Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (302999)	9/13/2006 2:36:58 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576600

What a certified wacko. He's not far off from the President of Iran.

To: Alighieri who wrote (302999)	9/13/2006 5:54:41 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576600

Bush told a group of conservative journalists that he notices more open expressions of faith among people he meets during his travels, and he suggested that might signal a broader revival similar to other religious movements in history. Bush noted that some of Abraham Lincoln's strongest supporters were religious people "who saw life in terms of good and evil" and who believed that slavery was evil. Many of his own supporters, he said, see the current conflict in similar terms. This dude is really scaring the bejezus out of me. Now the thinks he's A. Lincoln? It has no clue how he's perceived. Crazy!

To: Alighieri who wrote (302999)	9/13/2006 5:59:11 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1576600

'NYT' Calls Controversial 9/11 Movie Evenhanded, Others Disagree By E&P Staff Published: September 07, 2006 10:00 PM ET updted 11:00 PM and Friday NEW YORK The film-makers and network responsible for the upcoming miniseries, "The Path to 9/11," which is now under assault for its alleged conservative bias, received critical support from a perhaps unexpected quarter on Friday -- The New York Times. The paper's TV critic, Alessandra Stanley, declares the film "fictionalized" but still evenhanded. In another review today, Chicago Sun-Times TV critic Doug Elfman calls the movie a total "bore" and "amateurish." John Podhoretz, conservative columnist for the New York Post, labels it a "stiff" and attacks the film's depiction of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger. USA Today's Robert Bianco writes that the movie "has enough trouble just following history. Rewriting history is an ambition it should have left at the door." Harvey Keitel, the lead actor in the film, said in a TV interview that changes must be made in the film. He said when he was hired for the role he was told the movie was a "history" but then found that certain facts were "wrong." This led to "arguments," he recalled. "You can compile certain things as long as the truth remains the truth," he told Showbiz Tonight. "You can’t put these things together, compress them and then distort the reality.... "You cannot cross the line from a conflation of events to a distortion of the event. Where we have distorted something, we made a mistake and it should be corrected." Meanwhile, the showbiz publication Variety reports that despite some last-minute editing "a bombshell decision may happen anyway: Sources close to the project say the network, which has been in a media maelstrom over the pic, is mulling the idea of yanking the mini [series] altogether." In a news story, The New York Times revealed it had learned that ABC had dropped from the movie the most contested image, in which Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger hangs up his telephone when the CIA is trying to get him to approve an attack to get bin Laden (a real-life scene ABC admits never happened). Two other key scenes were also under review. That story also quoted former Gov. Thomas Kean, co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, and an adviser to the film, as saying, “Mini-series often make things more dramatic by fictionalizing." Berger, Madeline Albright and Bill Clinton himself have all lodged complaints about the accuracy of the movie. Here are some highlights from Stanley's review for the Times: --"All mini-series Photoshop the facts. 'The Path to 9/11' is not a documentary, or even a docu-drama; it is a fictionalized account of what took place." -"The first bombing of the World Trade Center happened on Bill Clinton’s watch. So did the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen. The president’s staff — and the civil servants who worked for them — witnessed the danger of Al Qaeda close up and personally. Some even lost their lives. "In 2001 President Bush and his newly appointed aides had ample warning, including a briefing paper titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,' and they failed to take it seriously enough, but their missteps are not equal. It’s like focusing blame for a school shooting at the beginning of the school year on the student’s new home room teacher; the adults who watched the boy torment classmates and poison small animals knew better. --"But there is no dispute that in 2000, the destroyer Cole was attacked, Washington dithered and Mr. bin Laden’s men kept burrowing deeper and deeper into their plot to attack America on its own soil. The film ends where it began, only the morning of Sept. 11 is finally shown, with slow, elegiac music, in its full horror. "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." continued................... editorandpublisher.com