Jim

Having given this quite a bit of thought, I've concluded it is time for me to move on although I'm not sure to where.

Let me first thank those who created this board. I can't image the time and energy that went into seeing this endeavor from concept to creation. Although, ultimately, the way this has developed does not suit my particular needs, my hat is off to you all for what you have created and I hope that the board becomes more of what you envision.

Most of all, I want to thank the posters. I won't even attempt to name them individually but I feel that my world view has been improved by you all. On occassion, a political or other issue would come up over lunch that we had discussed here and I could only smile at the advantage I had in the discussion. SFN increased my respect for what I don't know. Sometimes a new perspective was something of a culture shock for this Okie boy but I know I gained by the nexus this board provided between a slew of very intelligent people interested in science and the events of our day.

I'm so tempted to name names but I'd be here half the morning. I only regret that there wasn't a SFN convention where I could have met you all, even the curmudgeons like myself.

In any event, no hard feelings and I wish you all the very best.

Jim

I think I made myself perfectly clear.

 

If the OP or the prevailing discussion had pertained to the political impact of this event, it would have stayed. However it did not. It was clearly a religious discussion, and not a political discussion, and is not appropriate content for the politics forum.

Where, exactly, did the posts swerve out of bounds? Was Pangloss' point out of bounds? It makes it appear as if even the leaders don't know the lines

Was my post out of line? We are judging this by your sense of the "prevailing discussion?" Good lord.

I have no clue as to what a political but not religious thread on the Pope's offense and then apology to Muslims would look like. We are left to figure it out but the reality is no one is going to post anything about the political impact of religion unless you make the lines clear. You might as well ban all discussion of religion even in the politics board. Too bad that some of the most important aspects of politics in the coming century have to do with religion.

Please don't shit-stir. This is a hard enough time for SFN as it is.

Are non-leaders allowed to use four letter words? If I were to characterize your post with four letter words, I bet that would get me a warning.

To stray into substance, even asking questions about this radical new policy is s***-stiring? Good grief. Please, think about what you are saying.

I've been here since 12/05 posting 4.61 messages a day. Somehow this place has become a part of my daily life and I am distressed by your, above all of the other leaders', for want of a better word - heavy handedness. You close a thread in which even Pangloss contributed without so much as a rational explanation.

You make me shake my head at myself that I invested so much of myself here.

I think the new format is nice and there may be a chance for people to be charming and witty again----and enjoy each other's eccentricities as we did in the good old days

 

It cheers me very much to see Yourdad back.

 

I see that CapRef has posted a list of warnings so I have decided to, on my own, operate a system of SHADOW WARNINGS

 

In keeping with the time-honored SHADOW GOVERNMENT practice of Loyal Oppositions everywhere and throughout modern history, I shall keep a SHADOW WARNING list.

 

In this case, if anyone is disrespectful to Bettina they will get 3 shadow points from me.

 

If they do this 9 times within the 7 day expiry period, then the luckless ones will have accumulated over 25 points and will receive a SHADOW BAN from me, which means that I will not pay attention to what they say for 3 days.

 

My reason for doing this is that my parents taught me to be a Southern Gentleman and to be chivalrous and protect the women folk. I may have lapsed in later years and lost the knack of it, but i will try to make up for this. She will reciprocate, I am sure, and act like a lady and refrain from uttering blood-curdling yells against the infidel.

 

Also anybody who aggravates with Bascule too much will be shadow warned for trolling. Bascule is gentle by nature---not at all antagonistic. he only gets provoked when people troll him by contradicting him aggressively and repetitively...

 

Aggravating Bascule will bring a shadow troll warning of 10 shadow points expiry of 14 days.

 

Friendly best wishes to all at this happy board

 

I'd try to be protective of Azure Phoenix too, but she would kill me.

I wouldn't dare.

Martin, I've not bothered to tell you in the past how much I have enjoyed your rare combination of perspective, intelligence and genteel nature. This post had me smiling. Thank you.

A new forum on a new web site.

 

It will be religion-oriented, with a different set of objectives etc. So the discussions won't be in conflict with their "environment", like they were here.

 

We are hoping to import the threads from the P&R forum, and the user database, so it should be a very smooth transition.

 

 

 

 

Will the religion forum come back to SFN? NO

Will SFN get a new philosophy forum? Very likely

Will the politics forum on SFN be closed? NO

Did you really think I needed the all caps answers to understand?

I don't think so. There was some discussion about making it only for politics topics related to science though (which I would welcome), but your guess is as good as mine whether or not this will happen.

