OT: This is what I've missed so much -- pissed off Bill Clinton

[beachmom]

Oh, just fantastic! You go get 'em, Big Dog:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/7/101648/9282

A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.

Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.

Link to the entire text of his letter in the diary.

Reading this makes me realize how bloody wishy washy Bill has been for the entire Bush administration. And that "friendship" with his Dad. He has GOT to realize that these people are NOT to be trusted, and you can't blame John Kerry for everything. Now Bill Clinton knows what it's like to be swiftboated 21st century style. And we will have his back on this one!

[ginnyinWI]

1. oooh!

This is exactly what is needed to neutralize this bogus "drama-mentary"! He's got enough creds and ability to get into the media to convince all but the koolaid drinkers (who want to believe the opposite of whatever he says--but they already blamed him for 9/11 anyway).

They're using the media yet again to catapult their propaganda. But it will backfire if people see how blatant they are--pull away that curtain and let everyone see the dirty tricks.

I want to see Big Dog on Stephy's show next Sunday giving 'em all HELL.

[wisteria]

2. I agree, the Big Dog has been swift boated and he doesn't like it.

I am glad he got into this battle. If it wasn't for the blogging community this sh*t piece would of aired and been presented like a documentary- complete with the rewriting of history.
I just wish Senator Kerry didn't have to lose the election partly due to swift boat smears to actually start waking people up.

[JI7]

14. funny how they accuse Kerry of not fighting back when swift boated

and they regularly brought up Bill Clinton as an example of someone who does fight back.

but the truth is that Clinton allowed these past 5 years to go by with right wingers including the BUsh people accusing him of not doing anything when it came to terrorism. the Bin Laden offer on the "silver platter" being one of the biggest lies .

and even worse about tehse attacks is that they harm ALL democrats. not just Clinton.

and we have proof that Kerry DID respond to the attacks against him. and the lies against KErry were mostly believed by ignorant right wingers who wanted to believe it.

what will more people be influenced by ? what people claim Clinton did as President or what Kerry did as a young soldier ?

[whometense]

3. good for him,

but I wish he'd been able to get this worked up over the smearing of JK in 2004.

[beachmom]

4. Good point. Actually that diary did some descensions into

"Bill is the man" unlike other people who didn't fight back the Swifties. I linked to the Research Forum and gave quotes of Kerry fighting back.

Kinda sucks, doesn't it? It can't remain positive about Bill, it always has to go negative about Kerry. Why does it have to be a zero sum game?

Of course, NONE of this is adding up to people saying, "woo hoo Hillary for '08". In fact, in some ways Bill hurts Hillary with his commanding presence.

[karynnj]

5. There a comment that may lead to this on DU too

in the thread on Bill's letter sent to ABC.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2070566&mesg_id=2070990

It says that all Democrats should do this - obviously that the Kerry people did send letters to all the stations - with about the same type of comment.

The test of the effectiveness is whether ABC goes ahead with the show and whether the lies are amplified by talk radio and cable news. This is way too early to declare this a victory. We need to see how it plays out. (Using the SBVT analogy, this is similar to Spring 2004. They also forget that Kerry was at a point where he was introducing himself to the US, Clinton has been one of the 10 best known people in the US for almost 15 years now! That's a key difference.)

The only point they have is that at this point, the media reports Bill's complaints - rather than ignoring them as they did Kerry's. (In fairness to Clinton - the main damage of the SBVT was right around the time he had heart surgery.)

[beachmom]

6. Just read an update on the diary -- ABC blows Bill off

ABC is still going to air the show. Son of a bitch.

I mean -- if a former president of the USA cannot stop RW propaganda to be shown on free airwaves everywhere how the hell could John Kerry have stopped the Swift Boat Liars?

I guess we can safely say the '90s are over . . .

I agree with everything the poster says -- how f***ing James Dobson is more powerful than Bill Clinton. Good God.

[karynnj]

9. I saw that after I posted - that is chilling

It may wake people up that the media really is out of control. The idea that they could put a disclaimer that it is "fictionalized" and has characters called Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright .... is beyond belief. I just hope this doesn't play out like it did in 2004 - with the film, then "even handed" cable media treatment - where RW loony is given equal weight with non-partisan expert citing verifiable history, with talk radio echoing endlessly. (Do any of these Kerry bashers stop to think that Brinkley, an accomplished biographer had already published the definitive work. He spoke to about 100 people and incorporated their views. In fact, Kerry was not the one making the most damning charges? The media treated him as a Kerry partisan because he came away from reading Kerry's uneditted journal and letters,speaking to all these people and getting written material from some of them, incredibly impressed and inspired by Kerry.)

