Liberal whining about ABC’s”The Path to 9-11″ makes headlines at the NYT

Posted by: ST on September 6, 2006 at 9:14 am

Bubbinski apologists are still foaming at the mouth over ABC’s “The Path to 9/11” docudrama, and the whining over it has gotten so loud that even the NYT has noticed.

Usually when I see this much liberal handwringing about how ‘unfair’ or ‘inaccurate’ something is, that means whatever it is they’re flipping out over is well worth seeing/reading/hearing. So consider the panic-stricken cries of ‘unfair!’ and ‘inaccurate!’ as a ringing endorsement of “The Path to 9/11”.

The first part airs Sunday 9-10 at 8 pm ET and the conclusion airs Monday 9-11 at 8 pm ET.

Update I: Brian at Iowa Voice asks an excellent question:

Why was a blatantly biased (and untrue) movie made by Michael Moore and released right before the 2004 Presidential election totally OK with libs, but a documentary, being aired on one of the most liberal networks on the air, placing a large share of the blame for 9/11 on Clinton isn’t?

My answer: Because the Bush-hating anti-war left are only interested in their version of the ‘facts’, no matter the issue.

I’m betting that Path to 9-11 will be a lot closer to being accurate than Moore’s crockumentary ever hoped to be.

Update II: Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters blogs extensively on the left’s smear campaign against the docudrama.

Related:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Iowa Voice trackbacked with Quick Question
  • Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with Liberal Whinefest over ABC Documentary
  • 59 Responses to “Liberal whining about ABC’s”The Path to 9-11″ makes headlines at the NYT”

    Comments

    1. G Monster says:

      Iowa,

      A liberal gave me a DVD of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit and I watched the whole thing. When I asked the liberal to watch the Swift Boat’s DVD they wouldn’t.

      “Free speech for me, but not for thee”

      I believe that is the liberal mantra.

    2. G Monster says:

      The liberals live on a one way street. If they were to block the viewing of this movie, or if they have already forced the altering of the movie, this would not be the first time. Someone here can help me with a few recent examples. Let people see the movie and decide for themselves what they believe.

    3. Lorica says:

      The funny thing is, we already know Clinton had his hand in the path to 9/11. Why else would his CIA Director commit a felony by stealing/destroying records out of the national archives??? Now who do you think gave Tenent the order to do this??? It certainly wasn’t GW.

      Also, from what I understand this show also doesn’t spare the Bush Admin for it’s lack, even tho it was only in it’s 9th month. But clearly places the majority of blame on the do nothings, including Richard Clarke, in the Clinton Admin.

      This could be interesting to see how this plays out. If those on the left are screaming about this it might be worth seeing. I plan on watching. – Lorica

    4. Phil says:

      Yea I agree with Lorica, I definately going to watch it too.

    5. Tommy says:

      Aren’t you only interested in YOUR VERSION of the facts, too? Partisan hackary goes both ways.

    6. G Monster says:

      Hey Tommy,

      I understand what you are saying, but hey, let’s watch it in it’s original version and then start the debate. We all let Michael Moore show his movie, then it was debunked. If this show is bogus, let the debunkers debunk it after it’s shown. Sandy Burglar was caught redhanded destroying or stealing evidence of some sort. I’d really like to know what it was. Hopefully this miniseries will explain it.

    7. Tommy says:

      Won’t you believe what facts you want to believe, though? Isn’t that the American public?

    8. G Monster says:

      Tommy,

      I watched Fahrenheit 911. I’m sure there are some truths in there. But knowing Michael Moore had an agenda made me take alot of his movie with a grain of salt.

      What I will do is watch this movie, take the questionable facts, and try and research them on the internet when I have time.

      Let’s take last year’s Superbowl. Pittsburgh might have won that game fair and square had they been given the chance, but it was obvious to me that the fix was in from the beginning. I am more a Steeler fan than a Seahawk fan, but I know what I saw, and I can deal with it objectively.

    9. Baklava says:

      Yep. Facts are facts. Unfortunately for the whining liberals who make crisis mode and weapons with issues they will INSERT assertions that can’t be proven.

      Example:
      1) They’ll claim to know what Bush thinks or what conservatives think

      Obviously, liberals DON’T know what someone else thinks or cares about yet it doesn’t stop a liberal. Their feelings trump facts.

      If the temperature rose .1 celcius in the last half of the century and actually has decreased since 1998, they’ll claim to know that we don’t care about the issue because we aren’t high fevered pitched raving lunatics offering up crazy solutions that would tie our economies hands behind it’s back and hurt a lot of people in the process. We should get back in the game and say that we know liberals just hate the poor and want to hurt them more but we continually fight on a higher plane talking about facts and numbers to which liberals only respond with feelings.

    10. Tommy says:

      See…my problem is with people like Baklava. Liberal this and liberal that. Same thing with the owner of this blog. Liberal this and liberal that. Shouldn’t we be talking about people?

      I am, what people call, a liberal. I’m not anti-war, I’m for wars. What I want is a clear and present exit strategy. I’ve been around the military enough and heard enough from Pentagon personal that you never send a military somewhere without an exit strategy first. Non-military people like Rumself and Wolfowitz crafted a war they had no business authoring. And now, we’re left with vague reasoning and “stay the course” rhetoric. That is what angers me.

