Clinton Has Only Himself to Blame for "Path to 9/11"

[Yavin4]

I supported Clinton during his presidency, but the most glaring mistake that he made was the Communications Act of 1996, which in essence consolidated the media under the control of a few huge multi-national conglomerates. Ever since that bill was signed into law, the quality and accuracy of our media has degenerated into being nothing more that propaganda organs for the right.

They pull the Reagan docudrama and fire Dan Rather and his producer for one false fact in a story. However, outright lies about 9/11 and the Clinton admin. get primetime, commercial-free air time.

[Red Right and BLUE]

1. Bullshit.

He didn't twist their arm until they made a movie full of lies. What a ridiulous statement.

[Greyhound]

117. No, but he did make it possible for this kind of shit to happen.

Before he finished raygun/41's work for them, the competition that no longer exists, would jump all over it to steal their audience. They would be running ads to promote the competing shows and ridiculing this, apparently unwatchable, POS and ABC would know it and it would never get to production. The telecomm act simply eliminated competition in an entire industry, paring the players down to the point that collusion become the most reasonable and profitable way to do business.

Bill Clinton was a re:puke: that fucked over the working-class at every turn, just accept it, and get busy electing a true liberal/progressive. If we don't nothing will change and things will just get worse and worse.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

125. The real damage was done by Reagan's FCC in 1987,

IMO.

Just google "fairness doctrine".

Before its repeal triggered a race to the scuzzy bottom on hysterically right-wing talk radio, no one could have dreamed of such nasty scurrilous one-sided lies posing as mainstream "public affairs".

A ggod case could be made that profit-making big corporations who own the networks would rather not be in the news/public affairs business at all--it's a money-loser. The propaganda value of controlling the news is long-term, and most corporations think mainly about the bottom line for next quarter's report.

[Greyhound]

128. Good point, and an essential piece of the plan. The T-Comm Act

was just the final piece required. The "news" departments used have always lost money, but they were the price that the networks had to pay to keep their licenses. Now the news is a requirement to keep the cabals in power, and the sheep sedated and/or panicked as required by circumstances.

[AZBlue]

129. Excellent point.

If it hadn't been repealed, then Fox News wouldn't even exist!

Ooooh...just think of that!!

[dogday]

152. Thanks for the common sense

this is where it all began...

[ShortnFiery]

2. Obnoxious and Inane!

Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water. :( :thumbsdown:

[saltpoint]

3. Bullshit.

Bill Clinton's imperfect presidency has nothing to do with the right-wing-funded, ideological scurrilous media attack of PATH TO 9/11, which even two FOX News analysts have decried as "slanderous."

Shame on you.

[KyndCulture]

6. Exactly!!!!!!

that was a really grand canyon sized leap of illogic.

[Yavin4]

10. How So?

When you sign a bill that allows 7 or 8 corporations own about 90% of our television and radio stations, cable outlets, newspapers, etc., you really expect fair and accurate treatment?

Disney did not own ABC before that bill was passed.

[saltpoint]

15. You've missed the red side of a green barn on this one and

in fact you aren't even on the right farm.

The point is distortion, not legislation.

[file83]

153. I will say that while Clinton certainly contributed to the issue of

consolidated media power by corporations...he isn't "to blame" for "The Path to 9/11".

I agree that he shouldn't have signed that bill. But that doesn't necessarily mean ABC wouldn't have figured out a way to have made this movie without the bill.

[Sterling]

157. Only if your head has been in a very dark place for 20 years can you think

these things are not related. The tone of the media has changed dramatically since the telecom act as well as the Raygun 87 act. Not just Clinton but our pols in general sold us out with the media as well as fair elections. Now we are told what to think and if that does not work told who we voted for without any proof.

This is very much Clinton has a share of the blame for.

[Yavin4]

7. Clinton Signed the Bill Consolidating The Media Into Corporate Conglomerat

By doing that, you expect "fair and balance" treatment from the media? Come on.

[KyndCulture]

8. Exactly what does that have to do.. .

with a slanderous movie filled with lies?

[LostinVA]

68. Nothing -- but hey, some people love to blame Clinton for everything

Hmmm... who are those people....

[struggle4progress]

122. A handful of vertically and horizontally integrated megacorporations ..

.. cross-control newspapers, TV, and radio: since there's no meaningful competition and no meaningful regulation, the megacorps are free to flood the public with whatever messages they think will consolidate their power.

Nahhh ... That couldn't possibly influence the political subtexts embedded in the programming, could it ...

[Joe Chi Minh]

139. Everything. I've always stuck up for Bill, but you obviously don't

understand the mentality of the psychos of the far right, he sometimes felt he had to defer to. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

Nor do I think there can be much doubt that Bill would have been "small-planed" in rag time, had he stood in the way of their wishes in a number of areas - quite plausbly this one, in particular. Hilary mentioned in her autobiography very briefly, in passing, the great danger they knew that they were in.

They now feel - what am I saying? - they now know that they can do pretty much what they like with impunity. When elections are simply a no-no, as they quite plainly are now in the US, they're just running riot. Let's not delude ourselves that you had an election any more than you did in 2000. It's no hyperbole to say that it was a complete charade. They were just jerking you round and wasting your tax dollars into the bargain.

The one ray of hope at the moment seems to be Fitz's investigations and the honest judges, who are permitting recourse to the law of the land to citizens seeking to take the election fraudsters to task.

