IT Employment

General discussion

Locked

CBS CANCELS 'REAGANS'

By maxwell edison ·
.
From the Drudge Report:

VIACOM CHAIR SUMNER REDSTONE EXPRESSED GRAVE CONCERN FOR NETWORK BROADCAST...

WILL AIR ON SHOWTIME UNCUT [WITH AIDS QUOTE ONLY DELETION]...

CBS will issue press release early in morning; Robert Greenblatt, head of SHOWTIME will announce that SHOWTIME will air the telepic.

Bob Ackerman the Director has said he will re-edit some portions of the film for SHOWTIME.

CBS to write-off $9 million...

----------

Way to go CBS! Kudos to you.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

There was no "item of uncertainty."

by smatteson In reply to Exercising caution

"Whether or not a direct threat to Air Force One really happened has, as you suggested, been an item of uncertainty."

No, Max, "uncertainty" is when the factuality of an event or claim remains debatable. Since the White House admitted that there had been no threatening message regarding "Air Force One is next" that makes it false. Not uncertain. False.

You can discuss the proper procedures a President must take during national emergencies all you like, but the fact remains that a false claim was made and then later admitted to be untrue, thereby casting suspicion on the motivation for Bush's behavior on September 11th. Clearly they tried to make excuses for him and got caught red-handed using falsehoods. Using the word "phony" to describe this threat isn't just "my word" (nice try to discredit it as my mere opinion, Max) but it is the proper universal term to be applied to a fraudulent pretense such as this. That's not naivete, that's reality.

"If you disagree, it is you who are very misinformed and very naive."

Sorry, Max, but I'm not going to accept your definitions or labels, so kindly shelve your attempt to paint me as "misinformed" and "naive" because I'm saying things you don't like and don't want to hear. That may be a common tactic which you employ to attempt to deride those who don't agree with you, but it isn't going to work here. Lecture me about being "biased against the President" when you can demonstrate you are not "biased towards the President", such that you'll excuse his cowardly behavior (and we can demonstrate he is a coward based on his disappearance from active duty during the Vietnam War), rationalize his actions and attempt to label the opposition with false terms and dismissive smears.

Perhaps you ought to retract your referral to my prior comments as "lies" given that you have yet to successfully discredit them. I'd expect no less from a person of integrity who cares about the facts, of course.

Collapse -

I'll retract nothing and admit everything

by maxwell edison In reply to There was no "item of unc ...

Am I biased towards the President? Yes I am. Guilty as charged. But do I blindly follow him regardless of the circumstances? Absolutely not. I actually disagree with him on several policy issues, but I know that he's basically an honest and honorable person. For you to characterize him as a coward while I consider the situation as being cautious shows your bias against him. Are you willing to admit your bias as well?

(For the record, and to put some perspective on this, if he "did not" have sex in the white house with a young intern, and he then later lied about it under oath to a judge in a courtroom setting, I'd change my opinion about him and call for his impeachment.)

I referred to your comments as lies, those comments being "coward" and "phony", because you were putting the benefit of hind-sight into what was then the present. I'll concede your point that after-the-fact we now all know that direct threats against Air Force One were not made. But we can not therefore assume that at the time, on the morning of 9-11, when the secret service reported to Vice President Cheney that they believed threats were made against the President on Air Force One, that they weren't "believed" at the time. Looking back, and with the benefit of hind-sight, we both can say that the threats were not factual. But there was nothing "phony" about them at the time. You say they were made up, while I suggest that some people were mistaken. Do you not see the difference? Haven't you ever acted on a pretense that turned out to be false?

And on the Air National Guard issue, reminding you that over 6,000 Reservists and Guardsmen died in Vietnam, are you also calling Bill Clinton a coward for his actions during that time?

Collapse -

You are Ozmentalcase -

by JimHM In reply to There was no "item of unc ...

You are Ozmentalcase reborn as another poster - Forget About it..

Collapse -

Smatteson

by Oz_Media In reply to There was no "item of unc ...