Bottom line, I do not think I'm a candidate for the SFN you envision. Although your view did not entirely carry the day this time, I have no reason to believe my input will be sought on further changes.

No hard feelings. If I had started a board for lawyers and non-lawyers were going off on issues I wasn't particularly keen to discuss, I might shut down those areas accepting that I would lose the nonlawyer posters. I do think this should be made clear from the inception.

I don't think I would ever go to a point system for warnings. This gives the mere illusion of objectivity and strikes me as something a elementary school teacher might impose on an unruley class. Don't lose all of the marbles from your jars kids, or you won't get recess! How can you have any pudding if you don't have your meat?

I'll wait to see what remains of what I value in SFN after the Philosophy section is revived.

cheers. seems a bit of a fuzzy line tho (eg)

Particularly since just today the thread re the Pope's apology was closed. Here we have a worldwide event with clear political signficance yet it is closed off without any real thought or explanation.

I have to say that the closure of P&R has materially decreased the value of SFN for me and I am uncertain as to whether I will stay. Bewtween IMM's posts on Veganism and the rough and tumble exchange on Islamic radicalism, Sisyphus invariably disspassionate and informative posts on philosophy, I learned from P&R. For the first time in my life, I do not think that Veganism is per se ridiculous (and even feel a bit guilty when I tuck into a steak). I appreciate the depth of prior thought in Philosophy which, frankly, I have never spent adequate time in study. Yes, there were dust ups on occassion but I live my life in conflict and the chance to learn something is far more important than having to read few a few petty squabbles.

I do not deny the right of the leadership to close the P&R. I'm not the one who spends money and time to make SFN happen. I appreciate their efforts and if P&R detracted to the value they received from the endeavor then it is game over for P&R with no hard feelings. Twas fun while it lasted.

The fact that there was concern about the Politics board also gives me concern even though, for now, they have decided not to terminate. Had I earlier realized that there was a real possibility of closing P&R or Politics, I probably would not have invested nearly as much interest in SFN. Personally, had I been in a leadership position, I would have let it be known long ago that Politics and P&R were potentally on the chopping block. Maybe that was posted but I sure missed it.

It may also be that, even more frankly, I am not the demographic they are looking for at SFN. I do not have a science background which is something I regret in my life. I can rarely, if ever, contribute more than an uninformed question to the core science topics and, therefore, have simply lurked in Politics and P&R. If this is not the kind of poster you are seeking to attract, I think you should be clear when people register.

It was discussed a couple of weeks ago by board leadership in private, and then later with the experts.

Thank you for elaborating Pangloss.

With the closure of Philosoply & Religion, I need to know if there is any discussion regarding the potential closure of the politics forum.

Now, for those of you who are regular contributors to the P&R forum, fear not! In the next few days, we should hopefully move over all of the posts and users from P&R to a new, clean forum.

You are closing P&R but then opening a new, clean forum for P&R?

*cheers*, now for the politics board ...

Is there a possibility the politics board will be closed?

here is the text of the pope's apology:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5353774.stm

 

"Dear Brothers and Sisters,

 

The pastoral visit which I recently made to Bavaria was a deep spiritual experience, bringing together personal memories linked to places well known to me and pastoral initiatives towards an effective proclamation of the Gospel for today.

 

I thank God for the interior joy which he made possible, and I am also grateful to all those who worked hard for the success of this Pastoral Visit.

 

As is the custom, I will speak more of this during next Wednesday's general audience.

 

At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.

 

These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.

 

Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words.

 

I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect. "

 

the apology apparently did not sooth Muslim wrath:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5354862.stm

 

Pope apology fails to end anger (BBC dateline 18 September)

 

Photo caption: Muslim clerics in Qom, Iran, were part of continuing protests.

 

Pope Benedict XVI's renewed apology for comments he made last week on Islam has been welcomed by some Muslim groups but has failed to end the anger. There were further protests in Indonesia and Iran and one influential cleric called for a day of anger.

 

The Pope on Sunday apologised in person for causing offence in the speech. He said the medieval text he quoted, which said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only evil, did not in any way express his personal opinion.

 

The Pope issued his apology from the balcony at his residence at Castel Gandolfo outside Rome as gave the Angelus blessing.

 

His clarification was welcomed by a number of Muslim groups, including the Council of Muslims in Germany, where he made the speech. It said the Pope had taken an important step towards calming the unrest of the past few days.

What I would like to see from Muslim groups is some statement such as the following:

"My fellow Muslims: Please get a grip and stop overreacting to an minor innocent point made by the Pope in a much more substantial speech. If we want to be respected in the free world, it is our responsibility to respect freedom of expression. Phony overblown reaction of anger to this speech will not serve us well in the long term if we want the modern world's respect. Many of our own hurt Islam by threatening to kill cartoonists and authors. Many of our own have made hateful comments about Jews and this makes us look like we can dish it out but we can't take it.

