home

Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate"

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Just remarkable:

I think what they're trying to do is to take the fact the specific scenes portrayed were fictional and to try to refute the underlying reality that the Clinton administration just didn't get it. And by the way, before 9/11 neither did the Bush administration," - 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman.

Believe it or not, Bill Bennett gets it right on the principle, if not the conclusion:

Look, "The Path to 9/11″ is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that's no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn't happen.

The point is simple - if you believe Clinton was faulty in his approach to terrorism and Al Qaida, then cite the FACTS to argue your case. Frankly, I think the problem is the FACTS say otherwise. That is precisely why fiction (or more bluntly, lies) must be used to smear the Clinton Administration's work on terrorism.

The bottom line is that a Wingnut producer made a "docudrama" intended to indict the Clinton Administration but the facts did not support the thesis. The truth is that since the intention was to indict Clinton, and since the facts did not support the intended indictment, what ABC's "Path to Truthiness" really proves is that Clinton apparently was quite serious about terrorism and the Bush Administration was not.

Ronald Reagan said "facts are stubborn things." They certainly can be. Let's hope they are here.

< Spreading Presidential Propaganda | Bush Requests Airtime for Speech During Path to 9/11 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 06:36:58 PM EST
    If you are outraged about ABC and need good laugh, check out this report by Assimilated Press, "ABC Feeds off Bones of Dead and Disdains History"

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#1)
    by Strick on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 07:27:26 PM EST
    To think, Shakespeare made up whole scenes in Richard III. What's the world coming to? I admit what I've read of the scene with Berger on the phone was outrageous. On the other hand, that's the way Hollywood is. Welcome to the world of business men, conservative Christians and anyone else they make up crap about all the time.

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 07:31:25 PM EST
    hmmm, let's see... Covertly funded to the tune of 40 million dollars by a recently discovered far right-wing operation - operating in Hollywood (allegedly for cover) Secretly sent advanced copies to Rush Limbaugh and other far right-wing operatives who just so happen to stridently advance the exact same inaccurate views as portrayed in the film. Denied the parties actually depicted in film advanced copies of the film, including the former President of the United States. Condemned as, defamatory, slanderous, improvised, contrived, and grossly inaccurate by most, if not all experts involved in the actual supervision of the production, political pundits on both sides of the aisle - not to mention the former government officials who were actually depicted in the film and even actors themselves. Condemned by all of one of the Commissioners of the 9/11 Commission itself, the purported and advertised basis of the legitimacy film. (the one exception, Tom Kean gave a changing opinion of his views of the film -and did not openly deny the inaccuracies, but instead pointed out that Bill Clinton, the primary target of the slanderous inaccuracies was currently campaigning for the opponent of his son in an upcoming New Jersey mid-term Congressional election.) Several FBI experts terminated their employment on the project either immediately after reading the grossly inaccurate script - or shortly after they were told their recommendations for major script changes in order to correct the gross inaccuracies were not going to occur. Planned to be aired on the anniversary of the event itself, September 11th, a date with serious emotional ties to the vast majority of the people of the United States of America, when thousands of innocent (Democratic, Republican, Independent and Apolitical) men, women and children were brutally murdered in one of the most serious and traumatizing events in American history. Planned to be aired on Public Airways a month before a major mid-term Congressional Election - and directly misrepresenting serious issues currently being discussed in the political discourse pertaining to such elections. Free copies planned to be distributed en masse to our Educational System, particularly at the High School Level, where political orientation is still at an impressionable stage. Emails disclosed from officials involved in the project to far right-wing pundits stating that the (implied deliberate) slanderous inaccuracies were still "in tact" and all was still going as planned. An actual "news" article on ABC NEWS labeling all who expressed their disagreement, distress or anger with the gross inaccuracies in, and controversial origins of the film as "Clintonistas", a slang term also frequently used by the aforementioned far right-wing political pundits. Repeated fraudulent misrepresentations and advertisements of the film as being based on the 9/11 commission - even AFTER the 9/11 Commission itself had publicly condemned the film as a grossly inaccurate representation of their bi-partisan findings. ....did I miss anything? 900 lb Gorilla | 09.08.06 - 10:25 pm | # --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 07:35:18 PM EST
    Wingnuts cite the fact that several of the terrorists entered the US on Clinton's watch as reason for their belief that he was responsible for 9/11. They are angry with Clinton for not having done EVERYTHING possible to stop terrorist attacks, while simultaneously not holding Bush responsible for not having done anything. Bizarre but true. There was no chattering about the planned event during Clinton's term. The plan was not yet complete - in fact, it wasn't complete until around July 01. And Bush, of course, ignored the warnings of multiple nations and our own intelligence agencies. Clinton didn't anticipate a loophole and he's as guilty as Bush who ignored every warning and made not a single attempt to prevent the attack they knew was coming. Just remember - in the 90s, rightwing American terrorists killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists did. Fewer than 40 Americans died from Islamic terrorism (yes, that includes the Embassy and the Cole bombings) during Clinton's presidency. But around 180 Americans died from rightwing terrorism during Clinton's presidency. After the initial WTC attacks, there were no more AQ or Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil. Clinton busted up their cells and drove fundy Islamic terrorism against Americans overseas. They tried again in 2000, but were stopped once more. They waited until Bush took office, whom they apparently saw as far more hospital to their cause. Here's the list of Americans killed by terrorism during clinton's presidency. Pass it around. Two Americans killed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_Aimal_Kansi Six Americans killed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing 168 Americans killed by rightwing nutbag here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing 19 Americans die here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing 1 American dies from rightwing terrorism Olympic park: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing 12 Americans killed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings 17 Americans killed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing Dr. David Gunn killed by rightwing terrorists: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/murders.asp Dr. John Britton and James Barrett killed by rightwing terrorists. http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/murders.asp Shannon Lowney and Leanne Nichols killed by rightwing terrorists: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/murders.asp Officer Robert Sanderson killed by rightwing terrorists: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/murders.asp Dr. Bernard Slepian killed by rightwing terrorists. http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/murders.asp