It would be difficult, if not impossible to overstate the power they now have by "owning" the corporate media, the power to ride rough-shod over everything, starting with the truth.

Einstein once observed, "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." This crew hire and fire the scientists to do their bidding, so just substitute "science" for technological progress and you should get the picture. What negaive information have you been able glean from your corporate media concerning genetically-modified foods? What makes you think this 9/11 film isn't just another example of what the corporate-media leviathan can and WILL do, when their power is consolidated?

[Sterling]

159. "Bill would have been "small-planed" in rag time" Coward?

You seriously think Bill was extorted into this type of thing out of fear for his safety? I am not sure which is worse, your crazy theory or the idea BC is such a coward he would let this type of thing go on.

Either way, it's completely unacceptable.

[Red Right and BLUE]

11. It wasn't the best thing he ever did but connecting that to this garbage

is beyond logic. Do yourself a favor and remember where you are.

[Yavin4]

13. It Has Every Connection

Your media is consolidated into the hands of a few corporations that are benefitting from the pro-corporate policies of having Republicans in power.

They use their media power to put on garbage like "Path to 9/11" on free TV in order to help Republicans win in November.


Clinton signed the bill that consolidated this power.

[Red Right and BLUE]

17. Once again:

That does not make him responsible for the lies of others.

[LostinVA]

69. "Your" media???

[truedelphi]

121. I agree with you about Clinton and am willing to take

My share of the slings and barbs - the FCC giveaway in
1996 was a horrible deed done for the campaign mpoey -
both Dems and Repukes signed on to it

Wonder if CLinton finally regrets it (NOTE: I am totally
pissed off about the Path to" Movie and have spent the week
calling and emailing but had Clinton wanted he cold hae
vetoed this piece of legislation.)

[Sterling]

158. "Do yourself a favor and remember where you are."" WTF does that mean?

Most long time DUers know about this. It is no shock. Most of us saw this type of thing happening as a result of the telecom act far before they actually started to do it. Not only this stupid movie but the tone of the media in general is a result of this very stupid mistake by the Dems in power when the telecom act was signed. Maybe in their eyes it was not a mistake, that is far more disturbing.

While you may be upset some DUers are calling our own pols out on this travesty it is far more upsetting that many DUers are in denial when it comes to this issue. In complete ignorance of a problem that will not go away until dealt with head on.

[WinkyDink]

57. and had he not, you expected NOT for his veto to have been

over-ridden?

Think about THAT.

[KyndCulture]

4. ah jeez

[ronnykmarshall]

39. You beat me to it!

:spray:

[malaise]

5. I blame Clinton for one thing

Hang out with Bush dogs and you'll catch fleas. That he publicly parades with people who did everything to destroy him breaks my heart.

Edit - add.

[goclark]

42. Breaks mine too

Poppy probably monitors every word and phone call and activity when he is "visiting more than GW visits with Babs and Poopy."

[malaise]

50. I will never understand it

Goclark.

[Greyhound]

120. And just why, do you suppose, he would do that?

Couldn't have anything to do with his post-presidential income could it?

[stepnw1f]

9. Ahaaa... Sure Yavin4... whatever you say

buh bye....

[BootinUp]

12. Can you revise your thread title?

It is very upsetting. Just add "in your opinion".

[Yavin4]

16. No, I Won't

By not signing that bill, media power would be more disperse, and you would get more varied opinions.

ABC knows that this movie is pure political propaganda. That's why they hired right wing hacks to write it.

[Cooley Hurd]

14. I think I know what you are trying to say...

...but I'll have to disagree with you nonetheless. Yes, the communications act of 1996 was a mistake, but the "Path to 9/11" isn't a result of it, directly or indirectly.

[Yavin4]

19. Disney Did Not Own ABC before the Act was Passed

Ever since that Act was passed, the media has gotten more embolden to be right wing propaganda organs.

[KyndCulture]

18. Ok so...

the right wing taliban in this country bear absolutely no responsibility for this travesty?

You need more coffee.

[Yavin4]

22. The Right Wing Taliban Wouldn't Be Able To Spew Their Lies

to an entire nation without that 1996 Telecommunications Act.

[KyndCulture]

23. dupe

[KyndCulture]

24. And you think somehow..

That Clinton forsaw all of this in his crystal ball when he did it, so therefore it makes him responsible for lies of the media?

[Marr]

60. He should've, yes.

He should've realized that turning media outlets into PR firms for larger conglomerates would create a GOP propaganda machine. At the very least, he should've realized that you don't serve democracy by concentrating capital.

[mitchum]

62. A "crystal ball" shouldn't have been necessary for the "brilliant"...

"politically astute", "genius tactician" (according to the Big Dawg cultists), should it?

[Greyhound]

119. Crystal ball not required, everything that has come to pass since this

travesty was perpetrated on us was predicted and reported to him. "He didn't know", is simply not true. He just didn't give a shit because it meant lots of $$ pouring into the party coffers and guaranteed his future personal income.

[mitchum]

126. Absolutely

[Sterling]

160. Damn we don't expect much from our pols do we?

EVERYONE knew what this would mean. Unless you have no fucking clue about politics or the media we all knew this would be the end of even the pretense of non partisan media in the US.
Whatever the new flavor of cool aid being passed out is here it sucks.

This used to be a place filled with critical thinkers not just robots who think "we Dems can do no wrong" types. People who cannot see their own faults or the faults of those they support will never be effective in any kind of struggle. This ignorance of the problem is frightening, especially on a site that used to be so much more effective in getting information out to the people.