This must stop. Now. You who react with rage and violence to thoughts are the real danger to Islam and I condemn you.

Isn't it time that we showed tolerence and understanding in the face of a potential slight in leiu of defensive outrage?

Reading the full text of the Pope's September 14 speech there is absolutely no reason to believe that he thinks that Islam is evil but, let's face facts brothers, we do have problems. Our religion has a growing disease of radicallism which is far more of a threat to those of us who value peace and abhor the cynical use of religion for transient political purporses. Your reaction to the Pope's innocent speech is a manifestation of that disease.

Some of you have even suggested that the Pope was advocating a new crusade. How can you be so disingenuous when the Pope expressly said, the "decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature." Is this not what we now believe?

In some cases, I believe the Pope was wrong but I, unlike the Catholics, never claimed that he was infallible. When the Pope stated, "But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality," I found myself nodding, not in agreement, but that this is a fair assessment of a divide in religious thinking. The Pope, was, after all, correct when he said that "the noted French Islamist R Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us."

Was this not an opportunity for us to talk rationally amongst ourselves as to what we believe and, if it is clear that this characterization was false, to calmly explain why? Do we not risk proving the Pope's point by reacting with incoherent rage to an intellectual point which does us no harm?

What, my brothers, is our fear of words and ideas? My faith is not so weak that I feel vulnerable to ideas. I may feel sadness that others do not share the joy of my life in loving God but never rage.

Above all else, the Pope's speech repeatedly advocates the Greek heritage of rationality in Christian belief. I, for one, agree with his central point - God does not, CAN NOT, value coerced faith. I have no idea what it is that GOd sees of value in mere men such as I but whatever the quality that brings God's love it has something to do with our free choice to give our lives to him.

Nothing in the Pope's speech said that modern Muslims do not now share this belief. In fact, nothing in the Pope's speech said that Christians uniformly share his belief either. To the contrary, the Pope said: "The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity - a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age."

Will you rage at me for admitting that I enjoyed the Pope's speech? I find nothing with which to disagree in the Pope's conclusion:

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age.

 

The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us.

 

The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit.

 

The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons.

I ask you again, brothers, what do we fear from these words? More to the point, what do we gain by isolating a single section which quoted an 14th century emperor during a seige by Mehmed II whom early Ottoman historians claimed was a prophet of Islam?

Please, brothers, grow up and have faith in our God not to be harmed by the words of men. I beg you all to join with me in condemning not the Pope but those who have overreacted to his message of rational nonviolence.

What's with the philosphy forum being locked?

OK' date=' so the Iraq war has been a HUGE diversion from the war on Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden and making Homeland Security a working, viable agency.

 

Fair enough?[/quote']

 

The United States did not invade Iraq either to catch Osama or to create a more viable Homeland Security agency. We invaded Iraq because it's leader had invaded a strategically important US ally, lost, agreed to disclose his WMD program as a condition to retaining power, failed to honor his agreement for over a decade, attempted to assassinate a former US president, and continued to fail to come clean about his WMD program even as US forces gathered to remove him from power. His danger wasn't just that he was brutal. He was dangerous not merely because he funded terrorist families with fortunes and used chemical weapons against his own people.

 

Saddam was capable of wildly self-destructive irrationality. How could he think that we would let the invasion of Kuwait stand? Did he even pause to think of what would be the US response if he had succeeded in assassinating George H? Even Clinton would have had to have acted without mercy.

 

The Iraqis are better off without Saddam as is the US and the entire world. The forceful US action led Libya to scrap a surprisingly advanced nuclear program. In this process, we have given an entire nation a chance at freedom. This may be passe to say yet I do believe that giving millions \a chance at freedom is an idealistic good thing.

 

Whether the Iraqis take advantage of this opportunity remains to be seen.

 

I have no idea whether our efforts in Iraq consumed resources which would have caught Osama or whether the attention focussed on these objectives has somehow hindered homeland security. I would need to see more than anecdotal evidence to agree with your conclusion.

Yeah, I'm all for getting the innaccurcies corrected. There's plenty of truth to roast the guy. And since we apparently enjoy using hindsight to blame people and shift responsibility around, it should be a nice compliment.

The Berger scene sounds out of line. It is fine to present a synthesis of events but a program shouldn't lay an amalgam of events on one guy.