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    Obviously, that should say "hospitable to their cause".

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 07:46:26 PM EST
    Jeez, here's the correct formatting for the URLs. Two Americans killed by Islamic terrorists here: linked text 6 Americans killed by Islamic terrorists here: linked text 168 Americans killed by rightwing terrorist here: linked text 19 Americans die from Islamic terrorism here: linked text 1 American dies from rightwing terrorism Olympic park: linked text 12 Americans killed by Islamic terrorists here: linked text 17 Americans killed by Islamic terrorists here: linked text Dr. David Gunn killed by rightwing terrorists: linked text Dr. John Britton and James Barrett killed by rightwing terrorists. linked text Shannon Lowney and Leanne Nichols killed by rightwing terrorists: linked text Officer Robert Sanderson killed by rightwing terrorists: linked text Dr. Bernard Slepian killed by rightwing terrorists. linked text

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#7)
    by john horse on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 05:04:07 AM EST
    Big Tent, Now, in addition to Bill Bennett, other conservatives like Bill O'Reilly, John Podhoretz, and Brent Bozell are saying that this docudrama "has zero factual basis", is "defamatory", and is "strewn with a lot of problems." What is sad is I think most of the apologists for this film believe that this film misrepresents reality. I have yet to see a single post arguing that the controversial scenes were accurate. Why do they want to "fix the facts"? The same reason they wanted to fix the facts around Iraq. For neocons it is all about the ends justifying the means. Even if that means lying in order to achieve your ends. Big Tent says "The point is simple - if you believe Clinton was faulty in his approach to terrorism and Al Qaida, then cite the FACTS to argue your case." Don't hold your breath waiting for the "Path to 9/11" apologists to rise to this challenge.

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 07:39:14 AM EST
    lorelynn writes:
    Wingnuts cite the fact that several of the terrorists entered the US on Clinton's watch as reason for their belief that he was responsible for 9/11.
    Haven't seen that, got a link? Clinton's short comings were, and are, that like the Demos in general, he favored a Criminal Justice approach. After they have killed, we'll catch and put'em jail. I think that is a silly reactive strategy that will, and did, get Americans killed. That doesn't make Clinton evil, just wrong. And I would guess that the majority of Americans agreed with his strategy prior to the USS Cole attack, followed by 9/11. On the other hand, Bush, whether the Left and Demos want to agree, as shown in the following quotes and links by Clarke and Rice, immediately established a proactive kill them before they kill us strategy and plan. To date it has been successful. Will it always be successful? Probably not. Should we change it? No. Now for the back up info. Remember as you read it, it is from actual interviews, and no one has said Clarke and Rice were fibbing and no one has proven, or said, that the meetings didn't take place.Clark said.
    And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years. .....And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
    Now here we have Clarke clearly saying: They decided to keep the previous strategy.
    And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline. QUESTION: When was that presented to the president? CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.....So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
    Bush changed the strategy from reactive to proactive. Rice states when the administration knew/advised law enforcement/security of impending attck.
    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."
    So, as it is incorrect for the "moonbats" to blame Bush for doing "nothing." The record clearly shows a President clearly engaged in the process with his staff carrying out his directions. And just as it is ignorant for the "wingnuts" to blame Clinton for our Visa Policy, it is ignorant for the "moonbats" to blame Bush for doing nothing. Let me repeat. Both sides look very stupid when they do that. But the Left has been doing exactly that for almost five years, thinking that people would ignore the available facts and believe their nonsense. Now the Right has struck back. How accurate is the movie? At least as, and probably more than Moore's paean to ignorance, out of context nonsense and propaganda. Will it harm the Demo's chance at winning the House and the Senate? Probably. But if ABC knuckles under and pulls it, the Demos will absolutely loose the election.

