Comments on: Republicans White-Wash History — Again

By: bikini wallpaper

bikini wallpaper — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:55:30 +0000

bikini wallpaper

safehofxb ngbechcsnu wkscuqnrbe

By: ylhgdawvo

ylhgdawvo — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:11:20 +0000

wuzfiowvku

uydicdnns zzsgssi gpebwepyw

By: Dennis Savage

Dennis Savage — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:06:17 +0000

If I recall correctly (and I do) when ABC broadcast a controversial film about nuclear war, THE DAY AFTER, in 1984 they had a panel discussion afterwards with Carl Sagan, William F Buckley, George Shultz (then Secretary of State), and Elie Wiesel (who would win the Nobel Peace Prize two years later). (Oddly, the Wikipedia article neglects to mention the last two, but I have the broadcast on tape.)

Why not ask them to do the decent thing, admit the controversy, and have another panel discussion?

By: mickslam

mickslam — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:32:55 +0000

Dad,

Don’t take your kids to Disneyland. and let disney know why.

By: Che’s Lounge

Che’s Lounge — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:22:39 +0000

Step 6: Select targets
Step 6A: press ADD
Then do step 7.

Thanks so much for the assistance. It was quite easy.
Tell your friends to boycott the ABC affilitates.

By: Grouchy’s Liberaltopia » READ ABC THE RIOT ACT ABOUT THE 9/11 FANTASY

Grouchy’s Liberaltopia » READ ABC THE RIOT ACT ABOUT THE 9/11 FANTASY — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 05:34:38 +0000

[…] Why? Because of that crap mini-series on 9/11 they are airing just before the election. But you must know about this if you visit other sites, Think Progress has had excellent coverage. Scroll through the recent posts there, there are too many to link to individually. (Not really, I’m just being lazy, but definitely see this one). This post at Jane Hamsher’s FDL is very good and gives you hints how to hit their sponors up. This is crap is really whitewash of Bush and a false smear of Clinton and there is no doubt about why. Effect the Election. Your “so called liberal media” in action again. I told ABC I no longer watch them anyway, (John Stossel’s nasal whine was making me sick), but now I intend to boycott all their sponsors. ALL. I did say I would make an exception if they aired that old 20/20 episode of Stossel getting the crap kicked out of him by that wrestler. That was good TV. Digby has a good post on why ABC and Disney are playing footsie with the wingnuts. […]

By: egregious

egregious — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 03:38:32 +0000

Steve @ 53

Justice Kennedy had cardiac stent (stents?) placed today. I feel sick.

Steve

[donning cardiac surgery cap and gown]

Not to worry! Stents are a good thing. They are low risk to insert, and make it a lot easier for blood to flow.

By: Ron Russell

Ron Russell — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:38:10 +0000

LOL!
orangejumpsuit @
118

Joe’s site is up and they are already slinging mud. They have a Quinniac “Thermometer Poll” (WTF?) to determine how “warmly” people feel about political figures, and Joe is gloating that he is fifth behind such “hot” folks like Giuliani (yeah, a week before the 9/11 anniversary), McCain, Rice, and Obama.

I guess they are using rectal thermometers for this poll.

Anyway, when you get to the bottom of the list, they let loose a nasty little dart at Ned Lamont (not mentioned in the poll itself). Go see for yourself.

Sort of pathetic if that is all Joe has going for him right now, a Thermometer Poll. We ought to be able to milk this one real good, hey Snarkers?

http://joe2006.com/blog_details.asp?id=6

I’m Ron Russell and I approve of the Rectal anology!! (Note to crowd): So do we!

By: Nancy Burton

Nancy Burton — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:54:18 +0000

We need to mobilize attacks against Disney not just ABC. I’m a teacher. I think you can target teachers to be pretty upset about being targets of right propaganda. Publish contact info at Disney as well. Send to teachers and librarians. We are so frustrated

By: Cujo359

Cujo359 — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:24:39 +0000

The producer’s comments from the official “The Path To 9/11″ blog:

We have worked hard to make this not a political movie. We show both administrations with an unvarnished truth. Because our show is chronological - if a viewer watches just the first night of the mini series it could be perceived as anti Clinton. If a viewer watches just the second night it could be perceived as anti Bush. It sounds as if you are getting your information from someone who has only seen one night.

D. Cunningham, Director of The Path to 9/11

August 29, 2006

Richard Clarke on a scene from the first episode:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

Question for the class: How can this be the “unvarnished truth” if an entire scene is made up and does not even represent the real attitudes of the participants?

If the remainder of this movie is as fictional as the first episode, why would I take comfort in their being “anti Bush”?