Dems hate ABC's 9/11 Miniseries

Ogami said:
Dark Link wrote:

So Ogami, All I seem to be understanding is that You'll believe anything that comes out of a repubs mouth, even if it's mostly bullshit. Why?

Because the Democrats only pay lip service to fighting the War on Terror. 99.999999999999999999999% of the time, they are doing everything they can to badmouth our country's efforts, reveal secret programs, and attack our troops. Democrat-appointed judges rule on the rights of Islamic terrorists, when such people are trying to kill as many westerners as they can and to hell with our rights.

You complain about bullshit, Dark Link? What about the bullshit Democrat lies that Bush wants to listen to our phone calls or see what library books we check out. He wants to monitor ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, you clowns, and the recently FOILED British airline plot was taken down by British and American intelligence precisely along the lines that the Left spends their time complaining about.

The BULLSHIT is Bush fighting the War on Terror SINGLE-HANDEDLY, while Democrats tell the world that Bush can't be trusted, that he stole the 2000 election, and that he's a liar. Well guess what, assclowns on the left, the world hears what you've said about Bush for SIX FUCKING YEARS, and a good chunk of it believes it. If America is hated more around the world these days, if American credibility is lower around the world these days, it's because of the non-stop negative acid and bile that has been dumped on Bush and our country since 9/11 by the American Left. Your words and statements do not stay hermetically-sealed at our country's borders, the world hears what you say. And a good lot of them believe what the Democrats say every day about Bush and how our War on Terror is a lie for Halliburton, and other such bullshit.

The only war the Democrats have declared is against Wal-Mart. We're living in two fucking separate worlds, Dark Link, and it's time people like you stopped carping from the sidelines and do something pro-active besides whine about how you don't like Bush, neocons, FoxNews, or the other quixotic windmills the lunatic left foams at the mouth over. Grow up, and figure out that there are islamic terrorists in the world who want you DEAD, and they don't give a FUCK whether you like Bush or not!

-Ogami
Click to expand...


I know exactly what this post of whiney bullshit and badmouthing without any fact is missing!

violin_playing_hw.gif


PERFECT!
 
Mentalist wrote:

What was that Ogami?

That was a great video, Mentalist, highlighting exactly why the Left is WRONG, and LYING. First Stewart showed footage of the usual nuts (i.e. Democrats) being removed waving banners saying Rumsfeld was guilty of war crimes. Your typical human debris from the Democratic party, at war with our country. Then Rumsfeld gets a question from a former CIA analyst, but then it's not a question. That in itself is a lie by Jon Stewart. This guy asks Rumsfeld "why" he lied about WMD to get us into Iraq.

As Mentalist knows full well, this is on the order of asking "When did you stop beating your wife?". I've seen many occasions where Rumsfeld (or any other Bush administration official) would be badgered by a false question with the purpose of making them accept the premise of the question. Rumsfeld and the rest have long ago learned to avoid making that mistake. Rumsfeld refused to accept the premise of the question.

Then Stewart, hilarious comedian, runs a clip from Rumsfeld from March 30, 2003 stating "we know where they are, they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad". This is delivered as a huge laugh line. But Stewart's an ass for playing this, it's simply moronic. Does Stewart understand the concept of time? Does Mentalist?

Let's say I have an intelligence report dated September 12th 2006 that Mentalist put his car keys on his dresser. But today's September 13th, and they're not there! Did I lie about the location of Mentalist's car keys? Democrats say yes. But Mentalist could have put them in his pocket, he could have dropped them down the toilet, he could have shipped them to Syria! It doesn't matter, because Jon Stewart and the rest of his assclown associates say it's a lie. And that must make it true.

Jon Stewart: "So the Secretary of Defense... CAUGHT in a contradiction!". No, it's not a contradiction, you moron. Because if Rumsfeld lied about Saddam's WMD, then Ted Kennedy lied when he said he had them, Bill Clinton lied, Madelaine Albright lied, John Kerry lied, Bob Graham lied, Robert Byrd lied, Tom Daschle lied, Harry Reid lied, Nancy Pelosi lied, and every Democrat whom under President Bill Clinton gave speeches on how we had to stop Saddam's WMD program must have LIED, too.

Idiots. Then Jon Stewart tosses in a complaint about FoxNews. I can't recall him ever complaining about the fawning news coverage that Democrats get from ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, the Washington Post, or any zillions of others he won't comment about. Because then it wouldn't be funny!

Someone should tell Stewart that FoxNews has the highest cable ratings of any cable news network. Which means he was telling his audience that they're a bunch of dummies. Hilarious.

