Made for TV

[Scarletwine]

This takes the cake.
Talk about inbed with the media. I can't believe the lengths this admin will go exploiting 9/11.
It makes me much more sick than the GI Joe landing with the padded crotch shot.
I read another article yesterday but didn't take it seriously.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16735
9/11 Propaganda, Hollywood Style

By Danny Schechter, MediaChannel.org
September 8, 2003

"In an age when actor Arnold Schwarzenegger embodies a growing convergence between the worlds of movies and politics in one hulking frame, entertainment-oriented media once again manifests their power to influence what we think.

There was a good reason that Time magazine described the coverage of the war on Iraq as "militainment," and there is a good reason that the Bush Administration is turning to Hollywood to embellish the president's declining popularity. Their latest preemptive strike takes form of a movie packaged to remake the historical record on the 9/11 attacks and reelect Bush at the same time."


With the networks all downplaying the real-world events planned for the second anniversary of 9/11, it is not accidental that a made-for-TV movie is likely to draw most of our attention this time around. This is the story behind the making of a cable movie titled "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis," a well-made and insidiously persuasive docu-drama that airs Sunday Sept. 7th on Showtime, a movie channel owned by Viacom, the company that runs MTV, VH-1 Comedy Channel, Nickelodeon and so much more."

...

"So move over Madonna and the Rug Rats and even Leni Riefenstahl, Viacom presents our latest TV superstar: President George W Bush as produced by Karl Rove. the president's in-house Machiavelli, with the help of Lionel Chetwynd, a Republican toady, screenwriter and producer. The production includes the cast of Star Trek, a comedian known for his role as "the ripper," and financial subsidies from Canada where this pro-American patriotic epic was actually made to avoid paying union wages."

...

"And so as your client's ratings began to fall, as Iraq transitioned from the great victory to an unmanageable mess, all the patriotic slogans and political rhetoric began to lose their magic. Soon, the best thing you had working for you was the disarray among the democrats.

But, no fool you, Karl, you had a media card up your sleeve. You had planned for this contingency. You knew well how media and political interests are entwined in a political system that has become a media-ocracy in which candidates need media attention and media companies need access and favorable legislation


Media is power and using media well projects power. As the New Yorker's media writer Ken Auletta put it most succinctly, "Communications is the United States' fastest-growing industry, and is highly dependent on the government's favor." To curry favor and promote their interests, media outlets would soon be favoring the government. "

...

"Rove knew his resume. Chetwynd had produced TV movies and documentaries on POW's at the Hanoi Hilton, Kissinger and Nixon, the Bicentennial, Eisenhower, Carl Foreman, Tom Clancy's "Net Force Bloody Winter," "The Man Who Captured Eichmann," "Ruby Ridge: An American Tragedy" and the Bible. He also did "The Heroes of Desert Storm" and was brought in to finish the "Movie of the Week" lionizing New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani after it was decided that the original script did not portray him uncritically enough.


All of his films including his latest, a holocaust thriller about an American Schindler, "Varian's War" have had questions raised about their accuracy. Daryl Miller's review in the LA Times called it "A mess of a movie that leaves viewers with more questions than answers about Varian Fry ... Clumsily constructed and hollowly acted, it's a project that its lead performers ? William Hurt and Julia Ormond ? along with Barbra Streisand's Barwood Films, should quickly try to bury in their resumes ... Writer-director Lionel Chetwynd fudges a lot of facts."

...

"Richard von Busack of Silicon Valley's weekly newspaper explained how this product is structured: "'DC 9/11: Time of Crisis' will follow the attack from the Washington, D.C., perspective, beginning with the attacks and ending with George W. Bush's speech of revenge on Sept. 20. In what some might see as a disturbing blend of documentary and dramatic reenactments, actual news footage of the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks will be woven in with the drama of Bush's flights around the country on the fateful day and the comments he made as he went."
...
"DC 9/11" illustrates the direction our propaganda system is taking because it is also the direction that our news system is already headed. More storytelling instead of journalism. More character-oriented drama. More narrative arcs. More blurring of the line between fiction and truth.


