Read the links. Then respond. When respond, remember that liberals think it is okay to urinate and burn the American flag, because that is "free speech". Liberals think it is okay to call our troops "nazis", because that is "free speech". Liberals think it is okay to say or do anything that supports a LIBERAL cause, because that is "free speech".
So, how can liberals even begin to think about getting this pulled from the air? Is this not "free speech?"
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/columnists/15459044.htm
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/15456341.htm
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=10674
http://www.thecurrentonline.com/media/storage/paper304/news/2006/09/05/ArtsAndEntertainment/Tv.Series.Dramatizes.Events.Leading.To.911-2255918.shtml?norewrite200609071123&sourcedomain=www.thecurrentonline.com
2006-09-07 04:27:10 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television
It seems the liberals like free speech until it tells the truth about them.
2006-09-07 04:44:05 · answer #1 · answered by Emm 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This movie has huge inaccuracies and yet they plan on partnering with Scholastic to send it into schools to be used as a teaching aid.
Members of the 9/11 commission (both Democrats and Republicans) have spoken out against it.
It is most inaccurate in it's accounts of the near capture of Bin Laden but the scenes which portray the CIA agents with Bin Laden in their sights and being told to stand down just plain didn't happen. It also outlines the lack of response by the Clinton admin. to militarily respond to the bombing of the USS Cole but
"The commission's executive summary explains that by the time Al Qaeda was definitely identified as the party responsible for attacking the Cole, Clinton had left office, and it was Bush who declined to take action:
After the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, evidence accumulated that it had been launched by Al Qaeda operatives, but without confirmation that Bin Ladin had given the order. The Taliban had earlier been warned that it would be held responsible for another Bin Ladin attack on the United States. The CIA described its findings as a "preliminary judgment"; President Clinton and his chief advisers told us they were waiting for a conclusion before deciding whether to take military action. The military alternatives remained unappealing to them."
(http://www.alternet.org/story/41288/ - Hijacking 9/11 )
The Conservative Voice characterizes the film like this:
The Path to 9/11 explores the security failures behind the 9/11 attacks on the US and is said to place much of the blame on the Clinton Administration’s failure to address Islamic terrorism.
Since the docudrama claims to be factually based on the 9/11 commission reports, it is factually wrong to "place much of the blame on the Clinton Administration" because that was not the assessment of the commission.
9/11 is too important an event to be trivialized into a political campaign tool for either party. The truth about this terrible tragedy is compelling enough without "spinning" it!
Free speech is not the ability to claim something is factual and correct if it is not.
2006-09-07 11:57:24 · answer #2 · answered by Canadian_mom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do they really still claim to stand up for free speech? I do know they are behind the movements to tell us all what words and actions and what we are allowed to do and not do, all for the betterment of "ourselves" so I guessed they had abandoned the constitutional right for free speech long ago. Then again perhaps it was only speech that they agree with that is suppose to be allowed.
2006-09-07 11:47:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, ok, I may be a minority, but I'm a liberal and agree that this is ridiculous. Then again, I think arguing over anything that is meant (at least in large part) to be a work of fiction or dramatization is ridiculous.
So I guess we're just all ridiculous then, aren't we?
2006-09-07 11:35:45 · answer #4 · answered by Robin J. Sky 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anything that tarnishes the image of Slick Willie Clinton is a bad thing to that side of the aisle
2006-09-07 11:29:51 · answer #5 · answered by B C 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hadn't heard this. Goes to show that liberals don't really stand for free speech. They stand for other things and claim free speach when its in their own best interest.
2006-09-07 11:28:48 · answer #6 · answered by HokiePaul 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Brutal
2006-09-07 11:28:09 · answer #7 · answered by Conservative Texan 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh Jeez, not another reading assignment.
2006-09-07 11:58:36 · answer #8 · answered by yahoohoo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