Clinton is in a far better position than Kerry was. People have known him for 15 years and the history of those years has been documented to some degree. It's likely true that there were things he didn't do on national defense, but who, other than a very small group of people (Clarke, Lake and some Senator from MA among them), would have. Bush CUT terrorism funding and Condi was to give a speech on 911 that spoke of other issues, but not terrorism, as threats. (Kerry's insight on global criminal organizations controlling countries in NEW WAR is scary - in that it could be ideological groups or corporations as well. - Saying that scares me as I get perilously close to the conspiracy nuts. :)

What's amazing is that, in spite of the fact Kerry was essentially unknown beyond the NE and political junkies. (Although the name was known from 1971. ), polls near the election showed that most people did not believe the lies. This shows how believable Kerry was and is. He is a very honest, decent man and it shows. (It hurts that it is those core characteristics that the media and the Republicans constantly hit. I wonder how he can be as thick skinned on this as he is - while still emotionally responding so instantly to others. (The easy solution is walling yourself off.)

[beachmom]

10. Some good news: Scholastic has dropped the material associated

with the film.


Educational media giant Scholastic, Inc. announced it's dropping its original classroom companion guides to a controversial new docudrama, and replacing them with materials stressing critical thinking and media literacy.

"After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues," said Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic, in a press release.




http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/7/16456/90625

I am very pleased with this, because I LOOVVEE their books for the kids. It's easier to boycott ABC/Disney than it would be to drop Scholastic (which also is associated with a lot of PBS Kids programming).


Edited to add: critical thinking and media literacy -- now I LIKE the sound of that. Perhaps the adults can learn something about it, too.

[sandnsea]

8. My thought exactly

Not hearing any "where there's smoke there's fire" now, are we. If Dems had rallied around Kerry this way, he'd be in the White House.

[karynnj]

7. I posted this:

The comparison to SBVT is unfair (0 / 0)

1.) One of the first actions of Senator Kerry's team was to write comparable letters to station managers to inform them that the ads were untrue. The tone was similar.

2.) One reason the lies had some effect was that people trusted a media that was fairer in the past and because Senator Kerry was still just introducing himself in April when they first came out. President Bill Clinton is one of the best known people in the world and has been for 15 years.

3.) President Clinton is getting far more support from other Democrats than they gave Senator Kerry. (either because it reflects on all Democrats or they learned something in 2004.)

The real test will be:

- Will the uproar stop the film's broadcast?

- Will the film's running be covered uncritical as a news story on cable news and talk radio - letting the charges get unchallanged airing? (Does Bill want the Fairness Doctrine back now?)

- Will the media act as if unsupported charges from a known partisan are of equal merit as documented rebuttals (which I assume will be coming)? Senator Kerry's problem was not lack of proof or rebuttals - every available record backed him; the problem was this fake even handedness.

It is WAY too early to claim success.

by karenc on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 12:02:38 PM PDT

[beachmom]

11. Okay, MSM (AOL) definitely using RW talking points

It says:

Clinton Aides
Blast 9/11 Film
Demand Last-Minute Changes
Were They Soft on bin Laden?

Read that last sentence? See, it's not so easy to fight a Swiftboat smear, is it, even for the Big Dog. Welcome to the brave new GOP controlled world, Mr. President.

[karynnj]

12. It's not easy at all - and it's a huge diversion

I am amazed at how much action is being thrown at this and how little it shows in the real world. The DNC did a great job in getting the letter writing option up and the call to add 10 emails to send the letter to was a good idea.

One concern I have is that all this activity could call even more attention to it. It might be that like F911, the majority of people who watch it will be the already converted. (I know the lefty freepers give Michael Moore more credit than John Kerry in winning over people in the middle, but I really don't believe it. I knew confirmed liberals (including me) who were embarrased by the the tone of F911 - the whole guilt by association bit connecting the Bushes and Bin ladens may have made people reject some of the real connections there.

Meanwhile, Bush has put out his national security stuff and he and his administration are saying that only they can keep us safe. Ironicly, nearly 6 years out of office, it's the Democrats defending their record. The question is whether the party can do as well as Kerry did focusing on the real issues and putting down the smears in the background.

In spite of all the "he didn't fight backers", I really don't think we want to consider spending too much time after this film is broadcast. I wonder if Clinton will attack the real issues more than this bogus smear, as Kerry did.

[JanusAscending]

13. How many of you plan to watch this fiasco?

At first I wasn't going to, but I've changed my mind. I'm going to watch it, and write down every commercial ad, and then proceed to boycott these company's. Although, now that I think of it, did I hear that this was going to run commercial free? Slick move if it's true. Someone enlighten me, and maybe I'll change my mind about seeing it !! Thanks

[karynnj]

15. The last I heard - someone had posted it was ad free

Meaning that ABC was essentially sponsoring it. (This must be accurate it was posted on an internet. :) )

[JanusAscending]

16. Just caught on LBN that Disney has pulled it!!!!

Score another one for us Tay! Have to go back and read it now. It's on the greatest page. Later y'all Sorry guys........it was a freakin' SPOOF!! Read it for yourselves, a lot of pissed posters, me included!!

[JI7]

18. yeah, i got angry at first, but it was a good way of pointing out the

hypocrisy, double standard etc.

[JI7]

17. some suggestions that right wingers like Scaife may have

paid ABC. i think that's probably true. and wouldn't be surprised if it was Scaife.

btw, wasn't it Scaife who owned the paper that had the reporter which Teresa told off because of his shitty attacks on her ?