Banned BBC Bush Election Footage Americans Aren’t Allowed To See

[AGENDA21]

Whether or not one believes a single word of absolutely anything emanating from anyone, anywhere within the current US maladministration isn’t really important right now.

But this is important.

This shows the shocking but true state of the current neo-con maladministration’s American nation. Watch it and weep. Then ask not for whom the bell tolls — for it tolls for thee

This is a banned BBC video/documentary by made Greg Palast which Americans are not allowed to see.

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/banned-bbc-bush-election-footage-americans-arent-allowed-to-see

http://currentera.com/blog/?p=495#comments

Im not sure if you guys on DU,have seen this or not..most likely you have..but just in case if you havent here it is.

[newswolf56]

1. Can't get the video to play no matter what I do. Please help. (n/t)

[TomInTib]

6. Here it is from a different site

http://currentera.com/blog/?p=495

[FreedomAngel82]

7. Oh I've seen this one before

It's really good and Palast is a great reporter. You can see it online at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info This one is more of a shorter version of the video. It's called "The Bush Family Fortunes." I saw it Best Buy around Christmas of 2004.

[newswolf56]

10. Sorry; still doesn't play. All the links are apparently incompatible...

with Windows: a frustrating problem I encounter all too often -- worsened by the fact Windows won't let you download the software necessary to overcome the obstacle. (Takes a professional nurd to figure out how to get past the obstructions; merely turning down your security settings won't do it.) Thanks anyway though.

[Suich]

2. Video won't play. n/t

[AGENDA21]

4. Do you have google video player ?

Read post 9 in link below.

http://currentera.com/blog/?p=495#comments

[meisje]

31. That's because they don't want you to see it

[sproutster]

3. It just gets worse and worse. And a good percentage actually

believes he will step down.

[Fredda Weinberg]

5. Banned by whom?

That's a serious charge, but it's a bit vague ... what offical authority is being accused?

[tocqueville]

9. probably the BBC thought it wasn' t "accurate" enough

or/and they were subject to pressure. Nobody's perfect.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. It's a report for BBC Newsnight

that was shown in Britain (the live introduction starts the currentera video), and I remember seeing it. Such a report wouldn't normally be shown in the USA, though in this case it's relevance would make it a good thing to show. I would wonder if it was actually 'banned', though.

[tocqueville]

17. OK I misunderstood

I thought that the BBC didn't show it. The headline is a little misguiding.

BTW I saw yesterday a French-Belgian documentary made by a couple of reporters embedded 11 months (!) in an US infantry unit in Bagdhad. If you believed that the soldiers are hated by the population, that they sometimes use excess force, that Iraqui women literally shake of fear when they make searches, that some of them died or were severely wounded during that period, that they hate Bush and Rumsfeld, that they bring their time avoiding bombs and picking up body parts in plastic bags - that part was atrocious -, practically never see an insurgent, that they have extremely low morale, think that the reporting in the US media is BS and have only one idea in the head - getting home in one piece : you are absolutely right. This documentary WILL NOT BE SHOWN IN THE US.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

29. Can you remember what the documentary was called?

I'd like to look out for it.

[converted_democrat]

8. I'm super red hot pissed.. I'd never seen this before.. Thank you for

posting.. Unfucking real...

[bigbrother05]

11. Thanks for posting this

Brought up so many emotions, think it was almost as bad as 9/11.

[AGENDA21]

14. Im glad i posted

it,because a few people hadnt seen it.

[Fredda Weinberg]

21. You're glad you lied?

I should think DUers wouldn't want to be misled - by anyone.

[AGENDA21]

23. I havnt misled anyone

The title of the thread is the title of the article...and i did mention in my first post, that most likely people on D.U have seen it...and said, just in case some havnt i will post it...

[Fredda Weinberg]

24. So who banned it?

Or a lie is a lie. Repeating it is no better.

