PBS - FRONTLINE "Bush's War"

[LeadMagnet]

Has anyone else seen PBS - FRONTLINE "Bush's War", I only had a chance to see part one so far, but it does a heck of a job documenting the inner workings of the administration.

I really like the interview with Richard Armitage


Link

 

[bamacre]

Seen it, very good.

This is a good bookmark for other Frontline shows...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/

 

[ericlp]

yes seen it...

Very good and they should be showing it at all the churches across america... I'll donate the microwave popcorn!

 

[KGB]

Originally posted by: ericlp
yes seen it...

Very good and they should be showing it at all the churches across america... I'll donate the microwave popcorn!

I would also request all classrooms to be included.

Documentary at its finest.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Very good indeed

I would also recommend the BBC's the power of nightmares. It details the rise of neo-conservatism in the west and radical islam in the mid-east and how both fanatical fringe groups have more or less fucked over the rest of us in the middle.

 

[Craig234]

But... but... we don't need communist television with low-quality high-cost crap product, the private market will meet the public's need for good documentaries, just look at the network schedules for all the better documentaries on the Iraq War. Oh, wait. You mean the corporatized media might choose to make more trivial entertainment, degrading our culture, and leave this market underserved? No way.

Some forget why some amount of 'public' production like PBS is good and needed.

The private sector actually does provide a lot of outstanding information as well; 60 Minutes is on a corporatized network, and great authors publish in the private system. The Daily Show and Bil Maher's show, if they should be mentioned in the same paragraph, are also part of the private sector. But PBS does play a unique and important role in our media, and the right is wrong to want to destroy it.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234
But... but... we don't need communist television with low-quality high-cost crap product, the private market will meet the public's need for good documentaries, just look at the network schedules for all the better documentaries on the Iraq War. Oh, wait. You mean the corporatized media might choose to make more trivial entertainment, degrading our culture, and leave this market underserved? No way.

Some forget why some amount of 'public' production like PBS is good and needed.

The private sector actually does provide a lot of outstanding information as well; 60 Minutes is on a corporatized network, and great authors publish in the private system. The Daily Show and Bil Maher's show, if they should be mentioned in the same paragraph, are also part of the private sector. But PBS does play a unique and important role in our media, and the right is wrong to want to destroy it.

http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_support.html

Individual donations from viewers like you represent the single largest source of support for public television stations around the country. And your support can take many forms, from becoming a member to volunteering to family events!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: KGBMAN

I would also request all classrooms to be included.

Documentary at its finest.

QFT! :thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

I watched Showdown with Iran earlier today. Also recommended.

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Very good indeed

I would also recommend the BBC's the power of nightmares. It details the rise of neo-conservatism in the west and radical islam in the mid-east and how both fanatical fringe groups have more or less fucked over the rest of us in the middle.

Yes, very good documentary. There are three 1-hour parts, so it is a little lengthy, but well worth it.

 

[tweaker2]

Originally posted by: Craig234
But... but... we don't need communist television with low-quality high-cost crap product, the private market will meet the public's need for good documentaries, just look at the network schedules for all the better documentaries on the Iraq War. Oh, wait. You mean the corporatized media might choose to make more trivial entertainment, degrading our culture, and leave this market underserved? No way.

Some forget why some amount of 'public' production like PBS is good and needed.

The private sector actually does provide a lot of outstanding information as well; 60 Minutes is on a corporatized network, and great authors publish in the private system. The Daily Show and Bil Maher's show, if they should be mentioned in the same paragraph, are also part of the private sector. But PBS does play a unique and important role in our media, and the right is wrong to want to destroy it.

PBS has a nasty habit of looking under the skirts of the PNAC crew and always managing to find those soiled panties full of holes to look through that reveal all those nasty plots and dirty deeds that the pnac is hiding from the public.

also, the pnac crew cannot propagandize the nation as they would like as they cannot control what materiel PBS airs, with stuff like "Bush's War" and numerous other revealing documentaries like it being perfect examples.

in that regard, i can see where destroying PBS, or short of that, dictating what programming they are allowed to air - (remember what the Bush admin tried to do to PBS not too long ago?) - must be a high priority for them.