Stewart then complains about a profile of Rumsfeld that doesn't call him a liar, war criminal, mass murderer or stooge for Halliburton. Gee, how terrible!

For six years, this is the sum intellectual content of opposition I've seen directed at the Bush administration. There's zero content behind it, it's just carping and whining from the sidelines by the party out of power. And frankly, they blame the public for that. They never blame themselves, no power is always stolen from them, why they were tricked! Thus is the template set for 2006.

-Ogami
 
Good column by the MRC's L. Brent Bozell (whom the liberals like to call 'Bozo', aren't they witty?) on the different coverage from the Reagan TV movie to this one. For all of the complaints of Team Clinton, neither Clinton is portrayed by an actor in the movie!

Clinton and Reagan and TV Movies
by L. Brent Bozell III
September 12, 2006

It was stunning, and yet it was eerily reminiscent of the extraordinary discipline of Team Clinton. Days before the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" was to air, they determined the network fudged in its commitment to follow faithfully the facts in the 9/11 Commission report. A scene or two in the otherwise remarkable presentation was false.

And this was the angle Team Clinton needed in order to pounce. The Clinton campaign kicked into high gear in the days before it aired, with the ex-president and his lawyering aides and Democrats in Congress all pressuring ABC to dump the film.

It’s important to understand that Team Clinton didn’t demand the film be edited for accuracy. They wanted everything -- including all the accurate criticisms and findings – thrown in the garbage. Clinton had his usual cleanup squad write letters to ABC chief Bob Iger demanding the $40 million movie be deep-sixed: "We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film."

The usual lowlight was Bill Clinton himself, claiming he was the guardian of truth: "I just want people to tell the truth, you know, and not pretend it’s something it’s not." Other Clinton players were equally shameless.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviewed Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger, who wanted it killed. "I don't think this is just a question of fixing something around the edges, Wolf. My impression is that this is a misleading film to the core. And it seems to me the only appropriate thing at this point is for ABC to withdraw the series." Blitzer didn’t note, maybe to avoid audience laughter, that Berger’s last prominent act around the 9/11 Commission was illegally hiding documents on himself to prepare Clinton for his (almost unnoticed) testimony.

Liberals across America cried foul, citing CBS’s decision in 2003 to cancel their TV-movie called "The Reagans" in the wake of conservative pressure. They suggested conservatives were hypocrites to support pulling that film while defending this one. But there are significant differences between the two projects.

1. Most obviously, "The Reagans" had at its center a dangerously doltish Ronald Reagan and a witchy Nancy Reagan. By contrast, "The Path to 9/11" was not designed as a deeply personal attack on Bill and Hillary Clinton. There was no actor playing Bill Clinton in the ABC movie. He only appeared in the ABC movie in news clips, which were hardly fictional. Hillary Clinton made no appearance of any kind.

2. It’s also obvious that Bill Clinton is alert and healthy and able to defend himself against whatever the ABC movie would suggest. At the time CBS prepared to air "The Reagans," Ronald Reagan was unable to defend himself, deep under the veil of Alzheimer’s disease and just months away from death. A docudrama that created a sense that Reagan’s policies were failures would have been debatable, but a movie cartooning him on his deathbed as stupid and evil was beyond the border of good taste. No such similarity existed with “The Path to 9/11.”

3. During the fuss over the Reagan movie, the liberal media were beside themselves denouncing that dastardly thing called censorship. The New York Times even editorialized that conservatives "helped create the Soviet-style chill embedded in the idea that we, as a nation, will not allow critical portrayals of one of our own recent leaders."

So where was the Times – and everyone else – finding Soviet-style censorship in Team Clinton’s demands that the ABC film be pulled? Instead, they sympathized with Clinton, editorializing: "One suggestion: when attempting to recreate real events on screen, you do not show real people doing things they never did." For the record, the Times was utterly silent when CBS planned to feature Ronald Reagan declaring people deserved to die of AIDS.

It should be precisely explained that in 2003, the Media Research Center sent letters to advertisers asking them simply to review the script before associating themselves with the anti-Reagan film. For a liberal, that is Soviet–style censorship.

ABC ultimately aired its “Path to 9/11" movie, editing out a minute or so out of scenes in the movie that were not historically accurate. This was the correct solution. But the full-court press from the Clintonistas clearly had an effect, too. ABC claimed the film would roll “without interruption,” but broke in several times for disclaimers – not to mention that in Washington, the local ABC affiliate ran its own disavowals.