Sir, you will learn in a very short time, as you've already noticed here, Max and his minions will never admit that BUSH is a knob.

They are under his spell as they have spent their entire lives, hidden in a closet studying how to become a blind repulican and follow the leader.

People from other countries rarely post to these political 'debates' (discussion went out the door come time ago)as they find it futile to offer a opinion when all that is returned is discrediting BS, usually cut and pasted from BUSH's statements, in a sad attaempt to solidify their points.

This is a global website, when it comes to AYTHING even the slightest bit political, it is a Pro-Bush website. You'll never win, no matter how wrong or right, they can't be taught, their leader has done that already. but it's always fun to see how riled they all get!

Collapse -

Thanks OzMentalCase

by smatteson In reply to There was no "item of unc ...

... I'm sure you're just as amused as I am by the hysterical accusation of our friend Jim that we are one and the same. I guess he had to dredge up SOME kind of reply, no matter how weak, to pretend he had something to say.

"Sir, you will learn in a very short time, as you've already noticed here, Max and his minions will never admit that BUSH is a knob."

Oh, I'm well aware of that - I have some distant family members who are equally as stubborn about their insistence on hero-worshipping the drunk-driving wartime military deserter. We have some fun go-rounds at family get-togethers which are remarkably similar to my recent conversations with Max and Jim; "if you disagree with me you are misinformed and naive," "pig!" and other such witticisms are common themes. Never once have they been able to come up with anything more significant than "criticizing the President is unpatriotic!" Never mind the fact they spent years criticizing the last President.

"They are under his spell as they have spent their entire lives, hidden in a closet studying how to become a blind repulican and follow the leader."

Why do you think they watch Fox news? A recent study revealed that viewers of this pro-administration propaganda "are more likely than average to have misperceptions" about the "discovery of alleged WMD in Iraq, alleged Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq."

How much more obvious does it get that those who blindly goose-step along behind Bush are being misled? But to them apparently it's OK for Bush to send our soldiers off to die in an unprovoked oilman's war founded on dishonest claims, because you see, Bush hasn't lied about having sex with an intern.

"You'll never win, no matter how wrong or right, they can't be taught, their leader has done that already. but it's always fun to see how riled they all get!"

Yes, it is. I don't rarely waste my time conversing with conservatives (besides the above-mentioned family members) because I do agree with you that there can be no getting them to acknowledge the facts. After all, these are the people who believe Saint Reagan could do no wrong.
Similarly, they want to believe Bush is a great and powerful leader and everything else is just propaganda and lies (including, I imagine, the dead bodies returning from Iraq), so they will close their eyes, cover their ears, and chant "I can't hear you! LA LA LA LA! Mary had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb!"

But I do find it quite interesting how they simply cannot defend Bush or his policies without utilizing distortion, deceit, character assassination against the opposition, and the inevitable tired old cry of "But Clinton but Clinton but Clinton..."

Collapse -

Lets see if this helps you

by JimHM In reply to What part of my comments ...

Air Force One departs Sarasota. [AP]

Air Force One took off at either 9:55 or 9:57 a.m. [CNN, 9/12/01, New York Times, 9/12/01, Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02, Washington Post, 9/12/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02, AP, 9/12/01].

Communications Director Dan Bartlett stated something about, "It was like a rocket. For a good ten minutes, the plane was going almost straight up." [CBS, 9/11/02]

But, incredibly, Air Force One took off without any military fighter protection. This defies all explanation. Recall that at 9:03 a.m., one of Bush's security people said, "We're out of here. Can you get everyone ready?" [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Certainly, long before Bush left the elementary school at 9:35 a.m., arrangements would have been made to get fighters to Sarasota as soon as possible.