 

[KGB]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: Craig234
But... but... we don't need communist television with low-quality high-cost crap product, the private market will meet the public's need for good documentaries, just look at the network schedules for all the better documentaries on the Iraq War. Oh, wait. You mean the corporatized media might choose to make more trivial entertainment, degrading our culture, and leave this market underserved? No way.

Some forget why some amount of 'public' production like PBS is good and needed.

The private sector actually does provide a lot of outstanding information as well; 60 Minutes is on a corporatized network, and great authors publish in the private system. The Daily Show and Bil Maher's show, if they should be mentioned in the same paragraph, are also part of the private sector. But PBS does play a unique and important role in our media, and the right is wrong to want to destroy it.

PBS has a nasty habit of looking under the skirts of the PNAC crew and always managing to find those soiled panties full of holes to look through that reveal all those nasty plots and dirty deeds that the pnac is hiding from the public.

also, the pnac crew cannot propagandize the nation as they would like as they cannot control what materiel PBS airs, with stuff like "Bush's War" and numerous other revealing documentaries like it being perfect examples.

in that regard, i can see where destroying PBS, or short of that, dictating what programming they are allowed to air - (remember what the Bush admin tried to do to PBS not too long ago?) - must be a high priority for them.

Ken Tomlinson

 

[LeadMagnet]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I watched Showdown with Iran earlier today. Also recommended.

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Very good indeed

I would also recommend the BBC's the power of nightmares. It details the rise of neo-conservatism in the west and radical islam in the mid-east and how both fanatical fringe groups have more or less fucked over the rest of us in the middle.

Yes, very good documentary. There are three 1-hour parts, so it is a little lengthy, but well worth it.

thats a good one to - lots of good info with a decent timeline

 

[BladeVenom]

Does it talk about all the Democrats who said Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction, even before Bush was even President?

Or is it just mindless propaganda that covers up the Democrats complicity?

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Does it talk about all the Democrats who said Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction, even before Bush was even President?

Or is it just mindless propaganda that covers up the Democrats complicity?

Perhaps you should watch it before rushing to judgment.

 

[Atreus21]

This sort of stuff really does crack me up.

Does this mean liberals have conceded that 911 was not an inside job?

Let's establish that first.

Second. Keep in mind we attacked Afganistan first, and for the same reason we attacked Iraq, at least according to this documentary. "Retaliation against nations that might've helped Al-Qaida, nations like Iraq."

Third, have we forgotten that before 911 ever happened, the notion of attacking Iraq was already on the table during the Clinton administration? This can't be blamed on just the neocons.

I love this documentary.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Does it talk about all the Democrats who said Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction, even before Bush was even President?

Or is it just mindless propaganda that covers up the Democrats complicity?

Perhaps you should watch it before rushing to judgment.

I haven't made a judgment; I'm asking a question.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
This sort of stuff really does crack me up.

Does this mean liberals have conceded that 911 was not an inside job?

Let's establish that first.

I never heard Liberals suggest that 911 was an inside job.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Does it talk about all the Democrats who said Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction, even before Bush was even President?

Or is it just mindless propaganda that covers up the Democrats complicity?

Perhaps you should watch it before rushing to judgment.

I haven't made a judgment; I'm asking a question.

Sure you were.

 

[LTC8K6]

I never heard Liberals suggest that 911 was an inside job.

I think I heard a black pastor screaming about it...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Does it talk about all the Democrats who said Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction, even before Bush was even President?

Or is it just mindless propaganda that covers up the Democrats complicity?

Perhaps you should watch it before rushing to judgment.

I haven't made a judgment; I'm asking a question.