      Not to see my “liberals” aren’t doing much positive either. Well, I should say the Democrat Party.

      What I know about 9/11 is this. Some very bad decisions were made by both administrations. Clinton should have started the war against terror Clarke crafted, but didn’t want to hand a war unfairly to Bush. Then, Bush should have taken that war and ran with it. He didn’t. Would it have stopped 9/11? Ya know, I doubt it, but it would have been something. People seem to forget how useless Bush was before 9/11, though. It was pathetic.

      Clinton did do certain things against terror that I agree with; he just didn’t do enough. Not that he had the land bases President Bush does, but he still should have done things.

      All I know is that Michael Moore, Moore distractors, and this documentary will spin facts to suit whatever they want. We should do the actual work, but too many people can’t honestly look at things. It’s gotta be either conservative or liberal, black or white. It’s amazing how much we can evolve without our brain being rational enough to keep up.

    11. Great White Rat says:

      G Monster says:

      If they were to block the viewing of this movie, or if they have already forced the altering of the movie, this would not be the first time. Someone here can help me with a few recent examples.

      I’m also surprised the libs haven’t gone to court to muzzle this exercise in free speech yet.

      Recall two years ago no one interfered with Moore splashing his nonsense across the screens, but the Kerry campaign filed suit to prevent the Swift Vets from showing their film. Clearly, that was just a delaying tactic to keep people from hearing the facts until after the election, as was proved when the baseless suit was tossed out of court.

      But ST’s point is absolutely on the mark here – anytime the libs work themselves up into a jihad-like frenzy to silence someone, you know there’s something VERY well documented and SERIOUSLY damning there.

      The VCR here is already programmed….

    12. Great White Rat says:

      Tommy,

      You’re missing the point. This isn’t about whether we should be fighting the WOT (you’re wrong, by the way, but that’s a topic for another time).

      Sis, and the other commenters here, are spotlighting the difference in the way the political left and right behave when confronted with potentially powerful, damaging films, and what those reactions tell us about the commitment to liberty and freedom of the two sides.

      When Michael Moore released F-9/11, what did the conservatives do? They researched, found the errors, criticized the errors, and went public with the complaints. What did they NOT do? They didn’t run to a friendly judge trying to abridge his first amendment rights. They didn’t physically attack him or form unruly mobs to disrupt his appearances. Conservatives will disagree, vehemently, but NO ONE tried to suppress his right to be heard.

      Contrast that with the reaction of the left to dissent. In the case of the SwiftVets, Kerry’s campaign went straight to court to gag free speech. Care to count how many conservative speakers at rallies or campuses need police protection to prevent assaults by your Dem friends? And now, in this case, Clinton’s putting on the pressure to keep the story of his administration’s failure to confront terrorists quiet.

      One side says “Bring it on and let all views be heard.” The other side says “If you dare disagree, shut up or there will be legal action and even violence.”

      I’m proud to be on the former side. Perhaps you can tell us what you find so appealing about being on the latter.

    13. NC Cop says:

      Just curious, Tommy. Do you also go to “liberal” websites and post about their labeling of conservatives and neocons? Do you post about Clinton’s mistakes on those websites?

    14. Tommy says:

      Yep. Been on onegoodmove.org several times. Also been on livejournal communities.

      I do love someone saying they’re right, though. “I’m right, you’re wrong.”

      A lot of conservatives protested and called for boycotts of Moore. I just don’t think you’re being real, Great White Hat. The problem with your Kerry reference is that the Swift Boat people were flat out lying (not just spinning whatever facts they could find like Moore to help his case, even if the spin wasn’t truthful), not providing a particular viewpoint (again, there were facts in F-911 (i.e. Taliban coming to Texas, US backing a guy who was heavily behind a pipeline in Afghistan). Besides that, you had to CHOOSE to see F911. It wasn’t during commercials of a program that you were choosing to watch.

      Ultimately, I find examples of what conservatives have done. But I realize that most will come from left blogs whereas most of the evidence you will use will come right right blogs. Oh, wait, the right blogs present more facts, right? No, not really. They present more facts that you choose to believe.

      The thing about Clinton pressuring ABC is all the articles I see is from Rush Limbaugh are credited to him. That, to me, is partisan hackary. It’s not a real point. To use that shows that you look at things with blinders. To me, that’s exactly my point. I saw people in front of movie theatres when F911 came out, protesting it like it was an abortion clinic. I’m not seeing many protests from Clinton.

      Your Repub friends have ostracized, protested against, and many times, in the name of God no less, assaulted people. Someone through a pie in Ann Coulter’s face. Big whoop. People are beat up, killed, etc. just because they believe in abortion, gay marriage, other such things.

      I live in Virginia. Not the deep south, but I don’t live near the north, Richmond, or the eastern part so my area is extremely conservative. I see Liberty University kids at the Mall picking out kids that don’t look normal or whatever and the town, because Jerry Falwell owns it, excuses it. So don’t tell me about liberals doing things to conservatives that they need police escorts for. It’s a joke. Liberals should be more civilized in those cases, I completely agree. But I have seen too much to let that be your point.

      I don’t think you’re being very realistic here. But I guess that’s to be expected when you basically close your eyes and ears to one side and listen to the other. I go to left and right blogs because, maybe somewhere in the middle, I can find some truth.