[Garbo 2004]

27. Perhaps next time you can more clearly distinguish what is your post from

quoted text. That would avoid possible confusion regarding what you yourself are saying/asserting vs what you are quoting from another source.

The HTML lookup table you can access when you compose a reply shows how to post a block of quoted text, just in case you didn't know.

So it comes out looking like this.

Separate from your own post. Just saying it might avoid some confusion in future. :)

[AGENDA21]

32. Thanks for HTML tip...i will try to make use of it...

[Garbo 2004]

33. Yeah, t really helps when quoting text. Took me a while to find it but I

try to remember to use it when citing other material just for clarity's sake.

And while I disagree with the "banned" statement in the article as a matter of strict accuracy, it's good that people who didn't know about Palast's reporting have another occasion because of your post to see the clip and find out more about Palast's work and the crap that went down in Florida. Here's Palast's website: http://www.gregpalast.com/ He also did some reporting on stuff that went on in Florida in 2004, as I recall.

And Iinformation Clearing House has a lot of info and videos too for viewing online. Someone else also posted the link but here it is again for anyone who is interested: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

And welcome to DU, by the way. It sometimes gets hairy and heated here, but a lot of good information is here and a lot of good folks too. :)

[FormerRepublican]

12. OK, I'm on dial up and can't watch - so dish the dirt!!!

What's Bush been up to that we're not supposed to find out about? (Goody, goody - if Bush doesn't want me to know, I WANT to know!!)

[sproutster]

15. hehe

It started with all of the lists that Bushco sent in of felons to be removed from the rolls - 95% were wrong.

[LiberalinNC]

16. Unfuckin'believable!!!!

And yet it happened!

[Garbo 2004]

18. How is it "banned?" Get Palast's "Bush Family Fortunes" DVD.

It's a documentary originally produced by the BBC and updated for the 2004 US DVD release. This documentary is based on Palast's book, "Best Democracy Money Can Buy" and his reporting for the BBC and Brit newspapers. Both the DVD and the book are available in the US.

The "banned" bit is hyper dramatic, but not really accurate. How many segments of the BBC's Newsnight program are available or shown here in the US? Are they all "banned?" But the BBC does have video clips and the program itself is available for viewing from its website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

Another notable DVD just on the 2000 election in Florida is "Unprecedented."

No doubt free versions are available online, but the DVD's are not expensive. I purchase them to toss a few bucks their way.

[MelissaB]

19. K&R for those who haven't seen this.

It isn't new, but it is good.

[Raydawg1234]

20. Does anyone know why this is banned?

[MelissaB]

22. It's not. See the post above.

I have the DVD at home.

[FreedomAngel82]

26. I saw it at Best Buy about two years ago

:shrug: So it's not banned.

[Garbo 2004]

28. Again, it's not "banned." What is fair to say, however, is that corporate

media here had and still has no interest in this kind of reporting regarding the 2000 election. Or the 2004 election for that matter. Or anything else of particular substance that might rock the corporate boat and the PTB.

Which is why PBS has been a target. Shows like Bill Moyers Now and Frontline were enough to get Buschco on their case.

But people can get Palast's book and the DVD if they wish to see more of Palast's work on this subject.

[annabanana]

25. Thanks for posting. . . I hadn't seen this either...

defacto banned, if not dejure..

so LAY OFF!

[mdmc]

30. I didn't see it on FOX, CNN, or BBC

so aI hear what your sayin".

Remember 2live crew? Banned in the USA!

[Garbo 2004]

34. Actually it's a clip from a BBC program, Newsnight. Palast's done

reporting for the Beeb and some Brit newspapers like the Guardian. Ironically, while he's an American, most of his reporting is for Brit media. I imagine the media here won't touch him.

But yeah, you won't see this on any of the regular US corporate media. They'd wet their pants at the mere thought of carrying something like this. ;)

[mdmc]

37. it was not on bbc in the usa

is all i'm sayin.

peace, God!

[Fredda Weinberg]

43. He's been published here

and I'll admit I'm still pissed that he used my illustration in Harper's without attribution.