Now it's group think over the truth. Sad. It's a lot like what happen on Bushbot sites. Are we the new Bushbots?

[merh]

46. I agree with you Yavin4

Clinton's judgment relative to who he got in bed with politically and personally are responsible for a great deal of the damage this admin has done to our nation.

And that he golfs and romps with one of the patriarchs of the "family" that is responsible for so many horrific crimes committed in our name, in the name of the USoA, and against our nation, proves that it is not the citizens and the nation that he cares about, but his "legacy" and his wife's political future.

I don't agree with the slant of the docudramafiction that is to be aired and do not fault Clinton for that. I do join you in recognizing that but for that 1996 legislation, the commercial free airing by a corporate giant would not be financially or otherwise possible.

[springhill]

64. I agree with you too............

Anyone reading your posts knows exactly what you mean. Do you mean that Clinton is responsible for this movie? Of course not. But he is responsible for the conditions that led to this kind of thing. Bill Clinton, as the President had the responsibility to be able to see what could happen; that was his job. There were many people who opposed this legislation for just the kind of outcome we have today.

[merh]

72. exactly

Many of us tried to be heard when the legislation was proposed. We warned that it would cause just what we have seen happen, the media is controlled and the messages are tainted, if not totally silenced.

I wonder if Clinton appreciates his mistakes? I doubt it given his reason for his blow job was "because he could" (as he reasoned in his book). There are a lot of things I can do, but I won't because of their effects on others. As a president, one has to be aware of the long term effects of their support of legislation, he wasn't concerned or, if he knew, he just didn't care.

[bvar22]

114. I also agree with Yavin4

The results of the Telecommunication Act 1996 were foreseen.
Also NAFTA and other Free Trade Agreements.

The chickens have come home to roost.,
A handful of people have gotten VERY RICH,
The American People (the Working Class) pay the bill.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

20. Blow Job!

[redwitch]

52. Yeah, but more importantly, WHERE IS OSCAR?

:hi:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

54. He's out picketing Disney.

[redwitch]

155. Good for him!

I knew he was a liberal! (And a good American!)

[JHB]

21. Well, in the same sense Harry Truman is responsible for the Vietnam war...

...by allowing the French to reassert colonial control after WW2.

In other words, "There's some truth there, but to focus on it misleadingly absolves those who came later and had a more direct hand in shaping the events."

[Yavin4]

25. May I Ask Everyone A Question

Do you honestly believe or think that allowing a few major media coporations to own 90% of all our media would result in a fair and balance portrayl of history?

[saltpoint]

26. You have an opportunity to reconsider your point, which is sprung

from false logic, false conclusion, unearned conclusion.

Edna Jones smokes cigarettes. Edna Jones lives in Chicago. Smoking is unhealthy. The Chicago fire was a terrible event. Edna Jones caused the Chicago fire.

That's what you've done here. And you're being called on it.

[Yavin4]

35. No, Not Even Close

Clinton signed a bill giving massive media consolidation to a few corporations.

These corporations highly prefer the current "leadership" in Washington.

These corporations use their new power given to them by Clinton to help keep the current "leadership" in power.



But let's reverse it. Let's say Clinton doesn't sign the bill. Media power is diverse:


More diverse corporations would own the airwaves.

Individual corporations would have different opinions of the leadership in D.C. and would be more beholden to the public because their small size.

[KyndCulture]

40. The drop in your logic is that..

If Clinton hadn't done it Bush would have immediately.

Doesn't matter who did it.

It matters that the people who made the film are responsible. NOT the media, NOT Clinton... the filmakers who are right wing propaganda masters.

And do you really think before 1996 there was never a movie that lied about the facts? HAHAHAH

[Ignis]

162. But the timeline is VERY important.

Even if Shrub had rushed to do this as soon as he was in office, consider the following:
- How much lead time is necessary to consolidate Big Media?
- How much time has Big Media had to consolidate (since 1996 vs. 2000)?
- How did Big Media cover the Clenis years & impeachment?
- How would a greater number of independent media voices have covered the 2000 SElection?
- Would Shrub even BE in office without this media consolidation?

Good leaders can make bad decisions. No one's saying "Off with Clinton's head!" here; Yavin4 has a good point about the far-reaching effects of media consolidation.

[saltpoint]

45. If your point is control of media, you should have posted on control of

media.

You didn't.

You slammed a Democratic president of two terms and linked him unfairly and inaccurately to ABC /Disney's PATH TO 9/11, which has been dismissed by a Secretary of State, 2 FOX News analysts, the entire Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate, and a handful of representatives from the Clinton camp.

ABC/Disney is generating propaganda against a Democratic president and his Cabinet, and therefore, his supporters.

You've failed to acknowledge that and your connection is false.

[Red Right and BLUE]

I've got an answer:

No.

So what's that go to do with people lying about 9/11? Nothing. They'd lie no matter who owned ABC.

[still_one]

38. he is talking about the irony of it

today did NOT happen overnight, we allowed it to happen, by dismal voter turnouts, and an apethetic public

[Red Right and BLUE]

48. None of that establishes that it's Bill Clinton's fault that this

atrocity has been made. It's the first excuse they ran to as soon as 9/11 happened. There's nothing that would have stopped them from trying.

[KyndCulture]

30. People who get history off the tee vee...

are stupid to begin with.