    15. Let me guess – you’re not affiliated with either party, are you Tommy? Or are perhaps are a ‘disgruntled Republican’?

    16. forest hunter says:

      Liberal whining. In a word redundant.

    17. Lorica says:

      I say let it stand as it was directed and produced. ABC has said they have already edited somethings out due to direct pressure from the people. We know who the people are in this situation, and they sure ain’t the conservatives. Yes we all know that us on the right complained about Moore’s pack of lies, but we knew they were exactly that, lies, and every really good lie starts with some truth. I think it is time for someone to seriously look at the lack from the Clinton Administration when it comes to the lead up to the War On Terror. It was pretty minimal.

      As far as the character of people, there are horrible people on both sides of the aisle. I don’t think it is right for anyone to physically abuse someone else due to their beliefs. That is just too close to the enemy we are already fighting. But then again many a Christian has been beat up by the opposing side.

      The subject really is whether Clinton could of done more to perhaps stop 9/11, and the general consensus is Yes he could of. But he didn’t, and for that reason alone he will be considered one of the worst Presidents ever. – Lorica

    18. Tommy says:

      Why affilate yourself with a party? I can be a part of the party that says they care about the middle class and poor but doesn’t (the Dems) or be a part of a party that really doesn’t even pretend to (the Repubs). But in a winner takes all democracy, gotta vote for someone, I guess.

      Right now, I only see one potential promising candidate for 2008. Maybe because I’ve met him and saw what he could do in my state. I’m holding out hope Mark Warner runs. But it’ll probably be Clinton/Frist or something equally unsatisfying.

    19. Tommy says:

      Lorica, those same criticisms can be handed to Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Do you consider them all to be of the worst Presidents of all time? Reagan tried to dicipher between good terrorists and bad terrorists while Bush I simply ignored the world scene outside of Kuwait before he handed a cluster**** to Clinton in the form of Somalia, which because of that failure saw Clinton refuse to do anything about Kenya and countless other situations (Sudan comes to mind). And then Bush II came into power and continued the status quo until 9/11. Face it, until 3000 people died, the Oval Office didn’t do nearly enough about terrorism and that doesn’t start or end with Clinton.

    20. NC Cop says:

      “The problem with your Kerry reference is that the Swift Boat people were flat out lying (not just spinning whatever facts they could find like Moore to help his case, even if the spin wasn’t truthful)”

      Oh, I see. So you were there in Vietnam and know what the facts were? You are perfectly willing to cast aside the facts of the Swift Boat Veterans, yet you believe that facts of F911. So you are “only interested in YOUR version of the facts”, isn’t that what you wrote in your first post?

      “Besides that, you had to CHOOSE to see F911.”

      Wow you’re TV only gets ABC?! You should call your cable company because you are getting ripped off.

      “Your Repub friends have ostracized, protested against, and many times, in the name of God no less, assaulted people.”

      I didn’t realize they identified the political affiliation of criminals in the news……or perhaps you were just “classifying” them as republicans because of their actions? I believe that was something else you criticized this board for.

      Sounds like you need to practice what you preach.

    21. stoo says:

      Tommy, did you see anything like this on the web when Moore’s movie came out?

      Here’s the first line of the link:

      “To counteract the effects the ABC 9-11 movie could have on the midterm elections, I recommend this course of action:”

    22. Tommy says:

      NC Cop, the Vietnam veterans actually debunked several of the things that the Swift Boat Vets said, which often weren’t facts, but points of view. And what facts did I say I believed in Moore’s propaganda film? That the Taliban came to Texas? It happened. That the guy this administration backed also was a major supporter of an oil pipeline through Afghistan? Because he was. Maybe it means nothing, but these are accepted facts. A point-of-view isn’t a fact. What Moore says in conjunction to the facts is a point-of-view. He had two hours to mix in facts and his spin. The Swift Boat Vets didn’t have that much time and focused solely on spin. The facts also ran against them. You also didn’t get my reference when I was talking about Swift Boat vets and their crap compared to F911. Had nothing to do with the ABC movie. My “Repub” comment was in the face of someone elses “Your Dem friends” when he obviously meant “Your liberal friends.” Context can be everything, can’t it?

      stoo, actually, yes. There was some real concern that Moore’s film would impact the 2004 election from a lot of right-based blogs. They didn’t try to change the title, but it remains to be seen if that really happens, doesn’t it?

    23. NC Cop says:

      “the Vietnam veterans actually debunked several of the things that the Swift Boat Vets said”

      So what makes them more believable then the swift boat veterans?

      “A point-of-view isn’t a fact.”

      My point, exactly!

    24. Baklava says:

      Tommy fell into the “liberal” pattern with just more accusations like, “Non-military people like Rumself and Wolfowitz crafted a war they had no business authoring” and “And now, we’re left with vague reasoning and “stay the course” rhetoric.

