"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mt0bg2pm7rh69po2b14rgblj1m3hp7fggu@4ax.com...

If you're reading this on Monday, then ABC is halfway through their
five-hour "Path to 9/11" crockudrama, despite numerous protests to
drop the movie

You loons know you have lost it when even your vaunted lib controlled

have wavered in their devotion to you.
Now that the press at least has made one pretension to honesty, you squeal
like the pigs you are.

Life is good.



Jim E

"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mt0bg2pm7rh69po2b14rgblj1m3hp7fggu@4ax.com...

If you're reading this on Monday, then ABC is halfway through their
five-hour "Path to 9/11" crockudrama, despite numerous protests to
drop the movie due to its fictionalization of the events leading up to
September 11, 2001.

Condemnation for "The Path to 9/11" has been almost universal, from
Bill Clinton http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/clinton-on-path/ and
members of his administration,
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/clinton-on-path/ to newspaper
editorials http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4171409.html
and reviews,
http://suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-elf08.html to
consultants, http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/fbi-agent-quit/ to
members of the 9/11 Commission,
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/911-commissioners-abc/ to quite a
few conservatives. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/miniter-911/

Even Harvey Keitel thinks it's rubbish, and he's the star.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/07/harvey-keitel-speaks-out-on-path-to-911-it-turned-out-not-all-the-facts-were-correct/

ABC's response?

Go screw yourselves. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2406097&page=1

But let's back up a little.

The controversy over "The Path to 9/11" began when ABC mysteriously
provided advance screeners to right-wing bloggers and commentators
only.

Rush Limbaugh got one, but Bill Clinton did not.

And when Bill Clinton asked for a copy, he still didn't get one.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-dvd/

When word leaked that the movie contained fictionalized scenes
designed to make the Clinton administration look like buffoons while
puffing up the Bush administration, the ***** hit the fan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801949.html

It's one thing to crank out a drama in order to cash in on 9/11 -
hell, I wouldn't expect anything less from our tasteful media
conglomerates - but it's quite another to essentially create a phony,
five-hour-long, $40 million campaign commercial for the Republican
party just months before an election.

Things got worse when it was revealed that the writer of the movie,
Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a conservative activist
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/nowrasteh-conservative-activist/
who has spoken on panels with titles like "Rebels With a Cause: How
Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift," has called
Michael Moore "a socialist weasel," and recently gave an interview to
David Horowitz's Front Page Magazine where he said that "The 9/11
report details the Clinton's administration's response - or lack of
response - to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep
attacking American interests."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23865

(He also said that "Syriana" is "a recruiting film for suicide
bombers.")

Those who are interested in learning more about Clinton's "lack of
response" to terrorism can read up on the subject here.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamPitt/84

Next, it was revealed that the director of the "The Path to 9/11,"
David L. Cunningham, is part of an evangelical Christian organization
called "The Film Institute," whose goal is to place activists within
the movie industry, "not to give them jobs, but so that they can begin
to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/nowrasteh-conservative-activist/

One can only imagine how quickly ABC would have pulled this movie if
bloggers had discovered that it was written, produced and directed by
liberal activists with an agenda.

But apparently if the right-wing wants to create a flawed and
fictional account of the events leading up to 9/11, then ABC will go
to the mat for them.

Faced with a firestorm of criticism, ABC tried to cover its *****
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2064148
by claiming that portions of "The Path to 9/11" would be re-edited and
rewritten, that disclaimers would be shown throughout the movie, and
that they would stop advertising it as "Based on the 9/11 Commission
Report" and give a fuller description:

"The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes,
the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative
characters and dialogue, as well as time compression."

They did all this while quietly assuring right-wing bloggers that
people who had seen the original screeners would barely notice the
edits. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-assures-bloggers

And for some reason they seem to have left out the fact that one of
the sources they used for the movie, John Miller, is a Bush
administration official. http://mediamatters.org/items/200609070004

(He also happened to review the movie for National Review Online, and
guess what? He liked it.)

But despite ABC's attempt to explain that their mockumentary is a
"dramatization," here's how they advertised the movie outside of the
U.S.:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/disneyabc-markets-defamatory-911-show.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/259_911-1.jpg


And here's a trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHgbeJu1WGk


So there you have it. While ABC feeds Americans a line of *****
about disclaimers and re-writes, they're flogging the movie overseas
as the "Official True Story" and "The story of exactly what happened."

Can we please now - finally - take the myth of the "liberal media" out
into the woods and shoot it?