[Jamastiene]

35. So, how many bubbles are there in a bar of soap?

Sounds like they are acting like typical repukes, trying to keep black people from voting. I definitely disagree with their tactics, but we on the left need to make damn sure we keep an eye on that sort of thing so it can't happen again. It shouldn't have happened then. How? I don't know. I wish I had all the answers. I wish we could brainstorm to find some rock solid answer. Red states with a majority of repukes in power have methods that they use to make damn sure any real libs/progressives/dems can have or gain NO POWER whatsoever. Stacking the courts, discriminating, blackmailing, declaring anyone who disagrees with them mentally ill, all sorts of hideous methods that they use. I wonder, myself, how we can counteract them. I hate the fact they they have all that power and use it to treat people the way they do. I can't wait until Bush is just a nightmare from our past, instead of a current nightmare.

[mogster]

36. Incredible that footage of this type

generates a debate mostly about wether it was banned or not. Who cares? Watch the god damn video!

[Joe Chi Minh]

38. Yes, it beggars belief, doesn't it? If it's not shown on TV in the US,

as somebody posted earlier, it's effectively banned. Got that? Say... "b a n n e d". Even "p r o s c r i b e d". Gee whizz! Can you beat that! "You're glad you lied?"

It happens that the far-right rag in the UK, the Daily Mail, which used to be "owned" by Conrad Black, while as pro Republican as the US gun lobby, has recently carried some astonishingly frank articles about Bush's regime, which, however, were not made available on its Internet site, i.e. for foreign consumption.

The latest one, two or three months ago, was a lengthy review of a book about 9/11, in which the author adduced the very cogent evidence of MIHOP or at least LIHOP, and which, moreover, the reviewer pointed out, it was difficult to gainsay, and that the book made very disturbing reading. A decision to publish such an article would have had to be taken at a very high level. In the most popular and most right-wing tabloid in the country, it was as astonishing as the New York Times' recent denunciation, if not more so. The latter has been known as the paper of record, I believe, in better times.

[Fredda Weinberg]

40. It wasn't effectively banned either

You shouldn't defend lies ... whether they come from "our" or "their" side.

Look up "[e-mail]" and you'll see that I have more insight on this subject than you do.

[Joe Chi Minh]

41. Are you saying that it was shown on a public television channel in

the US or not? That is all that is relevant.

[Fredda Weinberg]

42. Reasons are important ... the video wasn't and isn't banned

Truth should matter - and the title of this thread is bogus, whether you want to redefine the word "banned" or not.

I'd rather not discuss what else is relevant to this issue.

[Joe Chi Minh]

45. Fredda. you have chosen to interpret the word, "Banned" in the

most literal way. However, imho such a construction is needlessly limiting, and indeed, grossly inapt - particularly when dealing with the shenanigans of this Government, which though pathologically benighted in the most important respects, has been very clever in banning all mann er of aspects of democracy.

The purpose of this campaign of judicial appointments by Bush or Bushco is precisely to ban the voices of Democratic or even democratic voices being heard from the bench. The fact that the initiation of such a ban has not been formally declared undeclared, does not make such ban any less real than the innumerable wars undertaken by the US (inter alia, I dare say) are real for being undeclared.

Governments love secrecy, since it protects them from accountability, indeed from having their little plots nipped in the bud at the very outset.

Anyway that's my two penn'orth. I wouldn't waste time responding to this, as we appear to take quite different positions on this question of formal and informal proscriptions.

[electron_blue]

39. Excellent and why the f*** was the person in charge of Fla's vote count

also co-chairing Bush's PResidential campaign? (Kath. Harris)

Surely I read that already and forgot it. Why is that even allowed to happen in the first place? You can't be in charge of the vote count and also be a co-chair of either candidate's PResidential campaign. What idiocy. Okay, not idiocy - they got away with it handily.

[autorank]

44. AGENDA21 -- Excellent. RECOMMENDED