      You can’t argue with people who feel with no FACTS to back up their feelings. They are CRAZY. It’s a mental disease Tommy. What would you suggest we do to argue against your rhetoric? We can’t raise the bar against it. We can only point out the lack of facts and the continued pattern of accusations. If you don’t like the term liberal don’t worry about it. Don’t back up the generalizations… :)

      Tommy backed up my assertion that they “act” like they know what’s in people’s minds with this statement, “but didn’t want to hand a war unfairly to Bush” How does anyone argue against that Tommy? You know what Clinton was thinking and he was so nobly just not wanting to had a war unfairly to Bush —- AS IF HE KNEW that Gore was going to LOSE !!! You are CRAZY! Mental Disease… :-w

      Thanks for backing up my assertions. . Keep up the pattern of accusations and knowing what’s in people’s minds. :) And the pattern of saying well the other side does it. It gets you somewhere in your mind but nowhere in anyone elses.

    25. newton says:

      Guys, let the liberals whine all they want. It just makes them look like… childish, temper-tantrum whiners. All they do is :(( .

    26. Tommy says:

      NC Cop: Many of those veterans that I put credit to had nothing to gain politically, whereas that’s all the Swift Boat Vets were. A bunch of politically motivated crocks.

      Baklava: Tell me how Rumself and Wolfowitz are military men. Tell me the exit strategy they crafted before they sent our young men and women into harm’s way. You speak of facts, but provide none.

      The plan against the USS Cole bombers was finished in December of 2000 according to most outlets. Gore had already lost. Don’t see the point. Then again, Captilizing things and put little smilies seemed to be your point.

      Get somewhere in someone else’s mind? It’s the internet. I’m challenging myself, not someone else. When I research, I don’t think, “oh, somebody I’ll never meet is sure going to get it!” No. If I did that, I might not have a life. Not making the accusation you don’t. In fact, I hope you love your life as I love mine. But what you have said makes zero sense.

    27. Tommy says:

      Ya know what does interest me about this whole ABC melodrama that is developing online.

      ABC said it planned to run a disclaimer with the broadcast, reminding viewers that the movie was not a documentary.

      But Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said genre confusion would not be a problem for commission members, several of whom saw part of the miniseries last week.

      “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 commission’s finding the way that they had” Mr. Ben-Veniste said. “They gave the impression that Clinton had not given the green light to an operation that had been cleared by the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden” when, in fact, the Sept. 11 commission concluded that Mr. Clinton had.

      Seems to be that they need Stephen Spielberg to come out before this one like he did with Munich and remind people that what you are going to watch isn’t necessarily fact. It may have happened, may have not. Unfortunately, we are unable to get all the information so that’s why this isn’t a complete non-fiction.

      Sadly, too many people will accept what they see in a movie as fact. JFK anyone?

    28. Great White Rat says:

      Talk about a non-response…

      A lot of conservatives protested and called for boycotts of Moore.

      Are you honestly unable to see the difference between a boycott and a lawsuit? Sure, conservatives urged their friends not to waste their money on Moore’s nonsense. They didn’t try to lock him up for showing it. Big difference.

      the Swift Boat people were flat out lying
      Says who? There’s no evidence for that. And the Kerry suit was tossed out, which indicates the court could find no basis for the charge. Here’s an idea, Tommy: why don’t you get Kerry to sign the papers to finally release his military records like he keeps promising to do, and then maybe we’ll know.

      there were facts in F-911
      Oh suuuuure. Saddam didn’t murder hundreds of thousands of his people. Life in Iraq was a day in the park until the eeevil Bushitler decided to pick a fight for no reason. Now you’re really losing it…

      Besides that, you had to CHOOSE to see F911.
      What, is Donald Rumsfeld tying to you a chair in front of “Road to 9/11” and holding your eyes open with toothpicks? You don’t want to watch it? Change the channel.

      The thing about Clinton pressuring ABC is all the articles I see is from Rush Limbaugh are credited to him. That, to me, is partisan hackary. It’s not a real point.
      Good…ignore the point you can’t reply to. Care to tell us a good reason ol’ Billy Jeff would be trying to squelch this, aside from it making him look bad?

      Someone through a pie in Ann Coulter’s face. Big whoop.
      There’s that darned free speech thing again. Annoying, isn’t it, Tommy?

      People are beat up, killed, etc. just because they believe in abortion, gay marriage, other such things.
      And no one defends that. Crimes are crimes and ought to be punished. But I’m kinda guessing we could go back to the blogs you frequent two years ago and not find you all upset when the Dems sent thugs to shoot up GOP campaign storefronts.

      But I digress…we’re talking about free public, political speech. And you can’t show me a case where a mob of rabid conservatives attacked a Howard Dean or Jimmy Carter.

      I see Liberty University kids at the Mall picking out kids that don’t look normal or whatever and the town, because Jerry Falwell owns it, excuses it.

      And your proof is…what? An example of the town ‘excusing picking on kids that don’t look normal’, please.

      Again, changing the subject. Bullies always have and will exist. We’re talking about political speech and intimidation techniques.

    29. NC Cop says:

      Many of those veterans that I put credit to had nothing to gain politically,

      And how exactly did you establish that? Did you know what was in their hearts and minds???

      ” A bunch of politically motivated crocks.”

      In your opinion, you mean, right?

      The exit strategy has been the same from day one. Establish a democracy, which we did with three successful elections.
      Then, make sure the security forces of Iraq can handle the job and are properly equipped and trained. This assessment will be made by the military commanders on the ground, not the democrats back in Washington.

      Just because things did not go precisely according to some flowchart doesn’t mean it’s a failure. It means that it’s a war, and sometimes things don’t always go according to plan.

