Carol Platt Liebau: Amusing, Futile, Ironic

Friday, September 08, 2006

Amusing, Futile, Ironic

Writing at The Huffington Post, here's how lefty Matt Stoller would advise Bob Iger to handle the controversy over "The Path to 9/11":

There is a window of time now for Mr. Iger to step up, an 'apologize for Tylenol tampering' moment. He needs to cancel this miniseries, and take personal responsibility for inadequate oversight. He should privately fire the people responsible for this total disaster of a project, and apologize.

Right. But what's more interesting is that Stoller goes on to hint about various threats to Disney's corporate health if it refuses to toe the lefty line:

It's pretty obvious to Democrats if this movie airs that Disney is not a responsible public steward of the airwaves it controls right now.

Wow. It's worth wondering why the leftists are so demented about preventing Americans from seeing a movie most of them, themselves, haven't seen. It isn't about Bill Clinton's legacy, or Sandy Berger's -- no one cares about that.

Rather, the reason is this: The Democrats see themselves as finally having a shot in the post-9/11 world to capitalize on public disenchantment with Iraq and take back at least the House of Representatives. The one thing they still fear is the perception that they're too weak to handle the war on terror.

Now, at a moment when victory seems so close at hand, it's obviously crazy-making for them to face up to the fact that the American people may have the chance to watch a docudrama that amply demonstrates the feckless foolishness of the last Democratic administration. As such, it must be stopped at all costs.

It won't happen, because Bob Iger is a man of honor. But the lefties are working hard to make it as ugly for him as possible in the meantime -- thereby doubtless driving up public interest and the viewing numbers for the show when it airs this Sunday and Monday. Ah, irony.


Blogger Cliff said...

What's the big deal? All the lefties that are calling for this movie to be cancelled are ONLY heightening and raising the suspicion level, Don't they realize that? Is that dumb or what? Now the question is, what will be left out of this movie?
Come early next week, and we'll all know the dirty secrets anyway. LET US SEE THE MOVIE!!!

8:07 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Also, it is, CENSORSHIP!!!!
coupled with the threat of government intervention, no less!!!! Communism at its worst! Thanks for tipping your hand for all to see! Stupid lefties!!

8:24 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Remember when we were younger and actually stood up for what was right?

"Got a point to make? Go for it -- but those who set forth a piece of propaganda with an implicit assertion that it is the truth have an obligation to make sure that it's as accurate as it can possibly be. And if they can't win the argument on its merits... they shouldn't be slimy enough to fictionalize everything so that the facts are suddenly in their favor. But maybe they sense that it's the only way they can win." -- Carol Platt Liebau

9:50 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Remember when you used to stand up for what we beleived in?

"Yes, we could have waited for the movie to air and then complained. But by then, the damage is done. Having anything aired on television gives it at least a veneer of legitimacy -- and millions of people would have seen a shameful piece of ... propaganda, and at least some (particularly the young or the forgetful) would assume it was the truth. What conservatives did was nothing more than launch a preemptive strike on a cruel smattering of lies and distortions,..." -- Carol Platt Liebau

9:52 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Remember back when our hair wasn't as scary looking?

"To me, it was perfectly justified for conservatives to raise the roof about this matter -- and demand that the movie, which was being represented as a truthful historical depiction, actually make some attempt at presenting the truth, or else be withdrawn." -- Carol Platt Liebau

9:53 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Remember back before we sold our integrity to to become a to-bit political hack?

Apparently Carol doesn't.

9:55 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Hey twister, try making some sence once in a while!

10:00 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Cliff the Ignorant writes (in all CAPS no less), "Also, it is, CENSORSHIP!!!!"

Gosh, Cliffy, was Carol being a censor when she wrote, "To me, it was perfectly justified for conservatives to raise the roof about this matter -- and demand that the movie, which was being represented as a truthful historical depiction, actually make some attempt at presenting the truth, or else be withdrawn."

Or are you only a censor when you hold a right wing propaganda piece to account> The old IOKIYAR, defense, eh Clioffy?