[Greyhound]

130. Nonetheless, they are the majority. Amerika's natural anti-intellectual

predilection has been encouraged and, in many cases, institutionalized, resulting in the dumbest fucking herd of sheep in the history of the world.

[still_one]

34. They don't understand your point

The Communications Act of 1996 led us to where we are today, and Bill Clinton allowed it to happen

This is why there is no longer a fairness or equal time policy

It is ironic, but definitely makes a good point.

They are going to air 9/11 anyway. Many want the film banned, this will only attract more viewers and because of the publicity, I am sure it will have a record number of viewers.

This presents an opportunity, NOT only to expose the lies of the psedo documentary, but also the lies of the Iraq war, which was one of the justifications why we went there in the first place.

[Red Right and BLUE]

43. No.

We DO get the point. The problem is this point does not make Clinton responsible for this propaganda.

[still_one]

44. If the communications act of 1996 hadn't been signed

this film would have never seen the light of day

[Red Right and BLUE]

47. Okay, so it's all Clinton's fault. PUH-LEAZE

[saltpoint]

49. A baseless comment. Propaganda has been around for many centuries.

This isn't the first and the Clinton era is not its root or cause.

Whenever and wherever there is media, there has been, for all time, the twin problems of censorship and propaganda. Governments have used media of many sorts for all time, no matter what. Including Democratic administrations in this country.

Not as scurrilously as Bush uses it, but the problem is pervasive and predates ABC/Disney's production here by centuries.

The OP fails to make that distinction and slams a Democratic president in the process.

[Toots]

27. So it was in 1996 that Rush Limbaugh got his start?

George Will, Morton Kondrake (sp), Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, etc. etc. all only got their start because of Clinton..:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Mr_Spock]

28. Irrelevant!

Snap out of it.

[Yavin4]

29. From Wikipedia

Telecommunications Act of 1996

"Most media ownership regulations were thrown out by the Act, and independents were bought up. This, along with the Reagan-era recission of the Fairness Doctrine, resulted in the rise of right-wing radio, coast-to-coast. The Act was claimed to foster competition, but instead it led to historic industry consolidation, reducing the number of major media companies from around 80 in 1986, to 5 in 2005."


"Professor Aurora Wallace: "Media consolidation has created the illusion of choice. Basically, just because we have hundreds of cable channels, hundreds of magazines, record labels, etc... all of these outlets are owned by 5 companies. We are not better served by the amount of information, if the information is collated by a very distinct minority."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

[Red Right and BLUE]

31. Aaaaaah - YEAH, we got that.

NOT RELEVANT

[saltpoint]

33. We got your point, and your point is not your post. You slam Clinton

by linking him to scurrilous propaganda from ABC/Disney, a product of right-wing ideologues.

No sale.

[mitchum]

73. No, the OP is pointing out DLClinton and the ABCs of irony

and that seems to be pretty damn obvious

[saltpoint]

91. Not obvious enough for the OP to state. And therefore presumptious.

If propaganda predates 1992, Clinton cannot be the genesis of a slanderous film. He can be its subject but not its source.

His attorneys may advise him to challenge the airing.

I like his chances if they do.

[mitchum]

103. Okay, I guess it's obvious to we the more astute

and I guess my high inferential reading scores weren't some kind of fluke :)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

106. "my high inferential reading scores" !

The weirdest tooting-of-own-horn of the week.
Your Clinton-hating is entangling your inferentialism.

[mitchum]

110. What the fuck? You want me to call people thick-headed, dense,...

willfully obtuse? I don't think that would have been very gracious at all :)

I assumed that my self mockery on that whole inferential reading point was pretty obvious to the reader, but...well...

[A-Schwarzenegger]

113. I figgered it was a new-fangled test they gave the kids these days!

Who you pulling for for prez in 08, mitch?

[mitchum]

124. My dream ticket would be Gore/Lewis or Kerry/Lewis or Dean/Lewis

believe it or not, inferential reading tests are administered to kids today. Along with a battery of other tests that they must take.
Yes, I'm a teacher. Now, that revelation probably does frighten and appall many on this board :) Rest assured,
though. "Motherfucker", "cocksucker", "buttfucker", "pissdrinker", etc are NOT present in my vocabulary from 8 to 4. The sacrifices I make for public education...

[saltpoint]

107. My guess is your rudeness isn't much of a fluke either.

You had a crack here at an adult conversation and clearly don't want one.

[mitchum]

112. No, I go to pay sites for adult conservations

D'oh! You meant grown up. Sorry, my mistake

[saltpoint]

115. I meant adult.

You might want to check out this thread in DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2502422

As Messrs. Lindsey and Band have expressed formal objection to ABC/Disney.

That's where things stand right now.

[seabeyond]

32. bullshit. the people who made the film are the ones responsible.

abc is responsible.

i am so tired of this bullshit. it is always, repugs dont own their behavior. oh no, it isnt bush that is responsible for the dishonesty, it is kerrys fault. it is the dems fault. bush isnt responsible for starting the war, blame the dems. bush isnt responsible for where we are now, blame the minority for not standing up to majority loud enough

bullshit

the people who made the film are responsible

[ronnykmarshall]

36. Oh. My. God.

:eyes:

[spanone]

37. Once again...this ain't about Clinton.

hiding thread.

[librechik]

41. if Clinton is to blame, it's because he hasn't come forward forcefully

to put down and eliminate the culture of myths that The Right Wing SwiftBoaters ginned up around his involvement with Osama. Like Kerry, he chose to ignore the slander hoping it would shrivel up and blow away. He just allowed the false stories to fester and grow and get repeated as gospel around the world and over the airways.

