in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Politico | Dispute: Santorum: Romney contraceptive decision ‘trumped employees’ religious consciences’ |
0 |
| Ras. Reports | 2012 Watch: National GOP: Romney 34%, Gingrich 27%, Santorum 18%, Paul 11% |
0 |
| B’berg | Oh My: Banks Paying Cash to Homeowners to Avoid Foreclosures |
0 |
| The Hill | 0 | |
| Maggie G. | Courts: Ninth Circuit to 7 Million California Voters: You Are Irrational Bigots |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
Liberal whining about ABC’s”The Path to 9-11″ makes headlines at the NYT
Bubbinski apologists are still foaming at the mouth over ABC’s “The Path to 9/11” docudrama, and the whining over it has gotten so loud that even the NYT has noticed.
Usually when I see this much liberal handwringing about how ‘unfair’ or ‘inaccurate’ something is, that means whatever it is they’re flipping out over is well worth seeing/reading/hearing. So consider the panic-stricken cries of ‘unfair!’ and ‘inaccurate!’ as a ringing endorsement of “The Path to 9/11″.
The first part airs Sunday 9-10 at 8 pm ET and the conclusion airs Monday 9-11 at 8 pm ET.
Update I: Brian at Iowa Voice asks an excellent question:
Why was a blatantly biased (and untrue) movie made by Michael Moore and released right before the 2004 Presidential election totally OK with libs, but a documentary, being aired on one of the most liberal networks on the air, placing a large share of the blame for 9/11 on Clinton isn’t?
My answer: Because the Bush-hating anti-war left are only interested in their version of the ‘facts’, no matter the issue.
I’m betting that Path to 9-11 will be a lot closer to being accurate than Moore’s crockumentary ever hoped to be.
Update II: Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters blogs extensively on the left’s smear campaign against the docudrama.
Related:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
59 Responses to “Liberal whining about ABC’s”The Path to 9-11″ makes headlines at the NYT”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
- Bak – Of course theres a multitude of reasons that are deflating the Dem agenda on a daily basis. I was focusing on The Rep’s/Roves current efforts on the aniversery of 9/11. It’s interesting to watch some of the Liberal bloggers wailing on endlessly at the termerity of Bush to play politics at this key point in time. I find that hillarious. The Left, of all groups, upset that someone on the other side is playing politics during the runup to an election. The very idea! This from the gaggle of conspiracy/Bush hating nut cases no less. Apparently irony and hypocracy do not exit in the absolutist world of Liberal fantasizers.
- Bang
- “… do not exist” in that last line – PIMF
- Bang
Tommy the fall of Saigon happened after we pulled our troops out of Vietnam. The Marines were there only to get embassy staff to safety. Thanks to people who are now held up as heros by the left we decided to leave. Vietnam was quite win-able.
Siege of Khe Sahn ended with us winning it, goof.
From PBS:
April 8, 1968
U.S. forces in Operation Pegasus finally retake Route 9, ending the siege of Khe Sanh. A 77 day battle, Khe Sanh had been the biggest single battle of the Vietnam War to that point. The official assessment of the North Vietnamese Army dead is just over 1,600 killed, with two divisions all but annihilated. But thousands more were probably killed by American bombing.
From PBS again:
Battle of Hamlet Ap Bac:
January 2, 1963
At the hamlet of Ap Bac, the Vietcong 514th Battalion and local guerrilla forces ambush the South Vietnamese Army’s 7th division. For the first time, the Vietcong stand their ground against American machinery and South Vietnamese soldiers. Almost 400 South Vietnamese are killed or wounded. Three American advisors are slain.
This happened when we only had advisors in Vietnam. COME ON MAN, quit grasping at straws.
We aren’t winning the war on terror because we think we can throw a big bad military at it and it will solve itself. It doesn’t work that. Maybe you feel safer, but I imagine that’s because the guy you trust is in office. Objectively, we aren’t safer.
Excuse me???
Please Prove this asinine statement???
1) the first sentence makes no sense. Especially considering the tools to track terrorists and their finances were uncovered by some leftist nut job who apparently is suffering from BDS
2) again you think you know what someone is thinking how conveinent. Bush is not my guy.
3) prove the last sentence please. Show me how we are not safer. And do not use figures that were inflated by happenings in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But like a good lib you just throw mud in all directions and then tell everyone you are the smartest person in the room. You are not.
It’s not lazy to not agree with you, Lorica. It’s actually incredibly easy.
You are incredibly lazy in your logic, and incredibly arrogant in that laziness. Why don’t you spend some time soul searching what you believe, maybe, just maybe you will come back here abit more able to defend your comments. – Lorica
Why don’t you spend some time soul searching what you believe, maybe, just maybe you will come back here abit more able to defend your comments.
Man, you’re asking a lot for a liberal. In my experience, they don’t really believe “in” much of anything other than warm fuzzy platitudes and nebulous feel good ideas. The vast majority of them define themselves not by what they actually believe but by what they are against. Anything that is traditional, particularly if it’s proven to work. Anything conservatives or Republicans are for, they are against. In general, liberals define their entire existance by being opposite what the conservatives want or do. This strokes the ego of the type of people who need to feel like they are “fighting” against whatever they delude themselves into believing is an injustice against someone or something. They can pat themselves on the back as being morally superior by being negative against everything, convincing themselves that only they have good intentions and are not bigoted, violent, etc. whatever negative word or activity you care to insert here. Once again, for people who do not care to or are not capable of thinking instead of feeling, and aren’t ambitious enough or smart enough to create and build, this is obviously a way to feel good about thelselves. The old saw is that conservatives never are out protesting because they have families, jobs, things to do has more than a small grain of truth to it. Conservatives seem more focused on doing and building, not on being reactionary to what others do. Liberals define themselves based on what conservatives believe. I honestly think that without conservatives liberals wouldn’t know what to think.
Severian, well put.