"DC 9/11: Time of Crisis" is also a sign of the crisis in our media system. Made by a "liberal company," it may help reelect a conservative president. It is the latest tool in the media drift to the right, but it is not the last."

The article also has some interesting background on th elobbying of the FCC for media relaxation.

 

[ThatGuy]

I wonder how the ratings for this movie comapred with the ratings for the real-life president's TV appearance that night. Kind of ironic that they should air the same night.

 

[nbcrusader]

Is this an issue now because GWB is being shown in an ostensibly favorable light? Docudramas have been on television for years.

Or do some believe that GWB is soooo bad that any positive light is manipulative, propaganda, part of the right wing conspiracy or a result of corporate "control" of media?

 

[oliveu2cm]

A "mind-numbingly boring" propaganda film
A 9/11 widow reviews last night's Showtime film about President Bush's actions on and after that fateful morning.

http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2003/09/08/dc911/index_np.html (my emphasis in bold)

A "mind-numbingly boring" propaganda film
A 9/11 widow reviews last night's Showtime film about President Bush's actions on and after that fateful morning.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Kristen Breitweiser


Sept. 8, 2003 | The film "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis," which premiered Sunday night on Showtime, is a mind-numbingly boring, revisionist, two-hour-long wish list of how 9/11 might have gone if we had real leaders in the current administration. This film is rated half of a fighter jet -- since that is about what we got for our nation's defense on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

Despite the title, the film only budgets approximately 10 minutes to the actual morning of 9/11. Most of the movie is spent cataloging the myriad Cabinet-level debates as to whether to declare "war" against terrorism and how to effectively sell that to the American people.

It is understandable that so little time is actually devoted to the president's true actions on the morning of 9/11. Because to show the entire 23 minutes from 9:03 to 9:25 a.m., when President Bush, in reality, remained seated and listening to "second grade story-hour" while people like my husband were burning alive inside the World Trade Center towers, would run counter to Karl Rove's art direction and grand vision.

Remember the aircraft-carrier photo op? Bush is a man of action; in fact, he is an action hero. Except, of course, when it really counts, like in those early morning hours when this country was under attack and our commander in chief was drinking milk and eating cookies with second graders. Can you imagine one of those second-graders years from now when they are asked where they were on the morning of 9/11? They will simply say, "I was sitting with the president reading him a story."

<Today's Daypass sponsored by ACLU >


It also confuses me that the filmmakers would allot so much time to the war posturing in Afghanistan because that, too, has been a failure. President Bush is quoted in the fictional drama as saying he will take Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." But, I'm sorry, have we captured him? And why so much time spent on this war plan anyway? I thought there was a copy of it on the president's desk the day before 9/11? So what's all the fuss about? Why all the Cabinet meetings with all the dignified speak?

The real Condoleezza Rice apparently didn't know planes could be used as weapons, but she is portrayed in the movie as a woman who knew an awful lot about bin Laden and al-Qaida by 8 p.m. on the evening of the attacks. The real FBI was caught flat-footed by bin Laden and the 19 hijackers, but in the movie they gather the names and photos of the hijackers very rapidly. I guess their "networking" problems, like Rice's bin Laden knowledge, got "cleaned up" by the evening of 9/11 in the movie version.

It's also interesting to watch the fictional versions of Ari Fleischer and Karen Hughes "strategizing" and "orchestrating" to make President Bush look like a strong leader. Who knew that it was such hard work to frame the president as an empathetic, strong and competent leader in the face of the nation's worst tragedy? Forgive my naivet?, but I never knew how meticulously planned the president's every single word and movement were. And if his words are that carefully and painfully chosen, just how did those 16 words get into his State of the Union address anyway? But I digress.

What is so "off" about the film is that it is too slow, too methodical, too calm. There are no suit jackets hanging over chairs, no 5 o'clock shadows, no empty coffee cups strewn about, no shirt-sleeves rolled up, no people pulling all-nighters. No tempers flaring. No panic. No raw emotion. Nothing but a lot of talking, walking and more talking, and the occasional workout session by the president -- who knew he could bench-press so much weight?

