Would getting the Path to 9/11 cancelled be good?

[bryant69]

Poll question: Would getting the Path to 9/11 cancelled be good?

On a practical level I mean. Would it be good for the party? Or could it back fire?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Ninga]

1. Dispelling revisionist history is required for all good citizens.

Burn the damn thing.

[liberal N proud]

2. Who voted for terrible?

Do we have a freeper in our midst?

[bryant69]

4. Well i'm sure there are dozens of secret freepers around

I'm one myself.

But I don't thik you have to be a freeper to think that getting this program cancelled might create problems for the party.

Bryant

[dipsydoodle]

3. BBC bought it.

It's on here BBC2 Sunday night. So - cancelling now would be a bit too late.

[BrotherBuzz]

6. Not to mention the 800 advanced view un-edited copies already out there...

in the Neo-cons hands...

:shrug:

[wryter2000]

5. Other

Not good for the party, but good for the country. Granted, this would help Democrats, but until Republicans start acting like patriotic Americans, only Democrats can save this country.

Also, I would have preferred equal time for a rebuttal. That way, we'd be graciously allowing their crap on the air, and we'd have HOURS to outline all their lies and all Bush's failures. A consummation devoutly to be wished.

[bowens43]

8. .

[petgoat]

7. It's bad precedent

If public pressure gets abc's lies cancelled,
public pressure is going to get our truth cancelled
someday.

[bowens43]

9. the precedent was set

when the Reagan mini series was canceled.

[petgoat]

16. The precedent is set when we confirm it by following suit. nt

[MADem]

10. There's no way that allowing LIES to be broadcast is "OK"

If they cut the living shit out of it, it may end up as just another forgettable movie, and one of the RARE circumstances where the ACTORS are actually UGLIER than the people they portray (making it almost as stupid as one of those hideous Marilyn Monroe or JFK pieces)...and that's pretty hard to do, unless you are doing it deliberately--after all, DC is where ugly people go to gain fame.

[Balbus]

11. It'll not make one bit of difference either way..

With the MTV mentality of most of today's populace, you really think someone is going to go into the polls in November and say, "I was going to vote Democratic, but since I saw that movie on ABC in the beginning of September I'm straight Republican now..."

Not going to happen - nobody cares. 7 minutes after the movie is over people will be saying "What's on Leno?"

[WinkyDink]

12. Yes. There is no inherent right to air false "history". Plenty

documentaries are never offered air-time.

[bryant69]

14. Is there an inherent right to air true history?

Just out of curiousity.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. I'm feeling a bit ambivalent about that

Would getting the Path to 9/11 canceled be good? I'm feeling a bit ambivalent about that.

I believe in free speech. That includes Nowrasteh getting to say what he wants, even if it's a pack of lies.

When one commits to free speech, then the strategy in to censure, not censor. Do I support equal rights and democracy. You bet I do. Does that mean I would want to bring the police power of the state against any one who stand up in an assembly of citizens and say that women should chained to the kitchen or that we should re-introduce the trans-Atlantic slave trade? No, that's not what I want. Let him say that. And then let each of us exercise our free speech and call him nuts.

Whether this program actually airs or not in not the important thing. The important thing is that the facts get out and that this project be exposed for the right wing propaganda that it is. It looks like we're having quite a bit of success at that. Keep up the good work.

[populistdriven]

15. If the current state of the MSM defines free speech then may it be damned!

[Jack Rabbit]

17. I'm afraid you have a point

But they don't own all the megaphones and bullhorns. Not yet, any way. We'll fight back with the facts as we can. And look, we've been successful thus far. Even if ABC airs that program and it gets ratings out the yin-yang, we have been successful.

More people will watch that program knowing it is a dramatization put together by Bush supporters. It is the Swiftboating of Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger, among others. It borders on libel, and the gray area is only because the targets are public personalities, not because there is any question about the truth -- or lack of it -- in the depiction of events in the film. More people who watch the program will watch it with a grain of salt.

I'm not saying we shouldn't threaten to boycott ABC, DIsney or whoever is footing the bill this project (we note that ABC is airing this thing without commercials; the generous sponsors seem to want to remain anonymous). That's part of underscoring our message: This project is right wing propaganda, not history.

At the same time, no one should pretend that there isn't room for criticism of Clinton and his administration. Of course there is. Clinton was a fallible human being and a politician, not the Second Coming of Christ. However, such criticism should be based on facts, not partisan lies.

The same standard applies to criticism of Mr. Bush and his regime.