* George Allen holds an ethnic rally, but not the kind that you’re thinking of.
* John Yoo thinks that the American Constitution only works when there isn’t anybody shooting at Americans anywhere in the world. I hear that happens all the time.
* Hewlett Packard really stepped in it with privacy violations.
* I didn’t watch the ABC movie. Apparently neither did a lot of people.
* Speaking of ABC’s mendacious mockumentary, at least two lawsuits (note the word ‘defames’) seem possible.
* Write the ultimate blog post.
* George Allen holds an ethnic rally, but not the kind that you’re thinking of.
A Real Ultimate Blog Post?
Balloon Juice: Sure, Bush was caught in a three-way with Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, and maybe he was drinking or snorting some coke too, who knows… but Howard Dean was totally unhinged about this. I mean, is it *really* so different with what Clinton did with Monica, or the fact that he “didn’t inhale”? Gimme a break.
Regarding the ABC lawsuits, let me quote a great man, who said: “Bring it on!”.
Last week, Tim said, in reference to the ABC movie: “Let’s say off the bat that somebody will get fired for this”. Can you provide a follow-up on that, Tim? The movie got modest ratings, and will probably do handsomely on DVD. But in the end, no reason to resort to totalitarianism by censoring it and threatening ABC on their broadcast license, let alone getting people fired for it.
There are cheaper alternatives for drink coasters.
Jesus Camp (Man, fundies are fuckin’ out there.)
But there was reason to do all that in regards the CBS mini series on Reagan?
Think of it in terms of Islamic radicalism. Reagan is like the prophet and anything defaming the prophet is punishable by death. Bill Clinton plays the part of the Jews. It doesn’t matter how disgusting the lies are that are told about him.
Thanks for that, it sounds really interesting. I know a little about that, because in my youth, I knew some people who were at least somewhat involved in the Christian youth subculture, or in more religious evangelical churches, but I didn’t usually see people who were quite that far out there, and I’m sure that a lot of Americans have essentially no experience with that at all.
Defamation isn’t a reason? Awesome. Remind me to air a docudrama about you, too!
That word – I do not think it means what you think it means.
For those who view Al Gore’s global warming movie An Inconvenient Truth as the gospel truth.
Bulled by a Gore
“The former US vice-president’s ludicrous scaremongering contains exaggerations, half-truths and falsehoods.”
“I’m sorry to raise these inconvenient truths just when so many of our scientists seem to prefer the certainties of faith over the uncertainties of evidence.”
People who didn’t watch the 9/11 movie because some past members of your governent told you not to were chicken. Ah, if only this country were China, were we were told what to watch and what not to watch by out governement on a more regular basis. Life would be so much easier.
But more seriously (sort of), the movie was very interesting. Only a very small part of the movie actually took place with the figures in questions, Madeline Albright, Berger, etc., (Clinton was practically non-existent), and I think they cut the most offending lines out of if. Richard Clarke and John O’Neill were the most prominently featured, and Richard Clarke provided consultancy for the movie, so his portrayal couldn’t have been THAT far off.
Most of it took place in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Phillipines, showing interactions between informants and the terrorists and the CIA. I don’t know if those conversations were accurate. So far Ramzi Yousel and Khalid Sheik Mohamed have not mentioned a defamation lawsuit, but who knows, stay tuned!
Yeah, that’s part of what makes it so creepy (though it’s plenty creepy in and of itself). Hell, I went to a Christian camp when I was a young’in, but it was not at all like that. It was just a regular old summer camp that had some added prayers and Bible study and whatnot thrown in–and I had a good enough imagination that I could easily space out and get lost in my own mind if the God talk wasn’t one of the cool stories that’s heavy on the smiting and/or concubines. If my camp was even remotely like the one in this movie, I would’ve been digging an escape tunnel from the jump.
Entirely false. Go troll elsewhere.
I did too–a Christian sailing camp–and I’m basically an atheist, but I had a lot of fun! Most of it was actually pretty amusing, all their ‘rules’ for each activity looked like The Ten Commandments, and the last one was always “Thou Shalt Have Fun” or something.