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#9)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 08:20:52 AM EST
    How accurate is the movie? At least as, and probably more than Moore's paean to ignorance, out of context nonsense and propaganda.
    Perhaps you were unaware that Moore's movie was shown in theaters, and people had to leave their homes and pay to see it. OTOH, the Disney movie is being piped for free on publicly owned airwaves into virtually every home in the United States. You didn't have to pay for Moore's movie being shown, but the taxpayers are supporting the showing of the Disney movie through the license issued to ABC for the wavelength. Would you have had a problem with Moore's movie being shown, commercial free, on a national network a couple of months before an election? Sure, it made Bush look like a fool, sitting there with a kid's book in his hands, and staring into space while our country was under attack, but it's hard to deny that he did, because unlike Disney, Moore used actual footage of actual people saying and doing what they actually said and did. I think that's brilliant! Show "Fahrenheit 9/11" commercial free on another network at the same time! After all, since you don't have a problem with Disney doing that, you could hardly have a problem with Moore doing that, because you apply the same standard to all situations, being a rational nutwinger and all. Could you answer one question for me? Disney is a corporation that is supposed to make profits for its shareholders. The movie reported cost $40M to make, and it chews up six hours of prime time TV worth many tens of millions more. The ONLY way commercial TV makes money is by selling advertising, but they aren't selling any here. Why is the Disney Corporation taking about a hundred million dollar loss to show it? They could make more money showing reruns of "Gilligan's Island," as long as they sold advertising, and if their responsibility is to their stockholders, the board should resign en masse immediately for giving away all that money. Why would someone invest $40M into a film and not expect a return on the investment, unless the "return" was something other than money?

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 12:06:35 PM EST
    RePack - As I commented here, I do not like "docudramas" for the reasons I stated. Most of those on the Left in the same thread, saw no problem. Of course that particular docudrama was anti-US. So it appears that what we have here is a case of your ox being gored. So I didn't like 911 for the same reason I didn't like the one linked to, and for the same reasons I do not like this one. But, unlike the Left, and that includes you, I have never called for any of them to be censored and/or pulled. That the Demo/Left is now doing so destroys any pretext they may have about freedom speech, and any person claiming to be a Libertarian should publicly disassociate themselves from the Demos and the Left. Your complaint about ABC and profit are simplistic at best. Media companies do all sorts of things to raise market share and brand loyalty. ABC may think that this will do exactly that, raising the price for ALL commercials over the next X period of time. Neither of us know if that is correct, or if it is incorrect. And the board certainly has the right to fire management and/or resign themselves. As to the "public owned airways," that does not mean that the FCC should be exercising prior restraint. Indeed, the purpose of the FCC view of content is to control content that is beyond the norm... cursing, vulgar acts/comments...for the majority of the American public. Political content and/or accuracy is certainly not part of its franchise and it would be devastating to regulation if it tried to.

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 02:42:23 PM EST
    That the Demo/Left is now doing so destroys any pretext they may have about freedom speech
    truly amazing and amusing from the man constantly calling for limits on free speech. Lying is not free speech, FBI officials, dems 9/11 commission members and responsible republicans are calling for the movie to be yanked from the public airwaves. Once again, you are in the radical minority of Americans.