I blame him for THAT!

[leesa]

51. That was a very bad bill and it has cause enormous damage.

I agree that we wouldn't have seen the horrible disintegration of media we have seen without this bill. Did Clinton know all the media would fall into RW lunatics hands? I don't know. It seems like he would have known the likely players involved.

[saltpoint]

53. Bill Clinton is not the writer, producer, or network marketer for THE PATH

TO 9/11.

The merits or minefields of a piece of legislation are a separate topic. Right-wing media are not popular on DU. That's not new ground.

A specific bill does not produce propaganda if propaganda thrived centuries before the bill was signed.

[mitchum]

55. I posted the same thing a few nights ago, and the DLClinton apologists...

were livid (just as they are now)

The lesser of two evils is still fucking evil

[WinkyDink]

58. Only a Republican would call Bill Clinton "evil".

[mitchum]

61. And only an IDIOT would call DLClinton a progressive..

my point was that YES DLClinton was certainly better than the current gang of criminals, but it is patently RIDICULOUS to think that he was progressive. Hence, the use of the old "lesser of two evils" adage.

Would you please list for me DLClinton's progressive ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

[saltpoint]

77. The issue at hand is whether Bill Clinton is at fault for ABC/Disney's

marketing team's decision to produce and air a film that even two FOX News analysts have called slanderous.

Take that in a moment and you realize that Bill Bennett is not exactly a progressive.

BClinton's political ideology is not at question here. The blame for biased media predates the Clinton presidency by many centuries. Media used as propaganda is as old as the first town crier or the first government-distributed pamphlet.

In the early media history of Turkey, for example:

"...the only newspapers published ...were official government newspapers, the purpose of which is well expressed in a Turkish editorial of the time: 'the aim of the newspaper is to make known to the subjects the intentions and orders of the government.'"
-- from THE MIDDLE EAST: A Brief History of The LAST 2,000 YEARS, by Bernard Lewis

I believe that significantly predates the Clinton administration.

[mitchum]

78. And you are continually ignoring the OP's point about DLClinton's...

support of media consolidation.
A million Turkish strawmen can't change that.

[saltpoint]

79. The Turks have been a noble and fierce bunch over the centuries

and are hardly of straw.

Your gripe is against the DLC, evidently, but the point in question has not changed.

Propaganda predates modern American history; therefore the OP is flatly wrong to equate the Clinton administration with the impulse to slander.

[mitchum]

80. Where in the fuck does the OP do that???!!!

The OP repeats over and over:
THE RAMIFICATIONS OF CLINTON'S SUPPORT OF MEDIA CONSOLIDATION

jesusfuckingchrist...

[saltpoint]

86. You seem a bit overheated for an adult discussion.

Thanks for your time.

[Sterling]

161. "The Turks have been a noble and fierce bunch over the centuries"

Sure, just ask the Armenians.

[LostinVA]

83. "DLClinton" -- ain't that the cutest little thing

Yup, some of us eat our own. NO DEMOCRAT should be blamed for this atrocity.

[mitchum]

87. Thanks!

And the DLC/ corporate cabal also thank you for your support :)

[Breeze54]

93. NAFTA...

:sarcasm: :rofl:

EDITOR'S NOTE
Oh, yeah—he’s slick

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4490

by David Rolland 6/21/06

Let’s get one thing straight right here and now: I was not a big fan of President Bill Clinton.
Oh, I liked some of what he tried to do.
I appreciated his and his wife’s attempt to provide universal health care.
But that was a particularly populist policy goal—and a failure at that —tucked into a centrist
“New Democrat” presidency that was too conservative for my political sensibilities.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of three Clinton-signed laws that I didn’t care much for:
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (welfare reform), the Telecommunications
Act and the Defense of Marriage Act— and these were the laws that were on my mind as I traveled
last weekend to Little Rock, Ark., where Clinton was the keynote speaker at the Association of
Alternative Newsweeklies’ annual convention (he took no pay). I had worked the first two laws
into a question to which I wanted an answer from my former prez.

I got my chance, but it didn’t happen the way I’d imagined.

SNIP-->
When I finally reached the front, I found myself face to face with him, and I decided to ask my question.
“Sir,” I said, “you signed three laws that contained elements that I think are inconsistent
with some of the themes and advocacy of a more humane global community in the speech you just gave.
NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act and welfare reform—what, if anything,
do you regret about them?”

His response knocked my socks off, not necessarily in its content, but more in the manner of its delivery.

Clinton took the time to methodically take me through each law, citing facts, figures
and circumstances of the time, telling me his regrets and allowing me to chime in when
I had something to add or ask.
Because I didn’t think I’d be talking to him, I wasn’t holding pen and paper,
and I didn’t have my recorder with me. So I stood there, arms folded, trying futilely
to absorb it all. I have to admit, much of it went over my head.
I got some of it, but I couldn’t do the answer justice by trying to relay it to you here.

In a nutshell, he expressed regret over precisely what I didn’t like about those laws.
He regrets the “social” impacts of NAFTA. The agreement, he told me, was a fait accompli,
but he said he was certain Al Gore would beat George W. Bush and that Gore would fix it.
He regrets the media-merger mania that resulted from the Telecom Act and seemed to blame it,
at least partly, on the dot-com bust. It was a case of unintended consequences.
“I didn’t see that coming,” he said. (I would love to have had time to press him on that one.)
And he didn’t like welfare reform’s provision to boot mothers off the dole after five cumulative years.
Perhaps that can be altered when the law is reauthorized this year, he said. (Not likely.)