Not entirely false. I found this on a quick search. I had heard this before from other sources as well, but couldn’t find them at the moment.
If he is the counterterrorism adviser to ABC, and ABC produced the movie- then do the math. Although I know Clarke had some problems with some scenes, I believe he was an adviser to the movie.
Entirely false. Richard Clarke *is* a counter-terrorism advisor to ABC, *and* they didn’t consult with him on the movie. Now what does that tell you? Now go away, troll.
You have a source for that?
This is such a stupid statement that I nearly spit pop thru my nose while reading. My sinuses thank you.
In related news, because George put us in Iraq, and George is a winner, therefore we are winning in Iraq….just do the math…In addition, since I like Jessica Alba, and I like to nail women, and Jessica is a woman, you can do the math on who I’m bedding with tonite.
Ok, maybe I like this math afterall.
Of course I do, and it’s not hard to find. But I’d like to see some proof for your original assertion:
So far you haven’t provided any. Find it, or admit that you just assumed that he must have been consulted*, or that you were lying. And then I’ll show you that he wasn’t consulted.
*That would be a reasonable good-faith assumption for an entirely uninformed individual to make, assuming good faith on ABC’s part. But would an entirely uninformed individual know that Richard Clarke was a counterterrorism consultant for ABC, and then not know anything else about the movie’s background, given all the reporting on it? Hmm…
Wow Pb/DJ/troll you amuse me. But I’m still waiting for your source funny guy…
Is that what ‘truthiness’ means?
And I’m still waiting for you to do one of the three things I already outlined. What’ll it be, scs? Were you lying? Were you woefully uninformed? Or are you capable of doing some actual research to find the truth?
Everyone else, if you’re interested, chime in when you find it. But don’t give scs the link, I’d like to see her do some research first. :)
Very clever. If the above is an invitation to write the “ultimate perfect entry” for this blog, here’s my submission:
BalloonJuice: Mountaineers crush pick-up team of Cindy Sheehan and followers; jackalope mascot injured in sideline antics.
I repeat, I’m still waiting for your source. Well Pb, I can’t wait around all day for you to look for it, so I’ll check back later in the day. Hopefully you still won’t be looking by that time.
Are you illiterate? Because you obviously haven’t managed to read my last few posts.
Nice try Houdini. You can try to escape but you and I and everyone know I caught you in a lie.
ROFL. Now *that’s* rich. Ok, scs. Prove it.
I watched about the first 45 minutes of the first day. When the lies and misrepresentations started, it became too painful to watch. 9/11 is something that happened to all of us. No one should be allowed to dishonor the American people by using this occasion to spread their propaganda. And we know it’s propaganda – take a look at the scriptwriter’s credentials.
What a shameful thing for ABC to participate in.
The Other Steve
You sure do believe a lot of stuff that isn’t true.
ABC used to play the Monchichis. ABC made a movie. Therefore Monchichis consulted on the movie.
It’s like logic — for complete fucking retards.
Richard Clarke is an analyst and adviser to ABC News not ABC’s entertainment division. Big difference. And he has been all over saying that he wasn’t consulted.
Now Jill, no fair introducing facts into the discussion. But thank you for not providing scs with a link. :)
Come on, you called me a ‘liar’. Aren’t you going to substantiate *that* claim, at least? Or is this just another pathetic hit-and-run.
Annie was watching?! NOW THAT’S SICK!
Ah, but Menuedo used to be on ABC as well. Why isn’t the MSM reporting Menuedo’s influence in 9/11?
Yep. Hit and run. Bring back ppGaz, and ban scs. ppGaz would never pull a stunt like this.
Ah, another scs moment of stupidity…
The words ‘tabula rasa’ never rang more true.
AND YOU ARE ALL TROLLS!!!
And “everyone” would be?
IMO scs is doing a passive/girlie darrell and now Pb, you are doing a ppgAz imitation. i guess if ppgAz doesn’t exist (anymore), we have to invent him.
