Anyone remember the right's response to "The Reagans"????

[originalpckelly]

So short a memory do people have. From IMDb: "Viacom originally scheduled the series to run on CBS, but moved it to Showtime after protests by the Republican party and a threatened boycott over its portrayal of the Reagan family."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reagans

http://imdb.com/title/tt0383139/

http://sayanythingblog.com/2003/11/04/cbs_not_broadcasting_reagan_movie/

I guess bias only matters when it goes against Republicans.

[RedEarth]

1. That's exactly right.......

[AndyA]

2. But this is different! This makes CLINTON look bad. That's OK,

because he's a Democrat. It's OK to make the Dems look bad, even if you have to lie to do it.

But you can't tell the truth about Republicans, because it almost always makes them look bad...

H Y P O C R I S Y

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. How can we forget?

They are still bitching about "The Reagans", and still holding it up as "proof" of the extreme liberal bias in the mainstream media.

[pat_k]

4. Nancy didn't sue. Nancy's attorney didn't demand corrections. . .

. . .that docudrama did not claim to be based on a report produced by a Government commission.

The RW complaints were hot air about a docudrama that had nothing to say about Presidential actions that conflicted with the historical record.

Clinton is threatening legal action. And I hope he follows through. Legal action says "This is a lie. I will prove it is a lie. I will bring the liars to justice."

This is far more than defamation of Clinton personally. The nation pays a high price when lies about the government actions taken by a President are allowed to stand. (A war of words, not backed by concrete action, in not a challenge -- Joe Wilson has it right. You must take their lies into court.)

"Making it Real" is precisely why we must demand Impeachment and Removal of Bush and Cheney. It is the only way to expose the truth -- that their actions constitute a treasonous conspiracy to destroy our constitutional democracy.

[originalpckelly]

5. Sorry for waxing Yoda in the opening line...

but hey I wax Yoda when I find something like this.

[YOY]

7. Happening to the best of us it does.

completely forgiven you are.

[question everything]

6. I did watch it on Showtime, I think and it was an important movie

for the likes of me who never followed the life of the Reagans, at least before they went to Washington, really did not care..

[NYCGirl]

8. I watched it, and besides the wonderful performances by Judy Davis

(who's always great) and James Brolin (who knew he had this performance in him?) I thought it actually made Ronnie somewhat LIKEABLE!

[pat_k]

9. Claiming to be based on a report produced by a Government commission.. . .

. . .and creating something that adds fantasy events and events that are in direct conflict with that report is a world of difference.

"The Reagans" made up episodes from the personal lives of the Reagans, but it didn't make up Presidential actions that conflicted with the historical record.

[originalpckelly]

10. Yeah, I know...

that is the added insult of all of this. 9/11 is far more important because it has a daily impact on our lives.

[question everything]

11. Indeed. It even cleared him a bit from the Iran-Contra

showing someone else - Haig? - maneuvering and getting him to sign when he was recovering from a surgery.

It did not portray him as being responsible for the death of 3,000 people!

And, as Benveisti commented yesterday on Olbermann - Clinton did go after bin Laden, but then the RWers claimed that he "wagged the dog."

[pat_k]

13. HW's curious visit to Saudi Mar 16, 1996 (Sudan offer to Saudi Mar 3)

And, then there is the curious visit of HW Bush when bin Laden "got away"

March 3, 1996
---------------
Sudan (under pressure of international sanctions) offers to extradite Osama bin Laden and to Saudi Arabia. Despite pressure from Clinton administration, Saudi Arabia refused. After failing to get Saudi Arabia to take him, Sudan expels him to Afganistan in May 1996.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61251-2001Oct2?language=printer

March 16th, 1996
---------------------------
H.W. Bush is in Saudi, recieved at the Al-Salama Palace in Riyadh, being given the King Abdul Aziz Medal.

http://www.saudiembassy.net/1996News/News/UsrDetail.asp?cIndex=4246

What was H.W. doing there?

Why would a visit from a former President at such a critical time in the "back channel" negotiations fail to be noted in any report of these events?

Unless parties to the events talk, it will never be proven, but I have No Doubt he was there use his influence with the Saudi's to make sure they refused to take bin Laden.

Motive? At best, to deny the Clinton administration a "win" -- at worse. . .

[dogday]

12. I think the Reagan movie had sponsors, right?

I mean this one on ABC does not have any commercials and cost 30 million to make and is given 6 hours free prime time airplay, plus you can see it online for free as well....

Sounds like there is an agenda to get this movie out to the public en masse and that alone stinks to high hell.....