When juxtaposed against the recently released transcripts of 9/11 phone calls from inside the towers, the administration's attitude doesn't look good. How could they all be so relaxed? So unemotional. How could any of them even sleep? Why weren't they worried about a second wave of attacks? How did they know for sure that there was not another attack soon to follow? Why were they so uninterested in the rescue and recovery efforts? Maybe this would explain why the Environmental Protection Agency couldn't be bothered to monitor the air quality of lower Manhattan. Nobody cared. If the administration is this relaxed facing the nation's worst tragedy, are they asleep when they negotiate healthcare reform?

Just as an aside, I especially liked the tender moments shared between the president and first lady, particularly when she mentioned the atrocities the Afghan women faced under the rule of the Taliban. We -- the 9/11 widows -- have requested meetings with the first lady to discuss our goals for the 9/11 Independent Commission. She never answers. Honestly, we take offense that Mrs. Bush will fly halfway around the world to meet with Afghan women and yet she won't meet with us. All we want to do is make this nation safe for our children.

I did learn some things in the film. First, I didn't realize that it took President Bush until Friday afternoon to visit New York. Frankly, I don't remember much of the month of September 2001, but why would the administration want to publicize the fact that it took the president so long to visit the place terrorists had attacked? Are we buying the story that it was for national security reasons?

And since we are talking about the visit to ground zero, I found it particularly offensive that there was so much posturing about how to get the best photo op. The worst part comes when the president meets a young mother and child who are desperately searching for their missing husband and father. President Bush takes the picture of the child's father and signs his name across it, telling the young girl, "When your daddy comes back, tell him you met me." For a child and wife facing the devastating loss of a loved one who very likely has just been burned, crushed and buried in rubble, meeting the president doesn't rightly matter. ( )Nor does it matter having his signature scrawled across a photo that you wanted to display on a wall of missing victims -- something that would have offered at least a glimmer of hope.

Miscellaneous things that surprised me included the fact that the film perpetuates the big fat lie that Air Force One was a target. Forgive me, but I thought the White House admitted at the end of September 2001 that Air Force One was never a target, that no code words were spoken and that it was all a lie. So what gives?

Also surprising is the debate about whether the military may or may not have shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania. You would think that the president of the United States would know the answer to this query, and yet a shoot-down is raised as a possibility and never definitively answered -- even to the president.

There was also no mention of the Saudi royals and bin Laden family members who were allegedly flown out of the country in the first few days after the attacks. I guess that got left on the cutting room floor.

Not surprisingly, there is no mention of accountability. Not once does anyone say, "How the hell did this happen? Heads will roll!" I was hoping that, at least behind closed doors, there were words like, "Look, we really screwed up! Let's make sure we find out what went wrong and that it never happens again!" Nope, no such luck.

Finally, with the abundance of creative license taken in the film, I was surprised to see that it didn't take better "care" of Donald Rumsfeld. On the morning of 9/11, Rumsfeld remained at his desk -- apparently unaware that we were under attack until the Pentagon was hit, a full hour after the WTC. Why the film editors decided not to rewrite this history I don't know -- maybe in real life, thanks to recent developments in Iraq, Rummy will be leaving soon to spend more time with his family.

I watched this film with three of my widow friends. We have spent the last two years fighting this administration to try to get answers to the many questions that plague us about 9/11. When they're finally answered, our questions will undoubtedly make this nation safer than it was on that morning. But our reality is that our husbands are never coming home. We are left to raise our children without them. Too bad Showtime can't rewrite our history of 9/11 -- that would be something worth watching.

 

[DrTeeth]

I think Riefenstahl did read this

 

[verte76]

Fact vs. fiction. Fact lost big time.

 

[nbcrusader]

Let's all get out our painsticks.....

 

[Scarletwine]

Is this an issue now because GWB is being shown in an ostensibly favorable light? Docudramas have been on television for years.

Or do some believe that GWB is soooo bad that any positive light is manipulative, propaganda, part of the right wing conspiracy or a result of corporate "control" of media?

No, it's because it is supposed to be a documentary/drama but is in part produced with the aid of Karl Rove, so yes it is propaganda and lies. Something this admin. knows alot about.

