Several democratic senators have signed a letter sent to ABC threatening to review their broadcast license. Sounds like blackmail to me. What about freedom of speech or are they only for freedom of speech when they agree with the speach. Just wondering
2006-09-08 05:32:02 · 26 answers · asked by al 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Of course they are afraid. Their hopes for November are tied to the anti-Bush vote, anything that distracts voters from their games of deception and propaganda can weaken their "platform".
The Democrats have spent too much time and money promoting all the conspiracy theories about the government's involvement in 9/11... they don't want you to get confused as to which government to blame, Clinton's or Bush's.
I don't understand why they would object so vociferously unless some of the fictionalized part were too close for comfort. After all we all ready know Bill released Osama bin Laden, we know all about the cigars and stained dresses, we know too much about his past encounters with women as Governor. After disclosing so many personal experiences why should a little fiction bother him so much? Or maybe its not fiction after all.
2006-09-08 05:50:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, because ABC already issued a disclaimer saying it is a fictionalized docudrama., It does not stand up for the truth of it nor for accuracy, or that it's non fiction. They suppose and dramatize, but can not verify. That's why they issued the disclaimer, so they wouldn't get sued, Bush has lied so much that put all together would make the false accusations and enactments in ABCs fictionalized docudrama look like a sandbox.
There is a difference between drama and truth, that s why it is "Drama"!
If you look at the eight years of the Clinton administration, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of fewer than 50 Americans over those eight years. Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 Americans were killed in Lebanon and there was no retaliation. Contrast that with the first Bush administration where 260 Americans were killed on Pan-Am 103 and there was no retaliation.
President Bush himself said in a book when he gave an interview to Bob Woodward, he said "I didn't feel a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. "It was not my focus, it was not the focus of my team."
2006-09-08 06:02:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Intelligent people should go to http://pol.moveon.org/abcdoc/ to sign MoveOn's petition to stop the movie.
An excerpt from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733545/
<< OLBERMANN: You were privy to everything the president read each day, you had daily access to him. Is there any truth to the principal insinuation here that he was distracted from terrorism by the Lewinsky affair?
SEAN MALONEY: Absolutely not. Let me tell you what. I was there. I saw the president every day during the entire Lewinsky episode, from the day it started to the day it ended. And it was my job to provide him with his daily workload, a mountain of stuff that goes through the Oval Office. And I can tell you, that guy was focused like a laser beam on doing his job. And you know what else I did, I saw all the national security information that went to the president every day, including all the information on the growing threat of al Qaeda. And I can tell you, this — President Clinton was focused like a laser beam on it. And I‘m just telling you as a guy who was there. It is a smear to say that he wasn‘t. It‘s a subjective view, there is no evidence to support it. And I can tell you, as a guy who was in the room, it‘s just not the case. And you know who else knew it? The American people. And that‘s why they stood by him, because he was doing his job. And that‘s why he enjoys the favorable ratings he has today.
OLBERMANN: Do you fear that people will actually believe the docudrama, and now put more blame on President Clinton than he deserves for the events that led up to 9/11?
MALONEY: Well, look, why would ABC be so careless with the truth? Let‘s be clear, there is no dispute that there are factual mistakes in this movie, and they are serious. They just say things that didn‘t happen. And ABC doesn‘t dispute that. Now, the president of ABC Entertainment has said it‘s critically important to get it right. So why not get it right? Why not clean this thing up, or take it down until you get it right? You know, I‘m a New Yorker, and those of us in New York are getting to celebrate the five-year anniversary of this terrible episode. And you know what we‘re thinking about? We‘re still getting on handle on what was in the toxic cloud that went out. The families are still grieving with their loss. This should be a nonpartisan day to come together. This is a terrible time, using falsehoods, to inject politics into this commemoration. I just don‘t know why ABC would do it. It‘s wrong. They ought to fix it. >>
2006-09-08 08:48:12 · answer #3 · answered by Emerald Blue 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most are not afraid,it is just one of Republican's last attempts to make everyone feel bad and show why we are in Iraq type of thing. The timing before elections is scaring the Republicans because even now most Republicans want Democrats in the seats. Which I don't feel bad about getting out of Iraq. We need to get out. To much debt,deaths and lies are invloved in this war.
