptively shows the Administration directly blaming Saddam and his regime for the attacks on 9/11 by taking her comments out of context. Now read the entire statement made by Ms. Rice to the reporter:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11. But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.” (CBS News, November 28, 2003 Interview)

Fahrenheit Lie #2

In the film, Moore leads viewers to believe that members of bin Laden’s family were allowed to exit the country after the attacks without questioning by authorities. o The September 11th commission, on the other hand, reported that 22 of the 26 people on the flight that took most of the bin Laden family out of the country were interviewed and found to be innocent of suspicion. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

The commission reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.”

Fahrenheit Lie #3

Moore claims that James Bath, a friend of President Bush from his time with the Texas Air National Guard, might have funneled bin Laden money to an unsuccessful Bush oil-drilling firm called Arbusto Energy.

Bill Allison, managing editor for the Center for Public Integrity (an independent watchdog group in Washington, D.C.), on the other hand, said, “We looked into bin Laden money going to Arbusto, and we never found anything to back that up,” (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

Fahrenheit Lie #4

The movie claims that the Bush administration “supported closing veterans hospitals.” o “The Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

But Moore’s film fails to mention that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also proposed building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers (News Release, Department of Veterans Affairs, http://www.va.gov, 10/24/03)

Fahrenheit Lie #5

Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore’s film: that the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in 1998).

Moore “suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President Hamid Karzai … was to help seal a deal for … Unocal to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant.” (emphasis added) (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, “Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,” and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while President Bush was governor to discuss a potential project with Unocal.

While Moore implies that then-Governor Bush met with the Taliban, no such meeting occurred. The Taliban delegation did, however, meet with the Clinton Administration on this visit. (Matt Labash, “Un-Moored From Reality; Fahrenheit 9/11 Connects Dots That Aren’t There,” Weekly Standard, July 5-July 12 Issue)

Fahrenheit Lie #6

Even readily available figures are exaggerated for effect in Fahrenheit 9/11. The claims have a basis in reality, making them believable, but are false nonetheless. ü In the film, Moore asks Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, “How much money do the Saudis have invested in America, roughly?” to which Unger responds, “Uh, I’ve heard figures as high as $860 billion.”

The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy reports that worldwide Saudi investment approximated $700 billion – a figure much lower than Unger alleges the Saudi government to have invested in the U.S. (Tanya C. Hsu, Institute For Research: Middle Eastern Policy, “The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment,” http://www.irmep.org, Accessed 07/11/04)

The Institute reports that 60 percent of that $700 billion – roughly $420 billion, less than half of what Unger “heard” – was actually invested in the United States by the Saudi government.

Fahrenheit Lie #7

“Moore’s film suggests that [President] Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family – principally through [President] Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family – who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms – had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group ‘gained’ from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

“There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire [Soros] has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

Fahrenheit Lie #8

Not revealing relevant facts is dishonest enough. But to paint the Bush Administration as sympathetic and friendly to the Taliban prior to September 11, is not only dishonest, but maliciously so. ü Moore shows film of a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban delegation, claiming that the Administration “welcomed” the Taliban official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.”

But the Administration did not welcome the Taliban with open arms. In fact, the State Department rejected the Taliban’s claim that it had complied with U.S. requests to isolate bin Laden.

To demonstrate even further the Administration’s contempt for the Taliban and its illegitimacy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher – on the day of the terrorist regime’s visit – said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan.”

Fahrenheit Lie #9

Moore does more than simply downplay the threat posed to the U.S. by the former Hussein regime in Iraq. He goes so far as to assert that Saddam “never threatened to attack the United States.”

If by “attack the United States” one interprets this claim to mean that Saddam never threatened to send troops to the United States, then Mr. Moore has a point. ü But Saddam Hussein clearly sought to attack the United States within his own sphere of influence, even though he didn’t have the resources to attack U.S. soil from his side of the world:

On November 15, 1997, “the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein’s son Uday), ordered: ‘American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces.’” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

In addition, “Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country,” (Source: New York Times, 12/1/03).

Saddam Hussein also provided safe haven to terrorists who killed Americans, like Abu Nidal; funded suicide bombers in Israel who certainly killed Americans; and ran the Iraqi police, which plotted to assassinate former President George Bush.

ah toronto?  hello, anybody there?  operator, i must have a bad connection here.

[x0847Marine]

This political whining is totally transparent and self serving, old Hairy hasn't even seen what he's complaining about... that should tell you something right there.

What exactly is Hairy whining about?, a few opinions?, supposition?.. cut through his own yammering, and here's his evidence ; 2 Dicks (Richard Ben-Veniste / Richard Clarke) expressed a negative opinion about a program they have yet to even see.  Now that's sharp logic.

"Reports suggest.." something about an unnamed FBI agent who also expressed an opinion... now there's solid evidence.

Finally, Thomas Kean admitted, like ABC did, there's some fiction in it. FICTION ON TV!! no way. He adds that "...other experts..", who he can't name, disagree about stuff.. about a show they have yet to watch.