Pb, please a little lighter on the “liar”. i get so tired of that rhetoric. if we had just ignored darrell, his idiocy could have been mimimized. let’s not go through the whole thing again with pinhead scs (who i agree is annoying but may be DougJ).
I’m familiar with scs; what she spouted is a lie, and I exposed her at it. I’m not going to let her bullshit slide. If you don’t like it, fine, and if I get banned for it, fine–I wouldn’t want to be a part of any blog that would rather have that liar as a member.
The Ultimate Blog Post?
Larry the Lobster
Paw Paw, MI
Sleeping pills cure PVS”
Take that, all you anti-scs “scientists”.
t. jasper parnell
This stuff about Clarke cannot be remotely serious. He has castigated the docudrama from the start. Indeed, at least one FBI agent who was consultants quit because his input was ignored.
t. jasper parnell,
Yep. In fact, one former FBI agent quit after three weeks, and at least one other agent wouldn’t take the job in the first place after looking at the script, I believe in both cases because ABC totally got John O’Neill’s character wrong as well, and the agents were quite unhappy about that, and therefore couldn’t in good conscience work for ABC. A third one they hired on specifically wasn’t hired to consult on historical accuracy, but rather just to make sure that they looked and acted like FBI agents should.
Must… resist… urge… to use… naughty words… against scs… that will… get me… bannded.
Whew. That was close. Damn close. Now that the moment has passed, here’s some links for scs:
9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased
Clarke Blasts Key Scene in Path to 9/11
Yeah… Clarke is blasting the very movie he consulted on.. you do *THAT* math. (For the record, Clarke is a consultant to *ABC News*, a division of ABC that had nothing to do with the making of the movie.)
You guys don’t get it, scs viewed Path to 9/11 as news, not entertainment. She learned things from the movie that she didn’t know before and got some pieces of the puzzle from the docudrama that she didn’t get from the other three 9/11 movies she has seen. It’s reality. It has to be. It was on the teevee.
Pointing out that Clarke is a consultant for the news division is meaningless to her. I suppose if I worked in the Human Resources department of an auto company she’d think that means I signed off on the latest model and would thank me for adding that big cup holder for her big gulp.
That explains a lot, doesn’t it? Oh, and I like money, and sometimes buy a lottery ticket. Some people win over a million dollars through the lottery. Therefore, according to scs’s logic, I’m a millionaire! Congratulate me, kiddos!
(Wait…why am I going to work tomorrow again?)
Ah well. Now that that’s out of the bag…
Editor and Publisher’s Review (note the correction–did scs advise them on their story?)
Richard Clarke’s second statement
scs accused another poster of having a criminal record, but she didn’t get banned.
But if you say naughty words about scs, you will be banned?
Is there an FAQ here?
I’m fascinated by Yoo’s contention that the Constitution is a peace-time option, one that gets suspended when the country is at war. I’ve looked through the document, and I can’t find any clause that says “Inoperative during hostilities.”
Now, there is a section that gives the President authority to suspend habeas corpus – but that section explicitly sets forth the conditions under which the President gets that authority. There are only two: invasion or insurrection. (Thus Lincoln could suspend habeas during the Civil War, which was an insurrection.) Neither of these conditions apply today.
Previous Presidents have appointed crooks and rogues to staff their Administrations; previous Presidents have used the power and apparatus of the Federal Government to harrass and destroy their political opponents.
But I don’t think we’ve ever before had a President whose Administration was staffed, top to bottom, with people whose singular goal was to destroy the very institutions they were in charge of; or an Administration that was so transparently contemptuous of the very basis of our entire political system, of the country itself, and of its citizens.
You missed the new asterisks. Remember, 9/11 changed everything.
Congress can suspend habeas (according to the constitution), not the president. Lincoln’s action was illegal.
scs is long gone, and she took her ‘new math’ with her.
Well, it was ruled illegal in 1866–and in many respects it’s similar to some cases we’ve been having these days, minus that whole ‘Civil War’ thing.
