Friday, September 08, 2006
The nyt Absolves the ABC-RNC Docu-Smear
The Good Roger Ailes has a fine post on an aspect of the Disney-RNC hit job on Democrats that will be important in the political effects of it. The presstitutes could make or break the political effort behind the ABC smear, it looks like Arthur O. Sulzberger's ruin of a newspaper is on-board the garbage scow headed straight for the Democrats in the fall election.
"Consider this passage from Stanley's review of ABC's "Pathological Lies About 9/11":
"'The Path to 9/11' is not a documentary, or even a docu-drama; it is a fictionalized account of what took place.
But if it's a fictionalized account, it's not about "what took place." It's an account of what didn't take place."
Since this thing is going to be aired without commercials and given that it will present a bunch of lies blaming the Clinton administration for what was beyond doubt the failure of the Bush regime to prevent the most serious attack on the United States in its history, this is nothing less than the longest political attack ad in history.
If anyone thinks ABC would do this without coordination with the Republican Party at the highest levels you are too stupid to be reading this. Considering that the New York Times is so stupid that it excuses lies by the media as they tell you that they are lies they're too stupid to be reading this. Maybe you have to translate their waffle-tongue into English, few do that better than Our Roger Ailes.
Another passage shows how the nytwit reviewer just doesn't get this truth stuff:
"Dramatic license was certainly taken, but blame is spread pretty evenly across the board. It's not the inaccuracies of 'The Path to 9/11' that make ABC's mini-series so upsetting. It's the situation on the ground in Afghanistan now."
Dramatic license has nothing to do with it. Even if "blame is spread pretty evenly across the board" that in itself would make it a lie. They were warned by the Clinton administration, they were warned over and over again, did nothing and as a result America was attacked. That happened during the Bush regime as did the disasterously incompetent handling of the forgotten war in Afghanistan. Does the nyt think assigning 50% of the blame for that to the Clinton administration would be just fine in an ABC political smear as long as its done by the entertainment division?
ABC's smear job will have a far greater effect on the fall elections than anything the nyt prints, sorry Sulzy, got to call them as they lie, so it's absolution of the effort is about the only important political effect it can have. No matter how many fact filled news pieces the cynical grey dowager prints, TV is what moves politics. When TV lies, that's the 'news'.
The Good Roger Ailes has a fine post on an aspect of the Disney-RNC hit job on Democrats that will be important in the political effects of it. The presstitutes could make or break the political effort behind the ABC smear, it looks like Arthur O. Sulzberger's ruin of a newspaper is on-board the garbage scow headed straight for the Democrats in the fall election.
"Consider this passage from Stanley's review of ABC's "Pathological Lies About 9/11":
"'The Path to 9/11' is not a documentary, or even a docu-drama; it is a fictionalized account of what took place.
But if it's a fictionalized account, it's not about "what took place." It's an account of what didn't take place."
Since this thing is going to be aired without commercials and given that it will present a bunch of lies blaming the Clinton administration for what was beyond doubt the failure of the Bush regime to prevent the most serious attack on the United States in its history, this is nothing less than the longest political attack ad in history.
If anyone thinks ABC would do this without coordination with the Republican Party at the highest levels you are too stupid to be reading this. Considering that the New York Times is so stupid that it excuses lies by the media as they tell you that they are lies they're too stupid to be reading this. Maybe you have to translate their waffle-tongue into English, few do that better than Our Roger Ailes.
Another passage shows how the nytwit reviewer just doesn't get this truth stuff:
"Dramatic license was certainly taken, but blame is spread pretty evenly across the board. It's not the inaccuracies of 'The Path to 9/11' that make ABC's mini-series so upsetting. It's the situation on the ground in Afghanistan now."
Dramatic license has nothing to do with it. Even if "blame is spread pretty evenly across the board" that in itself would make it a lie. They were warned by the Clinton administration, they were warned over and over again, did nothing and as a result America was attacked. That happened during the Bush regime as did the disasterously incompetent handling of the forgotten war in Afghanistan. Does the nyt think assigning 50% of the blame for that to the Clinton administration would be just fine in an ABC political smear as long as its done by the entertainment division?
ABC's smear job will have a far greater effect on the fall elections than anything the nyt prints, sorry Sulzy, got to call them as they lie, so it's absolution of the effort is about the only important political effect it can have. No matter how many fact filled news pieces the cynical grey dowager prints, TV is what moves politics. When TV lies, that's the 'news'.