Both segments were also followed by ABC News programs for more context (and some Clinton-pleasing spin). In the final analysis, ABC showed that it listened to both sides, and stuck with its film, with added caveats. It’s just too bad that Team Clinton seemed to have more rhetorical fire for ABC now than they had in their day for Osama bin Laden.
Click to expand...
 
Ogami said:
Mentalist wrote:

What was that Ogami?

That was a great video, Mentalist, highlighting exactly why the Left is WRONG, and LYING. First Stewart showed footage of the usual nuts (i.e. Democrats) being removed waving banners saying Rumsfeld was guilty of war crimes. Your typical human debris from the Democratic party, at war with our country. Then Rumsfeld gets a question from a former CIA analyst, but then it's not a question. That in itself is a lie by Jon Stewart. This guy asks Rumsfeld "why" he lied about WMD to get us into Iraq.

As Mentalist knows full well, this is on the order of asking "When did you stop beating your wife?". I've seen many occasions where Rumsfeld (or any other Bush administration official) would be badgered by a false question with the purpose of making them accept the premise of the question. Rumsfeld and the rest have long ago learned to avoid making that mistake. Rumsfeld refused to accept the premise of the question.

Then Stewart, hilarious comedian, runs a clip from Rumsfeld from March 30, 2003 stating "we know where they are, they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad". This is delivered as a huge laugh line. But Stewart's an ass for playing this, it's simply moronic. Does Stewart understand the concept of time? Does Mentalist?

Let's say I have an intelligence report dated September 12th 2006 that Mentalist put his car keys on his dresser. But today's September 13th, and they're not there! Did I lie about the location of Mentalist's car keys? Democrats say yes. But Mentalist could have put them in his pocket, he could have dropped them down the toilet, he could have shipped them to Syria! It doesn't matter, because Jon Stewart and the rest of his assclown associates say it's a lie. And that must make it true.

Jon Stewart: "So the Secretary of Defense... CAUGHT in a contradiction!". No, it's not a contradiction, you moron. Because if Rumsfeld lied about Saddam's WMD, then Ted Kennedy lied when he said he had them, Bill Clinton lied, Madelaine Albright lied, John Kerry lied, Bob Graham lied, Robert Byrd lied, Tom Daschle lied, Harry Reid lied, Nancy Pelosi lied, and every Democrat whom under President Bill Clinton gave speeches on how we had to stop Saddam's WMD program must have LIED, too.

Idiots. Then Jon Stewart tosses in a complaint about FoxNews. I can't recall him ever complaining about the fawning news coverage that Democrats get from ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, the Washington Post, or any zillions of others he won't comment about. Because then it wouldn't be funny!

Someone should tell Stewart that FoxNews has the highest cable ratings of any cable news network. Which means he was telling his audience that they're a bunch of dummies. Hilarious.

Stewart then complains about a profile of Rumsfeld that doesn't call him a liar, war criminal, mass murderer or stooge for Halliburton. Gee, how terrible!

For six years, this is the sum intellectual content of opposition I've seen directed at the Bush administration. There's zero content behind it, it's just carping and whining from the sidelines by the party out of power. And frankly, they blame the public for that. They never blame themselves, no power is always stolen from them, why they were tricked! Thus is the template set for 2006.

-Ogami
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah...


Didn't you say they were there?


No.

=

LIE


No matter how much you try and spin it, it's a lie. He said that he didn't do something that he did do. Lie!

What I find hilarious is that you will trash a Democrat no matter what and on ANY grounds but if it comes to your precious Republicans you cannot accept it and will spin it for yourself and for anyone that will listen.


I don't care for the Democrats or the Republicans. As it happens I actually lean just right of center on most political issues but you annoy me for the simple fact is that you have lost objectivity. You will swallow whatever is handed to you as long as it comes from the "club" you belong to.


I don't dislike you, you have given me no reason to. But I do find your perspective to be skewed regardless of the political choices.
 
I don't understand the fascination Bush's opponents have with whether Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney or Rice or Powell lied. According to the Democrats, it's the sign of the greatest leader in the history of the universe if you lie. Clinton's a hero for lying for his entire 8 years as president, so it baffles me why we've heard nothing but the left playing the gotcha game for 6 years with Bush.

Like I said, there is zero content to the opposition over the war in Iraq. It all distills down to Jon Stewart sneering like the Democrat shitbag he is. When you have something more than sneers, acid, whining, carping, and complaining, then you can run the country.

-Ogami
 
Ogami said:
I don't understand the fascination Bush's opponents have with whether Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney or Rice or Powell lied.
Click to expand...

Well, if I would have to take a guess, I would think that maybe it's because that was Bush's entire reason for going to war with Iraq in the first place!