YES.

 

[TylerDurden]

Yeah, I'm thinking that when it comes from Karl Rove there's not much of an argument there...

 

[deep]

I think Riefenstahl did read this

31 july 2003

Ex-Nazi Filmaker Sues Bush

"Outrage" says Riefenstahl

(AFP, Munich)

Adding to George Bush's woes, Hitler's former moviemaker, 101 year old Leni Riefenstahl has accused him of copyright infringement. According to papers filed in Bavarian district court yesterday, Bush's carrier landing was directly lifted from her 1934 film "Triumph of the Will".

Riefenstahl's film opens with scenes of Adolf Hitler landing in Nuremberg.

Interviewed on German television, Riefenstahl called Bush's carrier rally "outrage and a theft". "Adolf (Hitler), Joe (Goebbels) and I wrote that script. They just stole it. But we did all the work."

Bush denied the charges. At a Washington press conference earlier today, Bush said ultimate responsibility lay with former press secretary Ari Fleischer. "Ari made the decision, not me."

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for December 16.

 

[Scarletwine]

Shit just doesn't stick to the man. I've never seen an elected official that can't take any responsibility for his actions. Where are his apologies for lying? Even Clinton apologized for getting a hummer, much less a crime to the military families that have lost loved ones.

edited to add:.

Thanks Deep I didn't know what he was refering to.

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

What has Bush lied about? Can you prove it?

 

[BVS]

Proof, seems hard to come by these days. Seems like both sides haven't found the proof they are looking for.

 

[STING2]

Everyone knows Saddam never complied with the UN resolutions including those with regards to disarmament of WMD. No country would dispute that.

But what specifically has Bush lied about and what makes you think that is in fact the case?

 

[BVS]

Well I believe there is a whole thread on this subject that has gone back and forth. This thread was started about a TV drama about 9/ 11 that some may not think it was completely accurate. It has nothing to do with Saddam or Iraq.

 

[Basstrap]

but you gotta let sting get that argument in EVERY SINGLE THREAD!! that's what he does!!

 

[Scarletwine]

Lies, Lies. Lies

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16274



Home ? War on Iraq ?

Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq

By Christopher Scheer, AlterNet
June 27, 2003

"The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."
? George Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati.

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." ? President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." ? President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." ? Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." ? CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." ? President Bush, Oct. 7.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." ? President Bush, Oct. 7.

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." ? President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." ? Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." ? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." ? President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

I can find more if you like STING2. I don't want to hear that it was faulty intelligence or other crap. The man and his admin. deliberately mislead the American people.

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

The definition of a lie: "To make a statement that one knows is false"

#1 The intelligence did "indicate" this.
#2 There was intelligence that indicated this and the UK intelligence services strongly believe this.
#3 "We believed Saddam Hussien had a reconstituted Nuclear Weapons program" Even German intelligence believed Saddam was within a few years of getting a Nuclear Weapon.
#4 Pakistani intelligence has also shown contacts between Al Quada and Iraqi agents. Not surprising at all in the politics of the middle east where various factions talk to each other.
#5 Not seen the intelligence that indicated this, but for it to be a lie YOU must prove there was not any intelligence that indicated this or in fact the President new this definitely had not happened.
#6 Its a known fact that Iraq had several of these vehicles and they could have been modified to disperse WMD.
#7 Some of this intelligence showed up in Powells briefing.
#8 Anyone reading the UN weapons inspectors report from 1998 would agree.
#9 Based on signal intelligence prior to the war, this was probably so.
#10 Never heard this one, but most likely a find that turned out not to be so. Notice it took place 6 weeks AFTER the war was over.

None of these examples fit the definition of a Lie.

But check out some Saddam's claims over the past 24 years, they would fit perfectly.

 

[Scarletwine]

STING2,
Yes those are lies by most peoples definitions, when state dept and CIA people tell a different story, especially about #2 & #9.

You don't use 10 yr old intelligence to justify an act today, that's crap.

You'd defend them if they were standing over a dead body with the gun still smoking in their hand.

Sorry if that's rude, but it seems to be true.