8:31 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Twister, Governments CENSOR
and people boycott. What I object to, and so should you, is the blatant attempt
by the democrat party to use their GOVERNMENTAL power to THREATEN to pull the broadcast licences of ABC! That is censorship by the GOVERNMENT, like communist countries do!
Don't you get that? I don't mind a boycott, but I will object strongly and loudly to any attempt by law makers in our Government to censor speech that they don't like. Do you agree?

9:30 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

...In other words, neither you nor I can "censor" anything, we can choose to support or boycott speech, but not stop it. Right?

9:54 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

**UPDATE** Clinton lawyers are threatening to SUE ABC if they don't pull the movie completely! Now that's an abuse of power!!

10:11 AM  
Blogger dodger said...

I agree, the hint is out there that government action will be used in the form of licensing review to enforce demands by the left to withdraw the docudrama.

I hope ABC doesn't buckle. Not because the content is favorable or unfavorable but because they are being asked to stand up to communists.

10:11 AM  
Blogger Diane Tomlinson said...

No Cliff that's not an abuse of power it is an excecise of freedom. The movie, allegedly, shows the former President's actions in a historically inaccurate light. I recall a CBS Reagan retropsective a few years back that came under heavy fire by Nancy and other conservatives because of inaccuracies. Did that show ever air?

Oh wait I have a, link.. Turns out the conservatives got the show pulled, as is their legal right if they feel slighted.

Carol, Cliff et al, the problem in America today is that the right wing wants "total control" of government and that's not what American government is about. You poor folks are horribly in need of some patriotic dissent before al Qaeda corks off another "uniting" event.


10:45 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Diane Tomlinson, so you're willing to sell out your country(if you call it yours) and allow the GOVERNMENT to censor free speech, all so that your Clinton god can save his floundering legasy? Wow!!

11:00 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Diane, What is the difference between censorship and boycott?
Who,"censors" and who, "boycotts"? Do You know the answer?

11:07 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Diane Tomlinson said...
"No Cliff that's not an abuse of power it is an excecise of freedom." NOT
when those same lawyers threaten ABC with the choice of being sued or having their licences pulled! That's censorship by the GOVERNMENT!

11:15 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

When, THE PEOPLE boycott, and are sucessful, that's an exorcise of their God given freedom of dissent, but when the GOVERNMENT shuts down free speech,or in this case a movie, that's blatant and evil CENSORSHIP!!!!! I can't believe that you and others on your side of the isle think that it's OK for democrat lawmakers and their party lawyers to threaten ABC with legal or Governmental interferrence,
just because they dissagree with the content of a broadcaster's speech?

11:40 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

How many people on this site, flunked out of Civics class, or didn't take the course in high school or college? It's unbelieveable!

11:45 AM  
Blogger Diane said...

Congress revoking, or threatening to revoke, ABC's license if they show the movie would be censorship. Clinton suing ABC would not be. Clinton is no longer in office. He is a private citizen.

1:03 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Diane, true, but I can't believe that the democrats in congress wouldn't attempt to pull ABC's licences if Clinton asked them to.

1:59 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Reid, Pelosi and others, wrote ABC a letter last week, suggesting that idea. Why else would they have mentioned the"Fairness
Doctrine" in their letter, if it weren't to "Fire a shot across the bow," of ABC? They did that for Clinton. You can bet on it!

2:09 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

There's also the debate over supposed innacuracies. In the Reagan film, Nancy, as indicated by Diane, stated there were inaccuracies. I don't recall who screened that film and what problems they had with it, but it was pulled as a result of PUBLIC pressure.

In this case, the film has been screened, and the accusations are not necessarily from any who saw the film. In any case, all I'm hearing so far is that there are inaccuracies, but nothing regarding specific inaccuracies that can be checked on. In other words, the makers are being called liars, whithout being told what the lies are. The closest I've heard concerns an account of Sandy Berger's actions. That would be Sandy Berger who stuffed documents down his pants to destroy them later.

2:22 PM  
Blogger Diane Tomlinson said...


Not public pressure but political pressure got the reagan film pulled before it had ever aired.

"Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said putting the movie before a smaller audience on Showtime doesn't address accuracy concerns. Without changes, Showtime should remind viewers every 10 minutes that the movie is fictional, he said.