Again, that’s a grossly oversimplified summary.
I’ll regret not having my tape recorder on me for the rest of my life. <--SNIP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So? He has regrets? :shrug: So do we all.....
:(

[mitchum]

105. Damn it! I also forgot Welfare "reform" and DOMA...

and here I've been maligning the man when he's actually FDR and LBJ all in one :)

[WinkyDink]

56. What was "false" in the Dan Rather story?

[Marr]

59. I think you've got a point. And it's the problem with DLC thinking.

Their constant catering to corporate America works against the real Democratic constituency. When you empower corporations, they're going to seek more power, more favor. They're not going to have any loyalty to an ideal, a party, or an individual; they'll simply follow the dollar.

You cannot out-corporate the GOP. Cuddling up to corporate America only ends up empowering the GOP.

[mitchum]

63. It's also the problem with the "Big Dawg" cultists who refuse to...

actually examine DLClinton's nonprogressive accomplishments

[Marr]

65. I agree with you. That bill fit perfectly into the DLC ideology.

And it's potential impact should've been obvious even before it was instituted. It *was* obvious, in fact- and described by plenty of actual liberals. I think it was clear to the DLC-types as well, personally.

All this "crystal ball" bullshit reminds me alot of Bush's comments on the New Orleans levees; "I don't think anybody anitcipated...".

Uh-huh.

[mitchum]

66. Apparently, the "crystal ball" apologists MUST believe Reagan...

was FAR SMARTER than Clinton. It was obvious to Reagan what would be the outcome of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, Yet, Clinton couldn't have forseen the results of the Telecommunication Act? Hmmm...

[LostinVA]

71. "Big Dawg cultists" -- oh boy

[saltpoint]

74. Agreed. Standing up for a twice-elected Democrat president is akin

to occult status?

News to me.

I preferred either Jerry Brown or Tom Harkin in the primaries in 92.

[LostinVA]

82. I know -- "cultist"

Just because people refuse to blame him for SOMEONE ELSE'S propganda.

Boy oh boy...

[mitchum]

84. And those filthy Indians had it coming...

gotta support my fellow Democrat Andrew Jackson, you know...

Harkin was also my choice, but I reluctantly supported and voted for Clinton both times (knowing full well that it was having to support a republite), but it's not something I'm particularly proud of. DLClinton did very little for me, so why should I continue to waste my breath for him?

[saltpoint]

88. Post a DLC thread elsewhere if you wish.

This one concerns Clinton's presidency and the upcoming airing of PATH TO 9/11.

[mitchum]

90. But you CAN NOT seperate Clinton's presidency and the DLC

[saltpoint]

92. Again, if you want a DLC thread, I assume you can post it on DU in the

GD or GD-Politics forums.

Propaganda predates Clinton.

Get a calendar.

[mitchum]

100. And in that same spirit, you are welcome to post a history of...

propaganda thread

I repeat: the OP's point was Clinton's support of media consolidation.
Discussion of the DLC agenda certainly fits in with this thread. Clinton's support of media consolidation CERTAINLY is connected to the DLC's pro corporate agenda. Unless, you don't consider major media companies to be corporate...

[saltpoint]

104. You post an anti-Clinton or anti-DLC if you want to.

I don't want to.

The point stands: Clinton was blamed in the OP for PATH TO 9/11.

The charge is baseless.

[mitchum]

75. Wear it proudly, if you wish

[LostinVA]

81. I'll say again: oh boy

[LostinVA]

67. Blaming the rape victim for wearing that short skirt and being drunk

Whore deserved it.

God.

[mitchum]

70. And a progressive defending DLClinton is like the abused spouse...

defending their abuser

See how easy that is

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joanne98]

76. Media deregulation KILLED us. We'd be dead if it wasn't for Al Gore

and the internet. What the Hell was Clinton thinking.

[citizen snips]

94. what the fuck?

that has nothing to do with ABC's choice to air their bullshit movie.

[SaveElmer]

95. Nope...its Bill Clinton's Mothers fault...

After all if Bill Clinton wasn't born, he wouldn't have been President, and then couldn't sign the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the ABC and all the other news outlets would still be treating people fairly?

:sarcasm:

[saltpoint]

96. NO! It's Bill Clinton's father's sperm who's to blame.

That little sucker swam upstream and started the entire thing in motion!

[citizen snips]

98. No it was Monica's fault.

[saltpoint]

101. LOL! (Hi, MATTMAN)

[citizen snips]

108. Hey Old Crusoe

we should have a laugh at a blame Clinton thread that makes no sense.

[saltpoint]

109. Well, in the interests of full disclosure, I will admit that I've seen

Bill and Hillary Clinton holding up gas stations around the country. They do it so frequently that you almost can't NOT see them.

Mostly Hillary is the one who goes in and does the stick-up and money-grab, then she flees to the get-a-way car which Bill drives.

On at least one occasion, though, Hillary drove the get-a-way car while Bill stood in the back seat of the convertible playing saxophone. It was one of their more theatrical getaways.

_________

Several hundred million people voted for Bill Clinton, twice, and he is a Democratic president.

I would have thought that was worth something on a site like this one.