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#14)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 02:51:55 PM EST
    I do not like "docudramas" for the reasons I stated. Most of those on the Left in the same thread, saw no problem. Of course that particular docudrama was anti-US. So it appears that what we have here is a case of your ox being gored.
    I would no more want anyone to lie about Ronald Reagan than about Bill Clinton, so we are in agreement that the ABC miniseries is worthless at best and slander at worst. My "ox is not gored" any more by one falsehood than by another, so your point does not apply to anything I have said. Ronald Reagan had enough defenders who like him that someone like me who did not had no reason to join the fray. He was adequately defended and I agree with his defenders, just as you agree that Bill Clinton should not be slandered.
    I didn't like 911 for the same reason I didn't like the one linked to, and for the same reasons I do not like this one.
    The difference is that nothing in F/911 was fictional, and as the former owner of a magazine I am familiar with the laws that apply to slander, to wit, if it is true, it isn't slander no matter how embarrassing. On the other hand, writing something that is untrue about someone and harmful to that person, knowing that it is untrue, is libel. Saying it is slander. Public figures have a higher threshhold to meet than private citizens for recovery of damages, but the Clintons have a pretty good case anyway. Also, you had to PAY to see F/911, because the movie was intended to make a profit, unlike the current slanderous fiction. These are the most important difference, but you can't seem to comment on them.
    nlike the Left, and that includes you, I have never called for any of them to be censored and/or pulled.
    Of course, because a privately owned theater can show any damn thing they want, since they do not use any publicly owned wavelengths to do so. I hear some of them even show pornography, and I wouldn't want that broadcast to my home by Disney either, although I have no objection to them showing it privately for profit. Inmportant differences. Deal with them. You seem to forget that the Reagan series was pulled because of the outcry from the RIGHT, not from the left, so you are talking to the wrong person about that. I agreed with those who did not want Reagan slandered, since his real activities were disgraceful enough without embellishment. AND SINCE THAT STANDARD WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE RIGHT, they should stand by it when it is applied to the other side.
    As to the "public owned airways," that does not mean that the FCC should be exercising prior restraint.
    I don't think I have made any reference to the FCC. The references are to the difference between a movie like F/911, which viewers have to leave their houses and pay to see, and the current embarrassment, which is given free to wiewers in their homes because the taxpayers have licensed the wavelength. One is private, the other is public and publicly licensed. Big difference. If the advance copies of the program were available to dozens of bloggers, but not to any of the subjects depicted, what is the standard of truth being applied here? If you are saying things that are not true, in connection with some of the most important events in our history, when the principals are still living and available to interview at any possible length, why are you doing it? Why would you do something so expensive, and FOR THE FIRST TIME IN TELEVISION HISTORY indicate that profit was not important? I'm looking at a lot of dots here, Jim. Help me connect them. I will never purchase another product that bears the Disney logo, and I am not alone. Can the rightwingers make up for the losses Disney will take from the left?

    Clinton's short comings were, and are, that like the Demos in general, he favored a Criminal Justice approach. After they have killed, we'll catch and put'em jail. I think that is a silly reactive strategy that will, and did, get Americans killed. That doesn't make Clinton evil, just wrong. And I would guess that the majority of Americans agreed with his strategy prior to the USS Cole attack, followed by 9/11. On the other hand, Bush, whether the Left and Demos want to agree, as shown in the following quotes and links by Clarke and Rice, immediately established a proactive kill them before they kill us strategy and plan. To date it has been successful. Will it always be successful? Probably not. Should we change it? No.
    Wow - wingnut delusion in full. After the first WTC attack, there were no more successful Islamic attacks on the American homeland. Clinton actually drove Islamic terrorism against Americans oversears. It was four years before there was another successful terrorist attack against Americans. All the soldiers getting killed by IEDs? They're dying from terrorism. You do realize that, don't you? By the standards you propose, Clinton's approach is infinitely more successful. Again, after the first WTC attack, fundie Muslims did not launch another successful attack against Americans on the American homeland. The law enforcement approach worked far better than invading and slaughtering people in a sovereign nation has. clinton's approach didn't create more terrorists. Bush's has.

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#11)
    by john horse on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 09:18:49 PM EST
    PPJ's arguement boils down to this. We know that this movie misrepresents the truth about the events leading up to 9/11 but we don't care if the American people are mislead because we will benefit politically. His only defense is to point fingers and say that the other side also portrays facts in a misleading manner. The problem with this arguement is that he already concedes upfront that his side is misrepresenting the truth. Once you concede that you have already lost the arguement. What you are saying is that your side doesn't really care about the truth. Its all about the ends justifying the means even if the means to the end include "fixing the evidence." Like little children, conservatives must point fingers at others to justify what is unjustifiable. Even if Michael Moore's movie distorted the truth (and I don't think it did), how does that justify showing a movie which plays fast and loose with the facts.