    30. Tommy says:

      The Swift Boat people were completely politically motivated. The people that followed didn’t seem to be. Maybe they were. Doesn’t make the Swift Boat people right, now does it?

      If these don’t go right at all even in the most pessimistic of views, it’s a failure. That’s like saying Vietnam wasn’t a failure, things just didn’t go as planned. No, things are a failure. I was watching Lou Dobbs, one of the few good people on the news networks, and in between talking about the broken borders and war on the middle class, the ticker was going at the bottom of the screen. It was one gigantic failure after another in Iraq. There isn’t a stable democracy. There’s a boiling point. And when Iraq reaches that, oh boy.

      Whining about Democrats. I think thought this thread was about whining liberals, but I was mistaken. It was about people whining about Democrats. Fun.

    31. Tommy says:

      Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot something. According to Condi, the problems in Iraq are “birth pains.” And I guess we’re the mothers screaming out, “how could you do this to me?” to our husband, George W. Bush.

      By the way, how did the NSA head who saw the greatest intelligence failure of this country’s history get promoted to Secretary of State and in some conservatives’ eyes, become a Presidential contender? Oh, she’s a black woman. She can’t lose!

    32. Baklava says:

      Tommy. Your statement is irrelevant. Tell me how any number of civilian leaders in the past century were military men. The standard was JUST erected by accusational bombastic liberal types who make political newbies just nod their heads and say, “yeah”. It’s irrelevant otherwise. Trust me, I know how it works, I once was a liberal. A bunch of accusational points that don’t further the discussion with relevant facts but DO appeal to people who aren’t knowledgeable on the issue. You aren’t dealing with a rookie here. When I was a liberal in 1991 the conversion was long and was a deep core belief change with 3 trips to the library PER week for a full year.

      There is a strategy for Iraq whether you insist Joseph G. style 100 times that there isn’t. You can rattle off assertions and accusations till you are blue in the face but it doesn’t make you correct. Your charges are baseless. It is IN writing and has been in writing since the start of the Iraq war. Additionally, things HAVE changed as the strategy needed to change to ADAPT to the enemy. And if you insist one more time Joseph G. style that there is no strategy it doesn’t make it true and highlights your mental disease. ;)

      BTW. You weren’t talking about the Cole bombers. You were talking about Clinton NOT wanting to hand a war unfairly to Bush. You knew what was in Clinton’s mind #1, and #2 you are asserting that Clinton knew Bush would win the election. Now I guess you are covering your tracks with a December timeline. Remember Bush v. Gore was issued on December 12th. Your track covering even was imperfect because plans like the ones you just raised are drawn up over long periods of time not over night. Smilies is the only way to deal with a mental disease.. :o

      BTW, You aren’t challenging yourself very hard. It’s easy to come up with accusations and not debate solutions, ideas or what you think will result in said solutions or ideas. It’s easy to charge, make accusations and monday morning quarterback.

      I challenge you to rise above your pattern of accusations that aren’t helpful in the debate about Rumsfeld and/or Bush and think of a new tact. You can do it !!=))

    33. Marshall Art says:

      Perhaps Tommy, you could list the exit strategies for World Wars I & II, Korea, Viet Nam, Spanish/American? Just wondering. I’d be interested in comparing with Iraq/WOT.

      Perhaps you could list how the Swifties gained politically, or hoped to. As I recall, the main dude, was a Democrat. How did it help him politically to see Kerry the fraud defeated? Also, how were they debunked? I heard there were some points, but was it Kerry’s hat that tipped the scales? I think their main point, that Kerry wasn’t the great war hero he claimed to be was NOT debunked at all.

      BTW, you affiliate yourself with a party because the underlying philosophy more closely matches your own on most points. You seemed to nail the Dems correctly insofar as their lack of real caring for the middle class and poor, but you miss badly regarding the Reps suggesting they don’t care either. You need to study harder.

    34. Marshall Art says:

      BTW Tommy,

      Though I don’t think you made your arguments very well, you weren’t a turd about it throughout all the opposition, and I for one, appreciate it. You availed yourself well even though you’re wrong. Generally speaking.

    35. NC Cop says:

      Very impressive Tommy. You come to this site and trash people saying that they only belive the facts that they want to believe. You then post constantly believing only one side and not the other.

      We never lost a battle in Vietnam. The war was lost at home, much like this one, by people who are more interested in political advancement rather than fighting the war on terror, namely the democrats.

      Doesn’t make the Swift Boat people right, now does it?

      Just like it doesn’t make the vets that you believe right.

      As far as Iraq, I’ll tell you like I tell everybody who thinks they know what is going on there. Until you go there and spend some time there, you don’t know anything about what’s going on there. If you are relying on an obviously anti-Bush and anti-war media, which never steps foot out of the green zone, to report on how the war is going then you are not even getting half the story. Go there yourself and then maybe your opinion of it will have some merit.