[citizen snips]

111. Good point

and LoL

[BootinUp]

99. LOL, Thanks for the laugh you two.

[saltpoint]

102. Hi ya, Jim4Wes. Yep. Those little squiggly devils'll do it every time!

[pauliedangerously]

97. That's an excellent point...

...and I'm sure Clinton appreciates the irony. What does here care? He's made his money. I find it amusing that a lot of wingers called him a republicrat while he was in office, but now he's labelled "liberal."

Bill Clinton is not a liberal.

Interestingly, only one republican voted against the bill: Senator John McCain...that is one brain I'd really like to examine.

Too see all who voted against it:

http://www.wave-guide.org/library/tca_hist.html

[Greyhound]

123. That was before McCain had "The Way Things Are" explained to

him. Prior to 2000 he was still marginally honest and attempted to be a statesman. After the primary, and subsequent nomination of an obviously unqualified, incompetent fool, with a record of nothing but abject failure in 1999, he was told that if he intended to remain in politics he had better start towing the line, he did.

[ms liberty]

133. Enough yes votes to override a veto:

Only 5 Senators voted against the 96 Telecomm Act
3 Senators did not vote
Only 16 Representatives voted against the 96 Telecomm Act
4 Representatives did not vote

This is per the site you linked.

That would be a veto proof majority.

[pauliedangerously]

141. Clinton's statement

Today I have signed into law S. 652, the "Telecommunications Act of 1996." This landmark legislation fulfills my Administration's promise to reform our telecommunications laws in a manner that leads to competition and private investment, promotes universal service and open access to information networks, and provides for flexible government regulation. The Act opens up competition between local telephone companies, long distance providers and cable companies; expands the reach of advanced telecommunications services to schools, libraries, and hospitals; and requires the use of new V-chip technology to enable families to exercise greater control over the television programming that comes into their homes.

***text omitted for brevity--use link for full apeech***

William J. Clinton
The White House,
February 8, 1996.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=52289

[KaptBunnyPants]

154. Make them veto it.

Doesn't being on the right side of the issue matter? Although, it is depressing that so few Democrats in office had the foresight to see that allowing a few right wing corporations to own all media outlets might be a bad thing.

[opihimoimoi]

116. A TOOL of the RIGHT is to FOOL so they can RULE

Social Engineering has been the means to an end....

[truedelphi]

118. Yavin can you tell me what the "one false fact in the" DanRather

Mary Mapes story was?

I think every single point that they raised could be vetted.

[Yavin4]

144. They Used Bad Documents

They were set up by Rove, and they used false documentation in the story. The overall story was correct, but they did use bad documents.

[truedelphi]

156. I'm wondering out loud here

Well one of the things I heard about the documents being false was that in 1972, the year
the documents were supposedly typed - supposedly it was not possible to have proportional spacing, and other features like sub and super script

However, that turned out to be false - in fact in 1972 at the tender of age of twenty, I was taught how to run something called a Mag Card typewriter and it had proportional spacing and other features. 1972 was the year these docs were supposedly typed.

Many companies could not afford mag Card Typewriters, but ad agencies and the military could and did.

Wads there a question about the signature as well? That was the one thing I didn't have any ability to access.

[dave123williams]

127. YES! The TCA was a freakin' DISASTER for the Country...

I actually came up with a political theory over it:

Any time you see Dems and Repubs agreeing on anything that results in a rose-garden signing ceremony, the whole country just got fucked in the butt.

Maybe that's more of an axiom than a theory, but you get the point.

[ms liberty]

131. Excuse me? Can you say "Gutting the Fairness Doctrine?"

That was the beginning, my friend. Yea, the 96 Telecom act was a huge mistake, but IIRC, it passed the Republicult controlled Congress with a veto proof majority. If I'm wrong about that part, I'm more than ready to be corrected.
I know that when Congress was pushing it that pond scum Jesse Helms was shilling it hard in our area. In 95-96 my husband worked for a company that made cable, and ol' Jesse came to the plant to do some politiking. Luckily, mr liberty was off work that day - they really didn't want him to be in the same room with Jesse!

[saltpoint]

132. Thank you for mentioning the complicity and scum-laden soul of

Jesse Helms.

May he rest in hell's lowest rung.

[ms liberty]

134. Enough yes votes to override a veto: see my post #133

for details and the link where I found that info.

[DeBunk]

135. I have to agree. The fairness doctrine would have prevented this

However, we must still fight for truth, justice and the American way.

[saltpoint]

136. Bill Clinton's attorneys are skillfull, willful, and well-schooled in

navigating difficult waters.

They would have to be. They are. And that's good news for Democrats and not very good news for ABC/Disney.

ABC/Disney is now in receipt of a letter calling for the withdrawal of airing of PATH TO 9/11.

It is clear that the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate, one Secretary of State from the Clinton Cabinet, and several million other Americans question the decision to air a film which inaccurately represents the facts.

I praise Clinton's attorneys for their challenge and I believe ABC/Disney will be thinking this over.

No one knows if the program will be pulled, or if it will air with revision; no one knows if it airs if it will prompt legal action; my guess is it will if it airs.

An argument can and I believe will be made that ABC/Disney's producers could have avoided this actionable libel/slander by responsible editing in accordance with public record.

In any event, it would surprise me if a court found that Mr. Clinton is to blame for a film he did not produce and which inaccurately represents his public service. I would not want to be defending ABC/Disney on this one.

Long-term guess: Good for Democrats, not so good for ABC/Disney.