There is NOTHING here but opinion, no examples, nothing... he's using his political power in an attempt to censor, in advance, a show that 'might' cast his parties next pres candidate in a negitive light.

You can't embarass the future "1st lady" Bill Clinton on tv!

Govt officials, he did use his official title, trying to censor a television show related to politics based on a few select opinions is a very bad thing..

Besides, people are way too stupid to watch a TV show and form their own opinions, so Hairy has collected a few opinions that are good enough for everyone. What a puto this guy is.

[Birddogg]

Originally posted by xrtoronto
thanks for the low-road name calling..


fact:you have no writing skills and debate very poorly

College educated?

(time to go back to your job at McD's, lunch is over)

Dont waste your time X. Im pretty sure hes still in school and not older then 15.

[Eagler]

I find it funny that the clintons are screaming for someone to tell the truth .. like they'd know it if it jumped up and bit them

[xrtoronto]

Originally posted by john9001
ah toronto?  hello, anybody there?  operator, i must have a bad connection here.

just got back in john...


Fahrenheit Lie #1

...Now read the entire statement made by Ms. Rice to the reporter:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11[/b]..."

that's as far as I have read...this is just double-talk and totally useless...the two statements say opposite things and they appear back-to-back in the paragraph.

If you were to watch f9/11 you would see CNN footage of 3 top Bush officials saying SH had NO WMD and was totally incapable of making war against anyone. (near the beginning of the flick) Then within 12 months they completely change their story insisting with absoulte certainty that he did have deliverable WMD in 45 min....

How anyone on earth could defend this ******* is totally beyond me...at least the English got it right finally and forced Blair out with a ruined carreer. When will the rest of you Yanks catch up?

[Elfie]

at least the English got it right finally and forced Blair out with a ruined carreer. When will the rest of you Yanks catch up?

American politics dont work the same way as British politics. Bush will serve out the rest of his term and wont be able to run again.

Another politician will replace Blair and the new one wont be any better than Blair. Same with Bush. Politicians are all the same, they tell the people what they want to hear in order to get elected, then follow their own agendas once in office.

What grows old is people who arent from America constantly spewing hate on this BBS about my country and my countries politics. Constantly whining about something you have absolutely no control over probably isnt the most productive thing you have done in your life.

[soda72]

ABC made a choice.

Do what we say or else....

Yeah they made a choice...

LOL

[Sundowner]

xrtoronto,
Hmmm...the F 9/11 out-of-context quote in question:
==================================================
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."

==================================================
These are the two sentences from the full quote you chose to respond to:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11..."

that's as far as I have read...this is just double-talk and totally useless...the two statements say opposite things and they appear back-to-back in the paragraph.
==================================================
Indeed, by themselves these two sentences would be logically opposite.

But there is a third sentence following that expounds on the two previous sentences.

"But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

==================================================
Please explain.

Regards
Sun

[WhiteHawk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/.  Funny a debate is raging on msnbc website.  It now stands, 51% are conspiracy whackos who believe the govt had some hand in the attacks.  and 43% who think the 51% are conspiracy whackos.  Its funny, if this trend continues, those that believe the official story about 9/11 are going to be the conspiracy whackos msnbc

[LePaul]

I expected ABC to flounder on this.

The Clinton Administration wants you to forget that for 8 years, they did very little about terrorism.  They'd love to have the nation beleive its completely and absolutely the Bush Administrations 9 months that is solely responsible.

But regardless of that, the entire structure and miscommunication of government branches is what let to this.  Clinton's screaming and complaining of daring to be held accountable for any bit of it is just absurd.

Especially when they hail Moore's film, yet object to things like the Swift Boat soldiers film and now this.

So the ultimate message one gets is...we're allowed to smack you around, even when we know it isnt true.  Yet if you try to air anything that shows us and our failings isnt allowed.

[john9001]

too all the euro/canadian weenies, why don't you move to the USA, live here for 5 years, become citizens and vote for hillery in 2012 so she can save the world. your present whining does not help, it just makes you feel good..

[Dago]

Maybe ABC just realized the show made Clinton look bad, when all along they thought it was just about making Bush looking bad?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Seagoon
The embarrassing thing is not that they were under pressure for the untruthful parts, the embarrassing thing is that they were Openly threatened by Senate Democrats with the pulling of their broadcast license because the series laid much of the blame for government missteps at the feet of the Clinton administration - especially in regards to his own admission that in 1996 they declined to take Osama from Sudan. Clinton's own excuse was that he had nothing to hold him on, but AQ was already implicated in the '93 bombing of WTC.

To quote from their own document about what they most disliked: "Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace."

The clear implication is that had it been more Michael Moore anti-Bush left wing political propaganda, it would have raised no complaints. This despite the fact that the series attacked the Bush administration as well. Apparently unless the Clinton administration is absolved of all responsibility, and all blame laid at the feet of the one year old Bush administration, no presentation can go forward.

To me, it was a clear misuse of government power for political purposes.

- SEAGOON

Read the document linked. Saw no threat to revoke their license. And I don't see the "clear implication" you apparently do. Are you sure you're not a script writer for ABC?