Showtime and CBS are both owned by Viacom, which is anxiously awaiting federal action on rules to restrict ownership of local TV stations. Failure to enact such changes could cost Viacom millions of dollars, said Jeff Chester, head of the Center for Digital Democracy, a communications lobbying group.

Viacom needs help from Republicans in the White House and Congress who might not like seeing Reagan portrayed negatively, Chester said."

It seems like ALL political parties are guilty of not wanting their icons to be seen negatively. It is up to historians to write history not for movie makers to skew it.

I am thrilled to see that you believe in the Divine Right of dissent Cliff, that is unless that dissent is aimed toward the party you favor.

3:05 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

My party hasn't blatently and openly "hinted" at pulling a broadcast licence, in an attempt to squash free speech. Good luck in November with that one!

3:18 PM  
Blogger Diane Tomlinson said...

No, sir, good luck to your President after the Democrats take control of the House. If lying to cover up adultery is impeachable just how many counts do you think a Democratic House can find for a President who as recently as August 21 lied the lie that Saddam was in league with Zarqawi?

3:45 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

The dems are going down! The House and Senate will remain in Republican hands and we'll have a our new man in 08! You can bet on it!

4:32 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Oh, and by the way,Saddam WAS in league with Zarqawi.
You don't read deep enough!

4:35 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Hey, I just saw more clips of the forbidden movie, It's ALL OVER THE INTERNET dems!!!!! Ha, Ha, Ha!
Diane Tomlinson, as more people see this, you can kiss the November election good bye!! If you want to remain a dem, you need to dump your current leaders and come up with all new ones, because the ones you have now, screwed this one royal!

8:32 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

I've got an idea, you dems are good at this, just plot to steal the November election! You know that you can't win it leagally,
so bone up on your playbook
and have a blast! Get the courts and lawyers ready, make sure those judges are paid well and maybe you can drag out the results until next year! Think of the possibilities!

8:46 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Congress revoking, or threatening to revoke, ABC's license if they show the movie would be censorship.

and Stalinist, too.

6:53 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

This is from Democrat Underground, "Disney/ABC took a national tragedy and turned it into their own personal soap opera. If this thing airs, Disney and ABC are going to see the kind of campaign that they have never seen before. If they thought the past week has been hell, just wait for the next seven weeks leading up to the election when we take them on legislatively, legally, and in the public sphere for abusing the memory of 3,000 dead Americans."


8:48 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

just wait for the next seven weeks leading up to the election when we take them on legislatively...

A preview of things to come.

The Left takes on their political enemies legislatively as a means of silencing them.

Remind me again who the "fascists" were supposed to be?

9:28 AM  
Blogger Diane Tomlinson said...

I've read the entire Senate Select Committee report, twice and I have yet to see where it says Saddam Hussein al Tikriti was in league with or his government had any ties to Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was living freely in the Kurdish north. How much deeper do I need to go? Or do you mean I should just read Ann Coulter or some other conservative source of talking points news.

Our goal is to give people choices. Good government comes in all forms but at its foundation is personal freedom, not stricture. there are excellent GOP candidates out there and on our site we will be supporting them. If a centrist GOP presidential candidate catches our eye we'll support him or her as well. but until the arrogance and singlemindedness go away at 1600 Pennsylavania Ave, no dice. Bush is a blight on the Office and he needs to go.

Yellow cake, aluminum tubes, mobile launchers, links to al qaeda, unmanned aerial vehicles, botulinum toxin and anthrax, and the puffing up of Curveball's information I've been through it all Cliff and I don't see how anyone, of any political affiliation could conclude that Iraq is the right place to attack as the next front on the War on Terror.

It would have made more sense if Bush had carpet bombed Iran a known state supporter of terrorism, every well and admittedly in their own media. But to attack iraq was folly. I know that die hard supporters of Bush are never going to be convinced with facts but I hope the American people have sense enough to chnage their government. If they do reelect people who are hamstrung by the sitting president the American people get exactly what they deserve for 2 more years a government that is spinning its wheels and another seven or eight hundred dead American soldiers. When will enough be enough?