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 09:24:36 AM EST
    RePack: this what the NYT critic AO Scott had to say about F911.
    ...while Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' will be properly debated on the basis of its factual claims and cinematic techniques, it should first of all be appreciated as a high-spirited and unruly exercise in democratic self-expression. Mixing sober outrage with mischievous humor and blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagogueryby unparalleled and unmitigated arrogance, mendacity and incompetence. But one thing it is not is a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies. What did you expect? Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise. He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory. He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy. He is a credit to the republic."
    I trust that Mr. Scott will extend the same artistic license to the "Path" as he did to F911. But somehow I doubt that will happen. And then we see difference between arguing accuracy and blatant political censorhip.
    Film essays should not be expected to traffic in the same kind of straightforward veracity that we might find in more conventional documentaries.
    Link And then we have 56 Deceits in F911 And you are not "looking at a lot of dots...." You know, as I do, that the Demos and the Left thought F911 was loverly, Now that the Right has struck back, you want to cry and wimper about the evils of the wide, wide world. lorelynn writes:
    Again, after the first WTC attack, fundie Muslims did not launch another successful attack against Americans on the American homeland. The law enforcement approach worked far better than invading and slaughtering people in a sovereign nation. clinton's approach didn't create more terrorists. Bush's has.
    If your intent was to confuse, that paragraph works well. If it was to demonstrate your lack of knowledge, it works even better. The first WTC was in 1993. Clinton was so concerned he never went to the site. In the eight years between the two events we had Moslem terrorists staging the Kobars Towers attack in SA in 6/96 killing 19 Americans, the 8/98 coordinated attacks in Nairobi and Salam near two US embassies killing 224 and injuring 4500, plus the USS Cole on 11/2000 killing 17 sailors. Yes, the criminal justice system worked well. So well that 9/11 happened. You are welcome to call that a success. Please call those dead and explain that to them. I repeat. Clinton's strategy was to catch'em and put'em in jail AFTER they killed. Bush's is to KILL'EM before they kill. Of the two I like the second one best. And you ignore the real question, which is why they wanted to kill us. After all, the attack on the embassy in Iran in '79 preceded all the excuses you give the current group of stone cold killers and haters of the west. The answer has been given by OBL himself.
    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ? BIN LADIN: ......So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.
    That says it plain and clear. Let us do what we want, or you will pay the price.

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 09:46:45 AM EST
    ppj once again can't discern the difference between, blatant lies on public airwave and 'deceits' in private theatres. deceit is not a synonym for lie
    Bush's is to KILL'EM before they kill. Of the two I like the second one best.
    yes, bush has killed thousands and thousands of innocent people just in case there was a terrorist nearby, great plan, now the whole world hates the US gov't and we are less safe than ever before.
    So well that 9/11 happened.
    after bush told the august pdb brfiefer 'you've covered your a$$' and then stayed on vacation until AQ fulfilled 'OBL determined to attack' and condi's excuse was no one could have forseen' flying a/c into building even tho other intel saying eexactly that had been know for his whole term up to that point.

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#18)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Sep 10, 2006 at 11:08:13 AM EST
    Jim, from your cite: "Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise. He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory. He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy. He is a credit to the republic." Interesting that the reviewer considers Moore a credit to the republic. Since you are using his opinion on the movie's "fairness" as an argument to buttress your own, do you give equal weight to the reviewer's opinion of Mr. Moore as a "credit to the republic" as you do to his review of the film? In fairness to the reviewer, of course. Because you wouldn't want to take him out of context to suggest that he does not admire Mr. Moore, right? I don't need to depend on a review of F/911 in order to know what to think about it, because unlike you, I actually saw the movie. It is what it is. Real people doing and saying the things they really said and did, selected to advance a point of view. Mr. Moore and I happen to agree on the degree of blessing to society that George W. Bush represents. I wasn't aware of a single other source that made public the footage of President Bush dazed and confused and continuing to read to kids instead of acting like a Commander in Chief. Whether or not you consider it "fair" to show his failure to respond, it is not inaccurate. And, as we agree, in order to see F/911 you had to leave your home and pay Michael Moore for the privelege, while Disney licenses public wavelengths that belong to the taxpayers and sends their programming free to virtually every home in America.