By EarlG
Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/

Harry

Proof of liberal media: www.mrc.org (updated daily with examples).

"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mt0bg2pm7rh69po2b14rgblj1m3hp7fggu@4ax.com...

If you're reading this on Monday, then ABC is halfway through their
five-hour "Path to 9/11" crockudrama, despite numerous protests to
drop the movie due to its fictionalization of the events leading up to
September 11, 2001.

Condemnation for "The Path to 9/11" has been almost universal, from
Bill Clinton http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/clinton-on-path/ and
members of his administration,
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/clinton-on-path/ to newspaper
editorials http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4171409.html
and reviews,
http://suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-elf08.html to
consultants, http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/fbi-agent-quit/ to
members of the 9/11 Commission,
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/911-commissioners-abc/ to quite a
few conservatives. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/miniter-911/

Even Harvey Keitel thinks it's rubbish, and he's the star.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/07/harvey-keitel-speaks-out-on-path-to-911-it-turned-out-not-all-the-facts-were-correct/

ABC's response?

Go screw yourselves. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2406097&page=1

But let's back up a little.

The controversy over "The Path to 9/11" began when ABC mysteriously
provided advance screeners to right-wing bloggers and commentators
only.

Rush Limbaugh got one, but Bill Clinton did not.

And when Bill Clinton asked for a copy, he still didn't get one.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-dvd/

When word leaked that the movie contained fictionalized scenes
designed to make the Clinton administration look like buffoons while
puffing up the Bush administration, the ***** hit the fan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801949.html

It's one thing to crank out a drama in order to cash in on 9/11 -
hell, I wouldn't expect anything less from our tasteful media
conglomerates - but it's quite another to essentially create a phony,
five-hour-long, $40 million campaign commercial for the Republican
party just months before an election.

Things got worse when it was revealed that the writer of the movie,
Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a conservative activist
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/nowrasteh-conservative-activist/
who has spoken on panels with titles like "Rebels With a Cause: How
Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift," has called
Michael Moore "a socialist weasel," and recently gave an interview to
David Horowitz's Front Page Magazine where he said that "The 9/11
report details the Clinton's administration's response - or lack of
response - to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep
attacking American interests."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23865

(He also said that "Syriana" is "a recruiting film for suicide
bombers.")

Those who are interested in learning more about Clinton's "lack of
response" to terrorism can read up on the subject here.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamPitt/84

Next, it was revealed that the director of the "The Path to 9/11,"
David L. Cunningham, is part of an evangelical Christian organization
called "The Film Institute," whose goal is to place activists within
the movie industry, "not to give them jobs, but so that they can begin
to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/nowrasteh-conservative-activist/

One can only imagine how quickly ABC would have pulled this movie if
bloggers had discovered that it was written, produced and directed by
liberal activists with an agenda.

But apparently if the right-wing wants to create a flawed and
fictional account of the events leading up to 9/11, then ABC will go
to the mat for them.

Faced with a firestorm of criticism, ABC tried to cover its *****
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2064148
by claiming that portions of "The Path to 9/11" would be re-edited and
rewritten, that disclaimers would be shown throughout the movie, and
that they would stop advertising it as "Based on the 9/11 Commission
Report" and give a fuller description:

"The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes,
the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative
characters and dialogue, as well as time compression."

They did all this while quietly assuring right-wing bloggers that
people who had seen the original screeners would barely notice the
edits. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-assures-bloggers

And for some reason they seem to have left out the fact that one of
the sources they used for the movie, John Miller, is a Bush
administration official. http://mediamatters.org/items/200609070004

(He also happened to review the movie for National Review Online, and
guess what? He liked it.)

But despite ABC's attempt to explain that their mockumentary is a
"dramatization," here's how they advertised the movie outside of the
U.S.:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/disneyabc-markets-defamatory-911-show.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/259_911-1.jpg


And here's a trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHgbeJu1WGk


So there you have it. While ABC feeds Americans a line of *****
about disclaimers and re-writes, they're flogging the movie overseas
as the "Official True Story" and "The story of exactly what happened."

Can we please now - finally - take the myth of the "liberal media" out
into the woods and shoot it?


By EarlG
Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/

Harry

Proof of liberal media: www.mrc.org (updated daily with examples).

"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mt0bg2pm7rh69po2b14rgblj1m3hp7fggu@4ax.com...

