The binge started with Rumsfeld's and Cheney's charges that anyone who disagrees with the War On Iraq are morally confused, fascist appeasers who invite further violence -- and as always -- must hate America.
It continued with the Disney/ABC 9/11 tragedy porn mockumentary that rested the full blame for the attacks on 9/11 with Clinton's penis and Sandy Berger's and Madeline Albright's suppossed malice. It also included the following:
The film shows a scene, dated September 4, 2001, in which Condi Rice tells Richard Clarke and George Tenet that President Bush is very worried about the contents of the Presidential Daily Briefing from August, the one that says bin Laden is determined to strike the US, and that the president is tired of swatting at flies.This scene was also left on the cutting room floor:
Only problem? It was back in March of 2001 that the president was tired of swatting at flies, with regards to terrorism. I can find no record of Condi Rice bring up Bush's supposed concern about the PDB at any September 4 principals meeting. Note that the movie also does not show Bush receiving the memo a month earlier and doing nothing about it - what a convenient ommission.
The climax was El Presidente's zipping around from New York to Shanksville to Virginia and then back to DC to give a speech in which he said:
“Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country. So we must put aside our differences, and work together to meet the test that history has given us. We will defeat our enemies, we will protect our people, and we will lead the 21st century into a shining age of human liberty.”To quote Digby:
"Put aside our differences?"Despite all protests by the administration to the contrary, Bush used the occasion of the fifth anniversary of 9/11 to spin politics. He spent much of the speech defending his War On Iraq. A defense that most Americans find increasingly offensive.
You first.
But this is an administration that is floundering. September 11th and terror is all they've got. It's what's always worked for them.
They are addicted to it.
It's obvious that they will, once again, run their entire party on 9/11 in November.
So I'm going to have to pull out something Bill Maher said almost exactly two years ago today:
You're just going to have to stop it, Mr. President.And finally, New Rule: You can't run on a mistake. Franklin Roosevelt didn't run for re-election claiming Pearl Harbor was his finest hour. Abe Lincoln was a great president, but the high point of his second term wasn't theater security. 9/11 wasn't a triumph of the human spirit. It was a fuck-up by a guy on vacation.
Now, don't get me wrong, Mr. President. I'm not blaming you for 9/11. We have blue-ribbon commissions to do that. And I'm not saying there was anything improper about your immediate response to the attacks. Someone had to stay in that classroom and protect those kids from Chechen rebels.
But by the looks of your convention, you'd think that the worst thing that ever happened to us was the best thing that ever happened to you. You just can't keep celebrating the deadliest attack ever as if it's your personal rendezvous with greatness. You don't see old men who were shot down during World War II jumping out of a plane every year. I mean, other than your dad
[snip]
So I say, if you absolutely must win an election on the backs of dead people, do it like they do in Chicago, and have them actually vote for you.
Stop the spin, stop the lies, stop the division.
Stop the 9/11 tragedy porn.
We the People in the cheap seats just aren't buying it anymore.
The Republicans are just going to have run on their whole record -- their real record.
Oh yeah.
I guess I see your point...
"So I say, if you absolutely must win an election on the backs of dead people, do it like they do in Chicago, and have them actually vote for you. "
ReplyDeleteperfect, oh god, yes! ; )
(and they would if they could. in fact, they might have already)
You are so paranoid about Bush that you are making obvious references connecting him (and the Republicans) to the recent ABC movie. I do not recall you making any of the same arguments when your hero Michael Moore released his movie. Instead, you and your partners in crime attempted to silence ABC and their affiliates with indirect threats of boycotting advertisers and also making threats of not renewing licenses. Forgive me, but that sounds a lot like censorship. I thought censorship was something that you are strongly against?
ReplyDeleteABC stated that the movie was a dramitization of the events that lead up to 9/11, and yet you and your partners were somehow threatened? Why is that? Is there something in that movie which threatens you so? I thought it was just a dramitization.