 

[nbcrusader]

Monday morning quarterbacking is always easy

 

[Scarletwine]

These were called fabrications on "Friday" by most of the world and many in the US, myself included.

 

[Klaus]

Sting:

#2 There was intelligence that indicated this and the UK intelligence services strongly believe this.

Your inteligence services have bin warned that the chances are verry high that it was wrong

#3 "We believed Saddam Hussien had a reconstituted Nuclear Weapons program" Even German intelligence believed Saddam was within a few years of getting a Nuclear Weapon.

yes, within a few years - which would have left enough time to get all important countries in the UN on one side. Everyone agrees that Mr. Hussein is a evil person, not trustworthy, who just waits for the next chance to increase his power. But - if it is a matter of years and not days there would have bin possiblities with less colateral damage than a war

#4 Pakistani intelligence has also shown contacts between Al Quada and Iraqi agents. Not surprising at all in the politics of the middle east where various factions talk to each other.

Chances are good that Pakistan is supporting Ossama Bin Laden themself

Most inteligence services were pretty sure that Ossama Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein are enemies.
More than that! Most experts were affraid that without Mr. Hussein AlQuaida would have get control over Iraq years ago.

#5 Not seen the intelligence that indicated this, but for it to be a lie YOU must prove there was not any intelligence that indicated this or in fact the President new this definitely had not happened.

If a someone just says something nasty about another person he dosn't like without a proof - what would you call him?

#6 Its a known fact that Iraq had several of these vehicles and they could have been modified to disperse WMD.

Yes, it's a fact that they had these vehecles and it's a fact that they were used for weather balloons.
I have a knife in my kitchen, but as long as i use it for things like cutting bread it is no threat to anyone.
Of course we are affraid that even mass murders have Knifes in their kitchen.

#7 Some of this intelligence showed up in Powells briefing.

The problem is that the US government hired men who find "facts" against Iraq which the cia and fbi couldn't find. Good idea, the problem was they couldn't find any facts which were likely to be real.
The US government was warned several times by friends, but they prefered to laugh at these friends and didn't take the credibility-warnings serious.

#8 Anyone reading the UN weapons inspectors report from 1998 would agree.

if you trust the UN weapons inspectors report from 1998 why did you ignore the current reports of the UN weapon inspectors?

#9 Based on signal intelligence prior to the war, this was probably so.

When the US troops were allready in Kuwait and the US government mentioned some of these facts French reporters and former UNMOVIC members traveled iraq and showed the audience that lots of these intelligence reports and so called facts were simply wrong (Factories which should produce chemical weapons according to British or US reports were still destroeyed).
But the US had no time to watch TV or verify it themself

#10 Never heard this one, but most likely a find that turned out not to be so.

I can't assure that it were 100% these words but i can remmember hearing something like it in the News here

Notice it took place 6 weeks AFTER the war was over.

right, this makes it even worse, they say they found it (6 weeks later) but - also they can walk to these places now they are still talkining about things they didn't validate?

I understand that the US government didn't want to risk that Saddam Hussein attacks their country. I understand that they wanted to protect Isral from his WMDs but, the mayor mistake which has bin made is:

First it was decided that someone has to be invaded
Then we collect everything we can to proof this (which is ok) but ignore every hint that these proofs are wrong or unrealistic.

With the Iraq case it gets much harder to get international support for dissarming north Korea or stopping Iran from getting Nuclear bombs.
Who will trust US inteligence informations in the future?

Klaus

 

[TylerDurden]

I think we should have a thread called 'Sting's Boxing Ring' and whenever a thread about something completely different starts to turn into the Iraq debate, Sting can quickly say 'care to step into The Ring' and then it goes over there.

At the end of each individual debate/argument/drunken brawl, the moderaters act as judges and each give a score. Overall we'd keep a running scorecard, set a date, and when that date comes around either Sting will be ahead, or 'the rest' will be ahead. The winner - either Sting, or the member of 'the rest' who threw the most clean punches - gets a years vip membership to this site for free, and an autographed photo of GW Bush for you to either worship or turn into a dartboard.