If you're reading this on Monday, then ABC is halfway through their
five-hour "Path to 9/11" crockudrama, despite numerous protests to
drop the movie due to its fictionalization of the events leading up to
September 11, 2001.

Condemnation for "The Path to 9/11" has been almost universal, from
Bill Clinton http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/clinton-on-path/ and
members of his administration,
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/clinton-on-path/ to newspaper
editorials http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4171409.html
and reviews,
http://suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-elf08.html to
consultants, http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/fbi-agent-quit/ to
members of the 9/11 Commission,
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/911-commissioners-abc/ to quite a
few conservatives. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/miniter-911/

Even Harvey Keitel thinks it's rubbish, and he's the star.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/07/harvey-keitel-speaks-out-on-path-to-911-it-turned-out-not-all-the-facts-were-correct/

ABC's response?

Go screw yourselves. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2406097&page=1

But let's back up a little.

The controversy over "The Path to 9/11" began when ABC mysteriously
provided advance screeners to right-wing bloggers and commentators
only.

Rush Limbaugh got one, but Bill Clinton did not.

And when Bill Clinton asked for a copy, he still didn't get one.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-dvd/

When word leaked that the movie contained fictionalized scenes
designed to make the Clinton administration look like buffoons while
puffing up the Bush administration, the ***** hit the fan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801949.html

It's one thing to crank out a drama in order to cash in on 9/11 -
hell, I wouldn't expect anything less from our tasteful media
conglomerates - but it's quite another to essentially create a phony,
five-hour-long, $40 million campaign commercial for the Republican
party just months before an election.

Things got worse when it was revealed that the writer of the movie,
Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a conservative activist
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/nowrasteh-conservative-activist/
who has spoken on panels with titles like "Rebels With a Cause: How
Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift," has called
Michael Moore "a socialist weasel," and recently gave an interview to
David Horowitz's Front Page Magazine where he said that "The 9/11
report details the Clinton's administration's response - or lack of
response - to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep
attacking American interests."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23865

(He also said that "Syriana" is "a recruiting film for suicide
bombers.")

Those who are interested in learning more about Clinton's "lack of
response" to terrorism can read up on the subject here.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamPitt/84

Next, it was revealed that the director of the "The Path to 9/11,"
David L. Cunningham, is part of an evangelical Christian organization
called "The Film Institute," whose goal is to place activists within
the movie industry, "not to give them jobs, but so that they can begin
to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out."
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/nowrasteh-conservative-activist/

One can only imagine how quickly ABC would have pulled this movie if
bloggers had discovered that it was written, produced and directed by
liberal activists with an agenda.

But apparently if the right-wing wants to create a flawed and
fictional account of the events leading up to 9/11, then ABC will go
to the mat for them.

Faced with a firestorm of criticism, ABC tried to cover its *****
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2064148
by claiming that portions of "The Path to 9/11" would be re-edited and
rewritten, that disclaimers would be shown throughout the movie, and
that they would stop advertising it as "Based on the 9/11 Commission
Report" and give a fuller description:

"The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes,
the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative
characters and dialogue, as well as time compression."

They did all this while quietly assuring right-wing bloggers that
people who had seen the original screeners would barely notice the
edits. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-assures-bloggers

And for some reason they seem to have left out the fact that one of
the sources they used for the movie, John Miller, is a Bush
administration official. http://mediamatters.org/items/200609070004

(He also happened to review the movie for National Review Online, and
guess what? He liked it.)

But despite ABC's attempt to explain that their mockumentary is a
"dramatization," here's how they advertised the movie outside of the
U.S.:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/disneyabc-markets-defamatory-911-show.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/259_911-1.jpg


And here's a trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHgbeJu1WGk


So there you have it. While ABC feeds Americans a line of *****
about disclaimers and re-writes, they're flogging the movie overseas
as the "Official True Story" and "The story of exactly what happened."

Can we please now - finally - take the myth of the "liberal media" out
into the woods and shoot it?


By EarlG
Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/

Harry

Proof of liberal media: www.mrc.org (updated daily with examples).

In alt.politics.usa.republican Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

<snip>

Imagine that. Once you delete all the lies distortion and imbicilic
ranting and raving

In alt.politics.usa.republican Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

<snip>

Imagine that. Once you delete all the lies distortion and imbicilic
ranting and raving there's nothing left of the leftwing kook article
written by a leftwing kook and posted on a leftwing kook site.

I see that the truth has caused the looney tune brain dead loser lib
dems to get their panties tied up in knots.


--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you