    36. Lorica says:

      Man talk about funny stuff, thanks Tommy. What was the exit strategy in WW2??? How many years was it before our boys came back home after WW2?? I don’t believe that Vietnam was a quagmire, unless you are talking about the leftists here at home that destroyed the desire to win the thing. Never lost a single battle in Vietnam, but the left call it a quagmire. How do you argue with such twisted logic??? We are winning the war on terror, inspite of the helpful hand of the islamofacists sympathizers in this country…i.e. the MSM for 1. The MSM wants you to hear only the bad news, they want to turn this country against the war on terror. Do you for one moment believe that if Al Gore, or John Kerry were President the MSM would be so negative?? To quote Kofi Annan, Hell NO!!! Tommy, what kind of bb brained individual would believe that there is nothing but bad news coming out of Iraq?? You want a challenge, go research some good news in Iraq, you can find it, but not at any of the MSM websites. Wake up Man you are being lied to everyday by the MSM, yet you take what they have to say as gospel. – Lorica

    37. Baklava says:

      But I can picture his lazy retort. But you believe what you are told by the right wing bloggers/sites…

      :d

      Lazy, lack of due diligence, mental disease…

      He acts like we don’t see both sides of hte information spectrum and make a well informed opinion. Many of us here used to be liberals until we started researching and taking the time and effort to reconcile what could be going on.

    38. Tommy says:

      Baklava, I’m sorry. Are you supposed to be the be-all, end-all of political discourse? You seem to think so because only you, or maybe it’s just conservatives, are able to formulate a well-informed opinion. I actually was talking about the USS Cole as the reason why a war on terror was crafted, but that’s right, you don’t care what I actually say, but how you can attempt to be clever. I’m done with you. You can’t bring up a point, but try to pretend like I can’t either. It’s sad and weak.

      Marshall Art, the fact was, from independent websites like FactCheck.org, that the Swift Boat vets were Republican-funded, and the man Kerry got out of the water, a registered Republican, said that the ads were “launched by people without decency” who are “lying” and “should hang their heads in shame.” I don’t see how it’s any real argument. Was Kerry a good candidate? Hell no. But that doesn’t excuse the lies and outright political grandstanding done by the Swift Boat veterans.

      The Repubs don’t care. Some of them might, but both parties as a whole just don’t care about anyone who can’t gave generously to their cause. It’s a fact of nature. I’m surprised you would even go against it.

      NC Cop, we lost the war in Vietnam. We lost it because we had no reason to fight it. That’s not a side of belief, that’s the facts. But that damn Truman Doctrine had us all over the place. NC Cop, I could go to Iraq and see things the way I see them and you could go there and see things the way you see them and it won’t change anything. That’s fairly naive, don’t ya think?

      Lorica, I went to school near DC and came from a military family. Just because the exit strategy wasn’t taken up doesn’t mean it wasn’t in place. Never lost a single battle in Vietnam? Don’t let history get in your way, I suppose. Just going there was a losing battle. The suicide rates (and I’ve lost someone close to me) are insane. The MSM? Please, the media is lazy. Want a prime example? All the crap happening in the world, but what did the three cable news networks focus on? John Mark Karr. Wow. Some retard who says he killed some kid who really doesn’t even matter. Before that, Natalie Halloway. This is local news that is put on TV because it can be emotional, but ultimately, it doesn’t matter. MSM? Lazyass media. Left and right, they’re both focused on ratings and ratings alone. I hate it when the conservatives focus on the media. It makes really no sense because I’m a liberal and I’m disgusted with the media. If anyone, I should be happy as peach. But as it is, I watch Tucker Carlson cause he’s usually entertaining and Lou Dobbs because he actually talks about real issues facing this country.

      I remember the MSM being quit negative toward Clinton. But the fact is, you either believe one way or the other. Either the media is down on Bush because he’s unpopular and ratings indicate people enjoy news on his blundering term _OR_ Bush is unpopular because the media is down on him. I saw this media give him a free pass after 9/11 and when Iraq came up, ignored the growing sentiment in this country and the world against the war so they could be imbeded. LAZY media. Nothing more. Now, they realize that hey, people really don’t like the President, how can we use that to our advantage?

      The media is not liberal, it’s not conservative. It’s owned by massive corporations who are looking at the allmighty buck over the allmighty truth. The problem is…too many sources outside the MSM are not neutral, but looking to get their relative sides all hyped up. Either way, you’re screwed.

    39. Severian says:

      Well, Tommy, a long post, but remarkably devoid of anything other than your version of reality/facts, no real facts, no deep concepts, just more of the “I’m right because I say so and how can you say otherwise” drivel I see put forth time and time again. You are all too willing to swallow everything the liberal/Dems say, then come back with the stinging retort that “factcheck.org, a non-partisan site” (because you say it is and it’s a .org, hey, that means they have to be honest!) says this and that about the Swift Boat people. You casually dismiss everything they say and take the word of people with a different view as though that actually makes what the Swift Boat guys said untrue. It’s part and parcel of the way the left believes and argues, you have made no points, convinced no one other than yourself, and have basically demonstrated that you are shallow and easily led and don’t know how to really debate. You are guillible, but unfortunately the more insane and idiotic the rant, the more gullible you are.

      So, you may think the media are lazy and corporate profit driven (another nice little anti-capitalist rant there), and then try and pass that off as proof that they aren’t biased. Your real problem is that they aren’t as biased as you’d like them to be, your statements above show that your problem with them is that they are not left enough.