 

[nbcrusader]

These were called fabrications on "Friday" by most of the world and many in the US, myself included.

You may have called them fabrications, but you did not know them to be false. Hatred of GWB possibly, independent knowledge of the facts, not.

The statements were supported by the intelligence available at the time.

 

[Dreadsox]

The statements were supported by the intelligence available at the time.

And this is indeed the problem. By most accounts, our best intelligence last came from the last time inspectors were inside of Iraq in 1988.

While I agree, the President's position may have been based on the truth perceived by our "best" intelligence, I also have a problem making a case for war based on five year old intelligence. Some of which when presented to the UN was proven to be false within a week. If the people at the UN were able to do it that quickly, there is something wrong.

As someone who supported the war I also believe in accountability. The time is coming during the next year to begin to hold those in charge for the decisions that they have made. I may still support this president.

 

[Scarletwine]

I may still support this president.

His domesstic agenda is even worse than his foreign policy. I thought you were a teacher. Every teacher I talk to ( alot) think his policies suck. Here are a few more lies:

ON TAX CUTS:
George Bush: "The tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes...Americans will keep, this year, an average of almost $1,000 more of their own money."
The Truth: Nearly half of all taxpayers get less than $100. And 31% of all taxpayers get nothing at all.

ON JOBS:
George Bush: "Our first goal is...an economy that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job."
The Truth: Bush is the first President since Hoover to preside over an economy that has lost jobs, not created them - more than 2.9 million since 2001.

ON THE ENVIRONMENT:
George Bush: "[My] Clear Skies legislation...mandates a 70% cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years."
The Truth: The Bush plan will allow more than 100,000 additional premature deaths by 2020 than alternative legislation developed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The plan does not regulate carbon emissions and allows far more sulfur and mercury emissions.

ON EDUCATION:
George Bush: "[W]e achieved historic education reform - which must now be carried out in every school and in every classroom."
The Truth: Bush cut $8 billion from the promised funds for education.

 

[Dreadsox]

His domesstic agenda is even worse than his foreign policy. I thought you were a teacher. Every teacher I talk to ( alot) think his policies suck. Here are a few more lies:

I am also from Massachusetts.....Does that mean I have to be a democrat?

NCLB, is cumbersome on the administrative end, not on the teaching end. Administrators hate it, and so far all it means to me in my classroom is accountability. Money does not = improved education. When you say he slashed 8 Billion dollars from the budget does that mean reduced the amount, slashed the amount of the increase? I would need more facts.

Again, there are many in the democratic field that I would not even consider voting for at this point and the economy seems to be making a turn.

 

[Dreadsox]

His domesstic agenda is even worse than his foreign policy. I thought you were a teacher. Every teacher I talk to ( alot) think his policies suck. Here are a few more lies:

I am also from Massachusetts.....Does that mean I have to be a democrat?

NCLB, is cumbersome on the administrative end, not on the teaching end. Administrators hate it, and so far all it means to me in my classroom is accountability. Money does not = improved education. When you say he slashed 8 Billion dollars from the budget does that mean reduced the amount, slashed the amount of the increase? I would need more facts.

Again, there are many in the democratic field that I would not even consider voting for at this point and the economy seems to be making a turn.

 

[nbcrusader]

His domesstic agenda is even worse than his foreign policy. I thought you were a teacher. Every teacher I talk to ( alot) think his policies suck. Here are a few more lies:

Not one of your quoted statements is a lie. The counter "truths" are only select statements of choice statistics or unsupported rhetoric (100,000 additional premature deaths).

 

[BVS]

And this is indeed the problem. By most accounts, our best intelligence last came from the last time inspectors were inside of Iraq in 1988.

While I agree, the President's position may have been based on the truth perceived by our "best" intelligence, I also have a problem making a case for war based on five year old intelligence. Some of which when presented to the UN was proven to be false within a week. If the people at the UN were able to do it that quickly, there is something wrong.

As someone who supported the war I also believe in accountability. The time is coming during the next year to begin to hold those in charge for the decisions that they have made.

ABSOLUTELY!

I may still support this president.

Oh Dread oh Dread you made so much sence up to that point.