Ogami said:
Like I said, there is zero content to the opposition over the war in Iraq. It all distills down to Jon Stewart sneering like the Democrat shitbag he is. When you have something more than sneers, acid, whining, carping, and complaining, then you can run the country.
Click to expand...

Funny, it seems as the opposition has more evidence proving that the war with Iraq was a sham and the American people were lied to then anything else.

bush-shutup.jpg
 
Actually, Saddam is the one to blame for the belief there were WMDs in Iraq. It made him the big man on his block. Considering his actions - taking a most favored nation into ruin by warring with Iran to the point of bankruptcy, then invading Kuwait to take their oil to sell to finance further warring with Iran, then kicking the weapons inspectors out and keeping them out for long periods of time over a 10 year period - it was not hard to believe he had WMDs and was making more. Considering what he did to the Kurds, to his own people, to his neighbors - it was not hard to believe he had WMDs, was making more, and would use them. Knowing we had sold WMDs to Saddam in the past, reading the weapons inspections reports, knowing other countries were selling him contraband in the present ... it wasn't hard at all to believe it. Al-Qaeda believed it. I still believe it. What I want to know is where the hell did they go? The insurgents would have no problem using them if they had them. The countries supplying the insurgents would have no problem using them if they had them. So, where are the WMDs and when will they resurface?

Something to point out here. If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield "lied" to the American people that there were WMDs in Iraq when in fact Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield did not believe there were WMDs in Iraq, there would have been some WMDs planted and found pretty damned quick right after we invaded Iraq. Instead, what we found were caches of bio-suits. Now, why would Iraq need caches of bio-suits for bio-warfare. Who else was using bio-warfare besides Saddam?

And, another thing to point out - WMDs can be very small, like a vial that one can slip into their pocket. How hard would it be to move a large quantity of vials when one person could carry 5 or so easily in their pocket and just walk down the road with them. Think a satellite image would pick that up? OMG - he's got something in his pocket, looks like a WMD!

I'm hearing Alanas Morisette singing - "He's got one hand on the WMD in his pocket and with the other hand he's flicking a cigarette."
 
eloisel said:
Actually, Saddam is the one to blame for the belief there were WMDs in Iraq. It made him the big man on his block. Considering his actions - taking a most favored nation into ruin by warring with Iran to the point of bankruptcy, then invading Kuwait to take their oil to sell to finance further warring with Iran, then kicking the weapons inspectors out and keeping them out for long periods of time over a 10 year period - it was not hard to believe he had WMDs and was making more. Considering what he did to the Kurds, to his own people, to his neighbors - it was not hard to believe he had WMDs, was making more, and would use them. Knowing we had sold WMDs to Saddam in the past, reading the weapons inspections reports, knowing other countries were selling him contraband in the present ... it wasn't hard at all to believe it. Al-Qaeda believed it. I still believe it. What I want to know is where the hell did they go? The insurgents would have no problem using them if they had them. The countries supplying the insurgents would have no problem using them if they had them. So, where are the WMDs and when will they resurface?

Something to point out here. If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield "lied" to the American people that there were WMDs in Iraq when in fact Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield did not believe there were WMDs in Iraq, there would have been some WMDs planted and found pretty damned quick right after we invaded Iraq. Instead, what we found were caches of bio-suits. Now, why would Iraq need caches of bio-suits for bio-warfare. Who else was using bio-warfare besides Saddam?

And, another thing to point out - WMDs can be very small, like a vial that one can slip into their pocket. How hard would it be to move a large quantity of vials when one person could carry 5 or so easily in their pocket and just walk down the road with them. Think a satellite image would pick that up? OMG - he's got something in his pocket, looks like a WMD!

I'm hearing Alanas Morisette singing - "He's got one hand on the WMD in his pocket and with the other hand he's flicking a cigarette."
Click to expand...

Thank you. Sums up my opinion perfectly.
 
Eloisel wrote:

Actually, Saddam is the one to blame for the belief there were WMDs in Iraq. It made him the big man on his block.

Quite right, and this points to a claim I love refuting. We're always told Bush's intelligence reports were wrong, that Bush made a mistake, that Bush gambled and lost. That's completely cock-eyed. It was Saddam Hussein whose intelligence on America was flawed, it was Saddam Hussein who bluffed to the world whether he had WMD or not. He rolled the dice, gambling we wouldn't act, and he lost. Big time. He lost his evil sons, he lost his power, he lost everything. That was a huge-ass gamble, to gamble on America's inaction, and he bet wrong. Tough cookies, even if he didn't have a single functioning WMD bomb or cannister.