    40. Tommy says:

      I casually stop listening to the Swift Boat vets because they came out during a campaign, not before. Because they are funded by Republicans, not neutral concerned parties. Because other people there have said they lied who don’t benefit from Kerry winning. For the exact opposite reasons you believe in every word they say, I suppose.

      My rant wasn’t anti-capitalist, it was the nature of things. But nice try.

      I’m not gullible, friend. I just don’t believe the way you do. You made no point. That’s all I have to say. Oh, what you said was idiotic. There, we’re even, aren’t we?

    41. G Monster says:

      Tommy,

      The Swift Boat Vets, the actual people that were in Vietnam, that knew they would be attacked for coming out and telling the truth, really had nothing to gain politically.

      My guess, the motivation was thier firm belief that John Kerry went to Vietnam, and left with way more credit than he deserved. And the fact that he came back to the United States, hooked up with his old friend Ted Kennedy, and made a speech before congress accusing all american service men as war criminals.

      I have many dem friends in my state that would not vote for John Kerry for these reasons.

    42. G Monster says:

      Tommy,

      I want some more debate on John Kerry. I am leading you into a trap. Tell me that Ted Kennedy and John Kerry never met each other before the 1971 event, as Ted Kennedy clearly states in a video clip from that event.

    43. NC Cop says:

      We lost it because we had no reason to fight it. That’s not a side of belief, that’s the facts.

      Oh, I see. It’s the facts because YOU say it is. How impressive.

      I could go to Iraq and see things the way I see them and you could go there and see things the way you see them and it won’t change anything. That’s fairly naive, don’t ya think?

      Yeah, I guess traveling to a country before making a judgment on it is a silly idea. Let me guess? You read alot of newspapers and watch alot of news programs so you REALLY know how it is over there. That’s pretty pathetic.

      I remember the MSM being quit negative toward Clinton.
      The media is not liberal, it’s not conservative.

      Now who’s being naive? Either that or you were born after Clinton left office.

      It seems that you label all your beliefs as facts, while trashing others who discuss their beliefs. Your points are general and vague and out of all the posts you have made, I still have no idea what you believe in.

    44. Lorica says:

      Tommy you can’t name a battle we lost in Vietnam, but it was a quagmire and we lost the war due to suicide rates??? I won’t disagree with you, we shouldn’t have been there in the 1st place, and I blame Truman for that but for other reasons. Truman should of never given Vietnam back to the French, it should of stayed a free country, and France should of just taken it in the shins. It is not I who usually needs a history lesson, but keep trying.

      I also won’t disagree with you about the media being lazy, but since they are catering to leftists they can easily get away with it.

      The rest of your reply to me is the same silly blah blah blah that comes from most leftists. I did notice that you completely ignored my challenge to you to do alittle research for some good news in Iraq. I expected as much, but hey it is too much fun just posting without knowing. Why don’t you go hang out at the Corps of Engineer website for Iraq, ever been there, yeah I doubt that too.

      Lastly NC Cop was in Iraq, and he is way to much of a real man to blow his trumpet so I will do it for him. He don’t need YOU telling him what he thinks about Iraq. Here again if you would of done alittle research you would of found pictures, On this very website, showing NC with some of our good buddies and allies in Iraq. I suppose I should not expect too much from you, after all it is all about blaming someone else for your own laziness. – Lorica

    45. Tommy says:

      Battles Lost in Vietnam…Battle at the Hamlet of Ap Bac, Siego of Khe Sanh, Fall of Saigon are the big ones.

      The media is liberal is just this little catchphrase people like to throw out. Like the world is flat or the universe centers around Earth, it doesn’t actually pass the test of logic, but it’s convienent for everyone involved to say. I’ve never seen this liberal media. Maybe it was when the media employed the likes of Pat Bucahan that it suddenly became liberal. Or Tucker Carlson getting his own show. Yeah, that was highly liberal. Please, the media is after one thing and one thing only. Ratings. The only possible “left-wing media” excuse I can give credit to is that studies have shown thhat liberals tend to be more educated as a whole than conservatives as a whole and therefore, smart people are needed in the media. If you dispute the level of education charge, see the study that saw that people who watch the Daily Show are much more educated than people who watch the O’Reilly Factor. Do notice I didn’t say “smarter,” but “more educated.” Whether or not that leads to more intelligent people is what they do with the education.

      Ignored your challenge? You can always find good news. The media was all over the elections, for one. We aren’t winning the war on terror because we think we can throw a big bad military at it and it will solve itself. It doesn’t work that. Maybe you feel safer, but I imagine that’s because the guy you trust is in office. Objectively, we aren’t safer.

      NC Cop may have been in Iraq. That’s wonderful. I know several people who have been there. I have been around the military my entire life. And the stories I keep hearing are sprinkled with good stories, but mostly, “I don’t know what we’re even doing there anymore.” That’s interesting. I’m not there and I share the same belief.

      It’s not lazy to not agree with you, Lorica. It’s actually incredibly easy.

    46. “NC Cop may have been in Iraq”

      There’s no “may have” about it. He was in Iraq.

    47. Tommy says:

      Too bad he couldn’t train that batillian of troops that refused to go to Baghdad.