Hey, if you cannot stand the fact that Bill Clinton (and let us not forget about Madeline Halfbright) are the ones that screwed up (hello? what did they do about the first WTC bombing? Nothing. What did they do when the USS Cole got hit in Yemen? Nothing. All he cared about was receiving a blowjob in the Oval Office, which eventually lead to him being impeached all caused by his lying under oath, along with his witness tampering and his obstruction of justice. This all leads to you and your partners in crime being, and still being outraged over Clinton getting impeached (by the way, Clinton was the only President of the 20th Century to be impeached, something you definitely want to have "payback" on), and this is something you and your partners in crime desperately want to "pay back" for)then you are in obvious liberal denial, which is something that you yourself cannot help. I forgive you. You just do not know any better.
So where were you when F/911 was released? I do not remember hearing any outrage from you then?
And this site isn't biased. Sheeyea, right. And pigs fly.
Any response from you which directs the blame toward Bush is nothing more than your state of denial. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. And it will show in November, as it has since the early 90s.
When you and your political party start to GROW UP and get serious, and cease with the childish blame game and finger pointing nonsense, perhaps the rest of the country will start to take the Democrats seriously again. Until then, party on, girlfriend!
>>>>I do not recall you making any of the same arguments when your hero Michael Moore released his movie.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good thing that you don't. You would be hallucinating if you had as 2pj started up months after that movie premiered.
Oh, and there would be a slight difference anyway as F9/11 was a movie that you had to PAY to see and Pt9/11 was aired on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
>>>>Instead, you and your partners in crime attempted to silence ABC and their affiliates with indirect threats of boycotting advertisers and also making threats of not renewing licenses.
Indirect threats? I thought they were pretty damn direct. Must adjust my boycott language.
>>>>Forgive me, but that sounds a lot like censorship. I thought censorship was something that you are strongly against?
I'm against Government censorship. Citizens are free to do as they like.
>>>>ABC stated that the movie was a dramitization of the events that lead up to 9/11, and yet you and your partners were somehow threatened? Why is that? Is there something in that movie which threatens you so? I thought it was just a dramitization.
ABC first advertised that it was the TRUE STORY of the events that lead up to 9/11. It was not. The stated that it was based on the 9/11 Commission Report, yet it has key scenes containing public officials that are entirely FICTIONAL and that go against what is contained in the 9/11 Commission Report. A disclaimer was added only AFTER complaints were made. It is still being marketed overseas as the TRUE STORY.
>>>>hello? what did they do about the first WTC bombing? Nothing.
Are you lying or ignorant? Those responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing where captured and tried and sentenced to prison in the US.
WHERE'S BIN LADEN?
>>>>What did they do when the USS Cole got hit in Yemen? Nothing.
That attack occurred in October 2000. Clinton left office in January 2001. In that time, suspects were apprehended in Yemen. President Clinton had '...both sides signed an agreement on procedure (New York Times, Reuters, 29 November). A State Department official said the deal met "the need of both sides in terms of being able to conduct their investigations in a manner that is consistent with their legal principles." This allowed FBI investigators to attend interviews with witnesses and suspects, and to submit written questions. The FBI was also been given access to documents and allowed to take physical evidence for analysis.'
Then it became your boy's problem. If you're unhappy with the results, you'd better take that up with W.
>>>>So where were you when F/911 was released?
Watching it in a theater.
>>>>I do not remember hearing any outrage from you then?
See above, or are you hallucinating again, girlfriend?
"I'm against Government censorship. Citizens are free to do as they like."
ReplyDeleteSo members of the Democratic party in Washington DC in the Capital Building are only citizens and are not government? So in essence, it's nopt censorship? Try again.
It's a good thing that you don't. You would be hallucinating if you had as 2pj started up months after that movie premiered.
Oh, and there would be a slight difference anyway as F9/11 was a movie that you had to PAY to see and Pt9/11 was aired on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES."
YOu failed to answer the question, only suggesting that the difference between the two are one aired and one shown in theaters. Public airwaves. Think about what you justy said. A dramatization shown on PUBLIC airwaves. You just don't get it. How is this any different from say, an episode of 30 Minute Meals with Rachel Ray?
The thing is, you and the Democratic party were severely threatened. You cannot muster the guts to even admit it, the only way you can deal with it is attempt the censorship of a dramatization on PUBLIC airwaves.
And you call the Republicans a bunch of thugs? hahahaha! Look in the mirror, girlfriend.
CBS canceled a miniseries about Ronald and Nancy Reagan after Republicans complained that it unfairly and inaccurately portrayed the former president.
ReplyDeleteDid you condemn Republican politicians when they did that?