Considering what he did to the Kurds, to his own people, to his neighbors - it was not hard to believe he had WMDs, was making more, and would use them.

What's baffling about the Iraq criticism is that Bush's critics pretend our difficulties with Iraq and Saddam Hussein began with Dubya's inauguration. They tell us Bush created Islamic terrorism, that it didn't exist before we invaded Iraq, they tell us everything was rosy and wonderful in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was running it. Then I ask, then does that mean we should put Saddam back in power? No, of course not, is the response. Then what is the complaint? Because if Bush was wrong, then Saddam must be right. And let's make him "president" again today. Otherwise, the critics can shove their carping from the sidelines.

Bush just finished a press conference today where he laid the SMACKDOWN on their candy asses, I loved it. Bush lined up one snide reporter after another, and bitch-slapped them so hard their heads spun around. When one reporterette from the New York Times said they were the "friendly" newspaper, Bush joked that he'd hate to see them when they're unfriendly. Yes! In your face, liberal fucks!

Something to point out here. If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield "lied" to the American people that there were WMDs in Iraq when in fact Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield did not believe there were WMDs in Iraq, there would have been some WMDs planted and found pretty damned quick right after we invaded Iraq.

When you look at the picture of Bush that Rafterman loves to use, this becomes all the more clear. If Bush was really that diabolical (literally), he and Cheney would have created the WMD and then "found" it already. Yet the conspiracy wack-jobs don't think that one through, that's why their conspiracy ideas always flop.

The countries supplying the insurgents would have no problem using them if they had them. So, where are the WMDs and when will they resurface?

As has been related on this message board, we have found WMD in Iraq, expired gas cannisters that contained traces of chemical weapons, from the Iran-Iraq war. I personally believe Saddam Hussein retained a small WMD program, and shipped those fruits to Syria. He had ample time from Summer 2002 to March 2003, America gave him AMPLE warning. And as for the rest, it was simple to bluff to the world of his power. Saddam rolled that dice, and we called his bluff in the most final way possible.

-Ogami
 
I wonder if they aren't in a cave or some other underground structure that's been collapsed from bombing. One of these days - maybe 100s of years from now - somebody is going to excavate the wrong site and get a mixture of divine retribution in the face and let out a toxic fume with the potential to wipe out living things for miles around. Wonder what the shelf life is on bio and chemical warfare agents.
 
Eloisel wrote:

I wonder if they aren't in a cave or some other underground structure that's been collapsed from bombing. One of these days - maybe 100s of years from now - somebody is going to excavate the wrong site and get a mixture of divine retribution in the face and let out a toxic fume with the potential to wipe out living things for miles around. Wonder what the shelf life is on bio and chemical warfare agents.

I think everything Saddam had is expired. Hopefully. And they were never successful in mutating their plague samples into airborne pathogens.
_________________

Rafterman wrote:

I can't wait til November, Bush's impeachment is long overdue.

I hate to differ with Bad Dog here, but Rafterman is right on the money.

A vote for a Democrat is a vote to tie the country up with the Impeachment of President Bush for the next two years. That's what this election is about, it's what the House Democrats have promised, they are salivating at the prospect.

This is precisely why I predict a GOP win for 2006. Vote for a Democrat and you're voting for Impeachment. It's that simple.

-Ogami
 
Too many democrats voted for the war , they dont have a leg to stand on as far as impeachment. Even the smart dems know trying to impeach is political suicide.
 
This is the problem ...
young men and women are fighting, suffering hard living and injuries, dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan because we've got terrorists getting on planes with bombs in their shoes and in water bottles, terrorists blowing up trains and underground conveyance systems in Spain and England, terrorists crashing planes into buildings, terrorists who want me to convert to fucking Islam and wear a burka, hide inside behind covered and painted over windows; borders so porous millions of illegal immigrants are coming in to the country and literally robbing us blind while citizens of this country who were born here and have spent their lives working and paying taxes here are having to choose between food/housing/utilities/clothing and medicine, people are living on the streets because they lost their jobs to NAFTA and CAFTA ... and other real problems and what do the Democrats have to say? Do they say, "Boy, when we get in power we're gonna do something about this lousy healthcare system." Or, do they say, "Boy, when we get in power we're going to do something to strengthen our borders." Or, "Boy, when we get in power we're going to do something about people losing their jobs." Or, "Boy, when we get in power we're going to do something to make the world safer from terrorists." No, this is what they say: "Boy, we can't wait until November and we get some power so we can impeach Bush."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top