Hahaha, nice. I love the whole 'who, me?' defense.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

I never heard Liberals suggest that 911 was an inside job.

I think I heard a black pastor screaming about it...

One black pastor speaks for the entire Liberal Movement?

Wow, African Americans sure have moved up in the world lately!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

I never heard Liberals suggest that 911 was an inside job.

I think I heard a black pastor screaming about it...

Please provide the actual quote from Jeremiah Wright on this. I'd like to parse it, and have not found it in two pages of googling.

 

[heyheybooboo]

My Frontline Favs:

Spying on the Homefront
The Dark Side
Is Walmart Good for America?
Return of the Taliban
Tax Me If You Can
Secret History of the Credit Card


Bush's War is pretty good. On Our Watch ia just plain sad. If Is Walmart Good For America? doesn't piss you off you ain't paying attention.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
This sort of stuff really does crack me up.

Does this mean liberals have conceded that 911 was not an inside job?

Let's establish that first.

My opinion:

The Bush administration did not plant charges in the WTC or any other target.

The Bush administration was not in a secret alliance with Osama bin Laden, despite the connections connecting a couple dots in a conspiracy theory.

However, I do think that the Bush administration was quite negligent in its Al Queda policy.

The Clinton administration did tell them Al Queda would be their #1 concern, and they did not make it a priority, they stopped the top-level attention Clinton had given it.

So the question is between two scenarios, which I have no evidence to pick between:

1. As the PNAC document noted, as laid out in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine", these are people well aware of the power of a 'Pearl Harbor-like event' to give them license.

This theory would be that they stopped efforts against Al Queda to allow an attack, planning to use it for getting their own agenda allowed.

Similar allegations were made by some about FDR ordering minimal vigilance to prevent Pearl Harbor, since he had to get a nation against entering the war supporting the war.

2. It was simply negligence without any ulterior motive, perhaps in part caused by their juvenile 'if Clinton did it get rid of it' approach.

These are, after all, the same people petty enough to invent and spread lies in the national media about the Clinton administration trashing the White House and removing "W" keys.

So, there's one 'liberal' view on the 9/11 as an inside job issue. Inconclusive as to whether there's *anything* to it, but opposed to claims there was an active role.

Second. Keep in mind we attacked Afganistan first, and for the same reason we attacked Iraq, at least according to this documentary. "Retaliation against nations that might've helped Al-Qaida, nations like Iraq."

Third, have we forgotten that before 911 ever happened, the notion of attacking Iraq was already on the table during the Clinton administration? This can't be blamed on just the neocons.

I love this documentary.

Let's also remember that at the same time, the Republican position was still from the Bush administration, from Brent Scrowcroft's writings, explaining why that was a bad idea.

Republicans were constantly attacking any military activities by Clinton. Remember 'Wag the Dog'?

Dick Cheney was calling for an *end to sanctions* on Iraq, and George Bush ran on a platform for a "humble" foreign policy and no "nation building".

About the only Republicans I recall pushing the invasion were the PNAC signatories, then a fringe group that had been repudiated by the first Bush administration.

There may have been some others, but what I state above is the dominant political position as I recall.

And that's the big difference - the Democrats had reason to *suspect* WMD programs, but they didn't turn that into a pretense for invasion. You can criticize Clinton, if you like, for not doing enough when Saddam did not cooperate with the UN inspectors, who were not in Iraq for a few years as a result.

As I've written before, Bush could have looked good had he stuck to his word, and used the resolution to get the inspectors back in, who would have found no WMD; it'd look like Clinton had negligently let Saddam get away with kicking them out, and Bush would get credit for the leadership to use the war resolution to pressure Saddam, who let them back in. Bush instead kicked OUT the inspectors and invaded, breaking his word to the nation and to Congress.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Craig234 ~~snip~~
Bush instead kicked OUT the inspectors and invaded, breaking his word to the nation and to Congress.

And then lied about it. On July 14, 2003, Bush declared of Saddam Hussein:

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."