Bush lies about so much,I am sure most of the movie is created to make him TRY to look good.
First we were told that Saddam had WMD, and that he even was working on a drone which could deliver a nuclear weapon to America. Rice said that we shouldn't wait for the mushroom cloud. Bush said we had to strike preemptively before a nation became an imminent threat. After WMD were not found, we were told we were bringing democracy to the country, by ridding it of a genocidal tyrant. Next, we were told that we were fighting terrorism over there so that it would not come to the United States. Then Bush and Cheney tried to associate Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 terrorists, so we were in Iraq to strike back at the 9/11 terrorists. Then we were told we were fighting to establish a "new Middle East" but that was not really defined, except as a place of modernity and "freedoms".. As of today, per Bush's most recent speech, it seems as though we are in Iraq fighting a global war on radical Islam. Who knows how long we get lied to,and what the next reason will be.....Do what Barbara should have made Bush Senior do-PULL OUT BUSH!!!
GET US OUT OF IRAQ!!!!!
My Hubby is in Iraq now,his 4th time over,and this is the only time he stated he didn't see why he was there. Showing a movie isn't scaring us. Ordering more Troops to Iraq on the other hand is!
2006-09-08 07:08:29 · answer #4 · answered by Holly 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The whole political system is so corrupt that more time and effort is spent hiding the truth and denying responsibility that little if anything gets accomplished. A similar reaction occurred with regard to the movie, Fahrenheit 911.
Neither party, the Democrats or Republicans, is worthy of our trust or confidence. The nation is swirling down the toilet while the politicians fight for control over a government that no longer stands for its people.
2006-09-08 05:46:37 · answer #5 · answered by strider89406 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There has been information that the film may contain known inaccuracies. If that is true, then ABC may be in trouble.
Personally, I feel it is still too soon to be making movies and documentaries about this because it is still too heavily imbeded in the psyche of this generation. WW2 film didn't start appearing right away like they have for 9/11, society knew to wait a little bit so all the emotions attached to it would be able to die down some so reason could prevail. Of course, in today's society, rationality seems to be frowned upon.
2006-09-08 05:37:47 · answer #6 · answered by azrael505 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A couple of interesting facts, for a perspective. Was it not ABC that decided against airing a Reagan bio that some deemed an unfavorable expository? Of late, it seems that any vestigial remains of restraint and temperance have given way to reckless and inaccurate reporting. This kind of broadcast only furthers an attitude of discontent that widens the chasm between Americans. Instead of promoting a consensus, it serves a purpose to polarize people into extreme camps of philosophy.
Remember the phrase "divide and conquer?"
Well guess what folks?
The media has conquered you!
2006-09-08 06:00:15 · answer #7 · answered by Finnegan 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Oh yessssss.
The Democrats are very afraid the facts will come out. Clinton was busy taking money for foreign governments and having sex with any woman willing to do him. There were 5 terrorists attacks committed against American during Clintons reign. Where was Clinton? Answer: With Monica.
The facts are going to change the upcoming elections. The Dems thought they were on a roll. Now nasty old ABC is going to pull the curtain back and expose them. You bet they are afraid!
2006-09-08 05:39:12 · answer #8 · answered by Zee HatMan 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
They don't like the portrayal, because it makes them and their party look bad. But their current tactics are utterly stupid as an approach. The more they complain and deny, the more attention gets drawn to the film.
A much better approach would have been to comment that it was an amusing piece of fiction, and that they are happy to live in a country where anyone can tell any story, no matter how whimsical or fictitious.
2006-09-08 05:33:57 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
I asked a question just like this and got nothing but lip in response.
Glad you were able to elicit some less frightening answers on this, because government intimidation over political content is a dangerous path to go down.
2006-09-08 07:58:10 · answer #10 · answered by rustyshackleford001 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