Man, DJ, you got your clones working overtime for this segment. Well thanks for that link above from TPM cafe and Clarke’s statement. I still don’t buy it though. If you can read between the lines, he does not explicitly state he was NOT consulted. I have a conspiracy theory that he was consulted and he wanted to blast the Clinton Admin, he just didn’t want anyone to know he wanted too, so he’s issuing plausible deniability.
Do you really think the counter-terrorism advisor to ABC, and pretty much the main focus of the whole movie, was not consulted? You think they would risk pissing him off like that? Dream on.
So you don’t think there’s any difference between the news and entertainment divisions of ABC? Hmmm, why do I bother to ask?
I was sure that would be the dumbest thing in the thread. Then along came this:
After all of this time I guess the wizard has still refused to give scs a brain. Since the idiot showed up around here during Schiavo I think it’s obvious why scs had such an affinitty for her. Birds of a feather.
Ah yes, mere facts are never enough to derail the mighty scs! If you weren’t so ignorant, dishonest, biased, and unlettered, then you might be able to read all those links, or extract some useful information from them, or do some actual research, or draw some sane conclusions, like (a) he wasn’t consulted, or (b) they did indeed piss him off like that (or (c.) he wasn’t listed in the credits as a source, or (d) his book wasn’t used as a source, etc., etc…). But, you can’t, so oh well, never mind, just go back under your bridge.
Easily one of the most moronic things I have read on this blog by a commentator. You are very close — if you have not already — to surpassing Stormy70.
The Other Steve
Congratulations to Britney Spears!
Scs is an idiot, therefor Richard Clarke is a moose.
they wrote whole fake scenes about albright and berger w/o consulting them. seems par for the course with ABC in this regard.
sorry, your theory doesn’t hold water. clarke doesn’t explicitly state that he isn’t a spider from mars, either.
I do miss Stormy. I used to call her “Vixen News”. Like scs there was no RNC talking point that she would not swallow hook, line, and sinker.
Stormy = Four legs good, two legs bad!
scs = Four legs good, two legs better!
The Other Steve
It takes a very brave woman to repeat RNC talking points.
At least Stormy has great taste in TV and food. That counts for something.
Couldn’t agree more, CaseyL. For me, that’s the POTD for Tuesday, September 12th.
I mean come on. Don’t you think, if Clarke was indeed truly outraged by this, he would put in writing somewhere, in emphatic terms to make it very clear, “I was NOT EVER consulted for this movie in ANY WAY EVER!”
But he doesn’t in his statement, does he? There is nothing even remotely like that. So it’s possible they consulted him at some point in the developement, but perhaps included scenes later he disapproved of. Either way, Clarke has been known to play a double game before, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he did it this time.
Coming on the heels of your made-up “Clarke consulted on the movie” claim just yesterday, this assertion is going to require some considerable substantiation before it can be taken seriously.
He did express his outrage with the film in emphatic terms:
As for whether or not Clarke was consulted, I couldn’t find any statement by him one way or another, however given his remarks one can draw an obvious conclusion:
Well, not everyone. Obviously, these leaps of logic are too difficult for you to grasp, scs. But I do find it amusing how you continue to spin wildly in the face of the obvious fact that everything you have uttered on this thread is entirely wrong.
Exactly. You are the one assumming here.
Has anyone ever confirmed that scs isn’t one of Dougj’s parodies? It’s hard to believe that anyone is as obtuse as that.
Apart from everything else I already mentioned, I thought the reference in Editor and Publisher was pretty clear. If scs were really interested in this, she could call them. But of course she isn’t.
Yes, but it is a logical assumption based on fact.
Which is much different than you stating an opinion as a fact, particularly one that is based on absolutely NOTHING.
By the way, so kind of you to acknowledge the clear ERROR of your statement that Clarke never expressed his outrage with the film.
Never said that dude. I said he might be playing a double game. Kind of like in a me thinks he doth protest too much way.
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Methinks thou art a knave.
Last I checked, winning your timeslot when you’re not up against football is a GOOD thing…
BTW I’ll remember that “I didn’t watch it but I’m mad as hell about it – enough to make angry phone calls and letters!!!” when Mikey Moore’s latest (or the Bush assassination movie, etc.) come out.