    48. Creeply says:

      Interesting. Conservatives and republicans watch Farenheit 911. Then they remark about how bias and distorted it is. Thats the end of it. Liberals will be screaming and crying about The Path To 911 for years to come. Of course with their hands covering their ears, calling it all lies while absolutly refusing to ever watch it. Acting like spoiled selfish little kids. As an independant its sad that Liberals leave me no choice but to side with Republicans even when I disagree with them. I can’t wait to watch this.

    49. Big Bang Hunter says:

      – The Republicans know the Lefts achilles heel, the WOT, and they’re exploiting it full force. The cry baby Dembulbs are reacting just like the immiture children they really are. Of course the more they wail and stomp their feet, the more they bring attention to it. All I can say to Roves pre-election mechanisations is: More, Faster please.

      – Bang **==

    50. Baklava says:

      I disagree with you Bang.

      It’s not the Republicans mostly (except this latest set of speeches given by Bush), it is natural events in the news.

      1) Lebanon throwing 1,000’s of missiles at Israel
      2) Liquids on planes plot and arrests
      3) ABC’s 9/11 film
      4) Iran president speeches
      5) Iraq progressing with transition of control of military

      On and on. Reality is the problem for Democrat leadership. Gotta like the bold move by Brad Pitt !

    51. Big Bang Hunter says:

      – Bak – Of course theres a multitude of reasons that are deflating the Dem agenda on a daily basis. I was focusing on The Rep’s/Roves current efforts on the aniversery of 9/11. It’s interesting to watch some of the Liberal bloggers wailing on endlessly at the termerity of Bush to play politics at this key point in time. I find that hillarious. The Left, of all groups, upset that someone on the other side is playing politics during the runup to an election. The very idea! This from the gaggle of conspiracy/Bush hating nut cases no less. Apparently irony and hypocracy do not exit in the absolutist world of Liberal fantasizers.

      – Bang

    52. Big Bang Hunter says:

      – “… do not exist” in that last line – PIMF

      – Bang **==

    53. Lorica says:

      Tommy the fall of Saigon happened after we pulled our troops out of Vietnam. The Marines were there only to get embassy staff to safety. Thanks to people who are now held up as heros by the left we decided to leave. Vietnam was quite win-able.

      Siege of Khe Sahn ended with us winning it, goof.
      From PBS:
      April 8, 1968

      U.S. forces in Operation Pegasus finally retake Route 9, ending the siege of Khe Sanh. A 77 day battle, Khe Sanh had been the biggest single battle of the Vietnam War to that point. The official assessment of the North Vietnamese Army dead is just over 1,600 killed, with two divisions all but annihilated. But thousands more were probably killed by American bombing.

      From PBS again:
      Battle of Hamlet Ap Bac:
      January 2, 1963
      At the hamlet of Ap Bac, the Vietcong 514th Battalion and local guerrilla forces ambush the South Vietnamese Army’s 7th division. For the first time, the Vietcong stand their ground against American machinery and South Vietnamese soldiers. Almost 400 South Vietnamese are killed or wounded. Three American advisors are slain.

      This happened when we only had advisors in Vietnam. COME ON MAN, quit grasping at straws.

      We aren’t winning the war on terror because we think we can throw a big bad military at it and it will solve itself. It doesn’t work that. Maybe you feel safer, but I imagine that’s because the guy you trust is in office. Objectively, we aren’t safer.
      Excuse me???
      Please Prove this asinine statement???
      1) the first sentence makes no sense. Especially considering the tools to track terrorists and their finances were uncovered by some leftist nut job who apparently is suffering from BDS
      2) again you think you know what someone is thinking how conveinent. Bush is not my guy.
      3) prove the last sentence please. Show me how we are not safer. And do not use figures that were inflated by happenings in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      But like a good lib you just throw mud in all directions and then tell everyone you are the smartest person in the room. You are not.

      It’s not lazy to not agree with you, Lorica. It’s actually incredibly easy.

      You are incredibly lazy in your logic, and incredibly arrogant in that laziness. Why don’t you spend some time soul searching what you believe, maybe, just maybe you will come back here abit more able to defend your comments. – Lorica

    54. Severian says:

      Why don’t you spend some time soul searching what you believe, maybe, just maybe you will come back here abit more able to defend your comments.

      Man, you’re asking a lot for a liberal. In my experience, they don’t really believe “in” much of anything other than warm fuzzy platitudes and nebulous feel good ideas. The vast majority of them define themselves not by what they actually believe but by what they are against. Anything that is traditional, particularly if it’s proven to work. Anything conservatives or Republicans are for, they are against. In general, liberals define their entire existance by being opposite what the conservatives want or do. This strokes the ego of the type of people who need to feel like they are “fighting” against whatever they delude themselves into believing is an injustice against someone or something. They can pat themselves on the back as being morally superior by being negative against everything, convincing themselves that only they have good intentions and are not bigoted, violent, etc. whatever negative word or activity you care to insert here. Once again, for people who do not care to or are not capable of thinking instead of feeling, and aren’t ambitious enough or smart enough to create and build, this is obviously a way to feel good about thelselves. The old saw is that conservatives never are out protesting because they have families, jobs, things to do has more than a small grain of truth to it. Conservatives seem more focused on doing and building, not on being reactionary to what others do. Liberals define themselves based on what conservatives believe. I honestly think that without conservatives liberals wouldn’t know what to think.

    55. Creeply says:

      Severian, well put.