[Sterling]

163. "Bill Clinton's attorneys are skillfull," Where were they when he needed

them to tell him this bill was murder for his own party and the people he was supposed to represent?

You really think BC is a dumb asshole don't you? You must to believe he was "duped" into signing this piece of shit. Did you bother reading his signing statement posted above? Maybe you should, it might help you figure this out.

[KaptBunnyPants]

137. Ahh, the blind loyalty of the Clintonistas.

No one here even bothers to defend his actions, instead the Clintonites attack the very notion of criticizing the "best president ever". Why did he support the Telecom act, and why do his supporters stand by that decision? Another one of those purely republican bills which benefited no one but the super elite, yet the Big Dog was happy to put his signature on it. Clintons third way lead to an overall weakening of the country, and left us prime for what followed. He hasn't even been trying to help the situation he is partially responsible for creating until recently, when they started going after him personally again, instead preferring to hobnob with the kind of sleaze who perpetrates this nonsense. Maybe one day he will realize you cannot appease evil, just like he realized after he left office that pot should be decriminalized. But, hey, this is the guy who after working with lieberman for over a decade, failed to notice that he was a snake in the grass with no sense of loyalty or honor. I guess he just got that "good guy" vibe from Bush 2/Cheney gang as well.

[BootinUp]

138. Why did you post this in a thread about the path to 9/11 movie?

I guess you suggest (as the original poster did), we should not fight slander against democratic party elected officials in the form of a 5 hour movie?

[KaptBunnyPants]

140. Of course we should fight ABC on this.

This particular thread is about how Clinton's choices helped lead to this situation of a rightwing controlled media. I just hope that the future leaders of our Party show a little more insight into what their selling out of progressive values will lead to. And that our Party members will show a little more willingness to criticize bad leadership.

[BootinUp]

142. Hopefully we will give them a congress that cooperates more eh? n/t

[KaptBunnyPants]

145. Would be nice. n/t

[CarlVK]

151. That's called "projection"

and I don't think he said anything of the kind. Just because we are Democrats/Left of the Spectrum does NOT mean we become sycophants of a personality like the mindslaves of Anne Coulter do. I'd like to think we are better than that. Clinton was a god president - but he did a few bad things too. We are adult enough to acknowledge that aren't we?

[Yavin4]

143. For Those That Disagree with Me

Clinton in order to show that he was a "pro-business" Democrat, signed the media consolidation bill into law. Concentration of the news and entertainment into a few hands gave the power elite in our country a massive propaganda tool that they could use to mis-inform the people. Since that Telecom Act passed, here's what has happened:

- We got Faux News

- MSNBC cancels the Donahue show, even though it got good ratings

- CNN hires far right wingers for their Headline News channel

- Disney pulls out of Faranheit 9/11

- Spike Lee's brilliant documentary on Katrina is shown only on premium cable

- Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reill, et al get to spew right wing talking point without opposing viewpoints

- Now, we get "Path to 9/11".

As president, Clinton did nothing to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and he allowed for this consolidation to take place. This putrid piece of right wing propaganda won't be the first and certaintly not the last piece to be hurled at the public.

[saltpoint]

146. Mr. Clinton's lawyers will take note of any complicit activity in a legal

case, for which they have now signaled by letter to ABC/Disney.

I'm afraid your blame for Clinton sounds personal and ignores thousands of years of state-sponsored propaganda of media, no matter the form and no matter the culture.

You can't pin that on one president in 1992-2000.

I don't believe a Spike Lee project would have been considered "airable" material in 1952 in the United States. Censorship and propaganda are legion in U.S. media history, in world history. There's no case that isolates Clinton for either.

No sale.

[CarlVK]

147. I think he really stepped into it there, yes

And I was a staunch defender of his during the ridiculous impeachment debacle. Three things I cuold NOT figure out why he did them were: Telecommunications Act (which you mentioned), refusal to order the military to stop disallowing gays, and the Defense of Marriage Act. They just weren't things I expected a true liberal to advocate.

But in his defense I'll say that we don't always see the nastiest consequences of our actions at the time. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

[ryan_cats]

148. I butted heads with my wingnut brother over this.

He was saying how we were censoring free speech, I pulled out the Reagan movie and it actually shut him up.

One thing I don't understand, does this movie give the impression that President Clinton couldn't deal with Bin Laden because of the reich wingers constantly attacking him or does it blame him for frittering time away on Lewinsky?

Seems to me, it was the Vast Right Wing Nut conspiracy that took valuable time away from him by attacking him personally. If anything, they're the reason he was distracted. Nice to see them forget what they did to him. How much wasted time for the ridiculous impeachment attempt? Then they say HE was distracted by Lewinsky?????

I'll watch this thing just to see how distorted their reality is. 20 years from now they'll still be blaming things on the Clenis!

[Leopolds Ghost]

149. If You Admire Any Dem Who Supported Telcom Act, Eliminating AFDC, NAFTA

Then you aren't fighting for the same objectives that populists and people on the left are fighting for.

You're just USING their anger to get another "Clinton democrat" elected.

As for the 9-11 movie, it establishes a useful precedent: an exhibit in media bias. Like Rumsfeld, it's worth more politically wounded and discredited than censored outright.

[CarlVK]

150. Well said!

I'm so sick to death of "we'll win by assimilating and appeasing" that I could throw up. Time to actually stand for something even if it means we'll have to sell it to the American public. That's where the work comes in.