An administration official claimed, "The object seemed to be simply to get the President airborne and out of the way." [Telegraph, 12/16/01] But without fighter cover this makes little sense, because the sky was arguably more dangerous than the ground. At the time, there were still over 3,000 planes in the air over the US [USA Today, 8/13/02 (B)], including about half of the planes in the region of Florida where Bush was. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/7/02]

Air Force One landed at Barksdale Air Force base near Shreveport, Louisiana at about 11:45 a.m. [CBS, 9/11/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01, Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] "The official reason for landing at Barksdale was that Bush felt it necessary to make a further statement, but it isn't unreasonable to assume that ? as there was no agreement as to what the President's movements should be it was felt he might as well be on the ground as in the air." [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02] Ironically, the landing came only a short time after Bush's plane was finally protected by fighters.

Air Force One left Barksdale for Offutt Air Force Base around 1:30 p.m. [CBS, 9/11/02, Telegraph, 12/16/01, Salon, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/11/01, MSNBC, 9/22/01, CNN, 9/12/01] The Air Force One entourage was pared down to a few essential staffers such as Ari Fleischer, Andrew Card, Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, and Gordon Johndroe [White House, 9/11/01], plus about five reporters. [AP, 9/12/01 (D)] During the flight, Bush remained in "continuous contact" with the White House Situation Room and Vice President Cheney. [CNN, 9/11/01 (B)]

Air Force One landed at Offutt shortly before 3:00 p.m. [Washington Post, 9/11/01] At 3:06, Bush passed through security to the US Strategic Command Underground Command Center [Salon, 9/11/01, CBS, 9/11/02] and was taken into an underground bunker designed to withstand a nuclear blast. [Telegraph, 12/16/01]

Air Force One left Offutt around 4:30 p.m. [MSNBC, 9/22/01, CNN, 9/12/01, Telegraph, 12/16/01] and landed at Andrews Air Force Base at 6:34 p.m., escorted by two F-15 fighters and one F-16. [CNN, 9/11/01] Bush then took the Marine One helicopter to the White House [Salon 9/11/01], arriving shortly before 7:00 p.m. [CNN, 9/12/01, Telegraph, 12/16/01, AP, 8/19/02]

Bush gave a nationally televised speech at 8:30 p.m. [CNN, 9/12/01, White House, 9/11/01], speaking for about five minutes. [US News, 9/14/01] In what would later be called the Bush Doctrine, he stated, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." [Washington Post, 1/27/02].

Collapse -

I asked you for a source of his quote

by smatteson In reply to Lets see if this helps yo ...

Remember? You claimed that it was reported that Bush indeed said "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come on over and get me. I'll be home!" on September 11th. I don't see that quote listed here, so I would appreciate if you could find me a link that confirms it (and which doesn't discuss the fictional Showtime melodrama).

Collapse -

Your OzMentalCase - right

by JimHM In reply to I asked you for a source ...

You're Ozmentalcase under a new handle ... I knew your post looked like I've seen them elsewhere - Forget about it ...

Collapse -

Jim - on smatteson being Oz

by maxwell edison In reply to I asked you for a source ...

.
That thought did occur to me, but I'm not ready to necessarily come to that conclusion. But I'm not ready to dismiss it either.

True, he's argumentative and evasive. True, he has a real hate for President Bush. True, he won't answer a direct question. True, the "Oz act" is wearing rather thin on most people around here and a new handle might make sense. And true, he also has those same characteristics such as the way he cuts and pastes one's comments and simply puts them in quotes, and then replies underneath.

Interesting.

Collapse -

You can change put a dress and lipstick on a pig but its

by JimHM In reply to I asked you for a source ...

You can change the put a dress and lipstick on a on a Pig - but its still a pig... He can change his handle but its still the same Oz...

I wouldn't think there were two people that could be that Illiberal. The links to Bushs statement have long been removed - so of course we can't support our position - but then again he can't either..

But its just that strange feeling that crawls up the back of your neck - and rises the hair there .. Just that cold blast of Oz air - uncaring - unfeeling - very anti-american - very anti-bush - I don't want to think if he is "The Sleeper Awakens" -

Related Discussions

Related Forums