10:03 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

What difference does ANY of that make now, Diane. The point is that your party ruined ANY chance of proving your point(although I don't believe you have one)and winning back anything! Your party leaders over played
their hand, BIG TIME! It will cost the dems the November election, and that's the truth! Face it and deal with it. If you want to win any more elections, your time would be much better spent on regime change within your own party because your current leaders are blowing it!

1:56 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Diane, details such as who met with whom where and when ARE POINTLESS! We went to Iraq because it was the center of Middle
Eastern terrorism. President Bush said that we need to take out Saddam,
"BEFORE HE BECOMES AN IMMINENT THREAT!" He also had the backing and authority of the,"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998," along with 17 UN resoulutions and the vast majority of Congress as well. Which of those things do you have a problem with?

2:32 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Furthermore, if the above reasons weren't good enough,why didn't the dem leaders in congress stop it? "They were lied to" won't cut it either because they can't say what the lie was. Can you? You can't. I think your political party has taken you and other well meaning people for a wild ride down a political rabbit hole complete with fancy spin and illusion.

2:51 PM  
Blogger Diane Tomlinson said...

Where to start . . .

"What difference does any of that make now?" Cliff says. Well those reasons for not going to war could have prodded the 43d US president to commit more troops to Afghanistan and apply pressure on Perveiz Musharraf's government to allow speail operators into the Waziristan tribal reasons.

But you don't want to hear that do you Cliff? You like this war and all the death and destruction, this is fun for you!Look at America absolutely doing the opposite of what it stands for destroying a nation out of fear, greed and ignorance. Of course terrorism must stop but why invade an OPEC member state when most of the terrorists are in Iran, Syria and Afghanistan? Why not invade Sudan where there are know terror training camps?
Political polarizations have very little to do with the facts. Sure Saddam was a brutal tyrant and an awful dictator but he was your boy for the ten years of the Iran-Iraq war. I would have welcomed his removal, by force, if there had been a shred of evidence that he was in league with al Qaeda. that link could not and has not been made and it never will be made because it simply is not true.

. . . and could you tell me where the democrats "blew it", I didn't think the elections had taken place quite yet.

"Diane, details such as who met with whom where and when ARE POINTLESS!" Cliff you cannot really mean this. Every time there is a whisper of a rumor on the Internet that there is a link between Mohammed Atta and iraqi intelligence that seems to be pretty darned important and not even close to pointless. How many times did we hear about Monica Lewinsky's dress? Details are what make history, they bind facts together in a timeline creating the fabric that is the record of the American experience. And as I have said literally a thousand times on my own blog we are for good government. I guarantee you if George W Bush were doing the right things, container inspections, more troops in Iraq as a last ditch effort to stop the civil war before the prime fighting season of October sets in, and more global cooperation with our allies in Europe, then I would be lambasting fools who are against war merely because it is a use of force. What the Kristols and Perles have done to the US military is criminal and anyone that seeks to make a buck sitting on the corpses of those young men and women who have sacrificed ALL is a traitor to the United States of America and the spirit of democracy.

There is a war to be fought and it need to be fought where the terrorists are not where the US creates a terror haven.

And as for why most democrats voted for the war its the same reason those Constitutional amendments restricting marriage to that between a man and a woman fail becuase no matter what party you belong you can always cover your butt with a vote. Or so you won't nit pick my answer on that they did it for political reasons to save their careers. They, the democrats, did it to keep the contributions flowing for the same reasons that any elected official looking at the data they were presented in real time. And even then howlingly were called them idiots for doing so because we connected the dots on most of this long before most of America did. And yes Cliff most of America knows this war is folly.

How are going to pay for the war Cliff, with iraqi oil? No with American blood it seems now.

Isn't the insurgency in its last throes? Didn't members of the GOP think Clinton was crazy for getting involved in the "civil war" in Kosovo?

Be careful who you call out Cliff becuase this girl reporter has facts on her side and they are liquid tight.

Good day sir.


11:55 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Your party will loose in November, and if you don't know why, you deserve to loose.

Good day madam.

12:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home