Beyond that, it's kind of basic. A show which starts with the first World Trade Center bombing and goes forward from 1993 to 9/11/01 is going to come off as more critical of Clinton because Clinton had years to deal with the problem while Bush had only months.

As is illustrated by their reaction when the case was over (see Washington Post article above), I also think Clinton was mightily distracted by the Jones/Lewinsky debacle.

I hope the movie doesn't bring up the sex crap. I know some want to get all shocked and awed that a guy would lie about an affair, but I just could care less. Yes the principal of the fact blah blah blah - he lied to save his butt getting carried away by a naughty young chick. That describes the realities of at least half the men out there, in terms of sexual indiscretion and cover up.

LOL. Can we at least get one fact correct: The problem with Clinton wasn't that he had an affair and lied about it. His problem was that he had a couple of state troopers bring an employee up to his hotel room and then, allegedly, exposed himself to her. Then, when the woman filed a sexual harassment suit, he lied under oath in front of a Federal Judge. I remain baffled as to how this didn't become common knowledge.

Jones lost the case because she hadn 't suffer any damages. She got the same job promotions she otherwise would have recieved. The Lewinsky affair would have been relevant IF Judge Wright had accepted Jones' argument that offering and withholding a benefit in exchange for sex constitutes harassment (and not just suffering a detriment for rebuffing the boss). In other words, Jones wanted to show that if she had accepted the sexual invitation, like Lewinsky, she would have received certain favors. When Clinton lied under oath no one knew that the Judge would take this view of the law and it was anything but certain her view would have been affirmed on appeal. This is why Clinton paid Jones $850,000 to settle the matter. The seriousness of Clinton's offense is underlined by the Judge finding him in contempt, sanctioning him around $80K (as I recall) and referring the matter to the state bar.

This from a Judge who had just ruled in his favor.

This was never just about the affair. It was a wierd combination of events which created a nexus between Clinton's affair with Lewinsky and the claims of Paula Jones. Many times in litigation a case will turn on far less than this kind of wierd confluence of events. I read a transcript of Clinton's deposition once and his lawyers objected mightily to the questions about Lewinsky. However, the Judge denied those objection in the discovery depostion and required him to answer. Clinton had a choice and his choice was to lie under oath.

As I said before, I don't think Clinton's perjury warranted impeachment and it certainly shouldn't be a focus on a story about the path to 9/11 but it was a damned sight more serious than the guy having sex with a staffer.

Most of the leaders the history channel glorifies had all numbers of women for sexual appeasement - a spoil of leadership. Sounds cool to me. Kind of like an ultra-alpha male.

Yes, I'm sure Stalin had his pick of the litter.

I guarantee you if I had a chance to get a BJ in the oval office I wouldn't hesitate, even if I had to lie about it...

Would you lie under oath in a civil lawsuit?

I find it interesting that some people are willing to believe that an Administration would be distracted by a lawsuit, but not a war.

When in doubt, ask the Washington Post:

At the White House and in Clinton's traveling party in Africa, officials maintained a consciously subdued tone [upon receiving word of Judge Wright's ruling dismissing Jones' claim], in part out of concern for appearing to gloat and in part out of the realization of the great toll the Jones case has already taken on his presidency.

 

"The reactions here are more mixed and complicated than the official line," said one senior aide. "We're all sort of surprised at the emotion this is bringing out. But it's not jumping up and down, it's not popping champagne corks. It's ranging from vindication to almost sort of bitter anger – why something this baseless occupied three years of our lives."

The problem is that declaring victory isn't action. Maybe he has more concrete plans for what declaring victory would mean regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. It's difficult judge without that. I don't think it'd be wise to pull out from either country though.

I wouldnt' declare victory either although I agree it's hard to judge his argument without having access to the subscription portion of the Atlantic Monthly.

I think Fallow is talking about the mindset of the nation. It reminds me of the scene from Wag the Dog where the President's opposition declares victory in the Albanian war.

To be fair, though, do you really not think there's a difference between perjuring in a private lawsuit and being (alright, allegedly) dishonest with regards to matters of war and peace?

I've not heard any convincing evidence that Bush intentionally lied to lead the nation to war. I think he genuinely believed what he was saying and, perhaps, was relying on his advisors with respect to the overblown 16 words. I seriously doubt he was intimately familiar with the aluminum tube story in any detail. However, as you say, at most Bush's dishonesty is an alleged fact whereas Clinton's dishonesty was first under oath in a very serious lawsuit. This is an undisputed fact as established in the case by an express ruling by Judge Susan Webber Wright.

To answer your question even more directly, I agree there is a huge difference. Bush honestly believed that Saddam had to go on his watch and was fulfilling his Constitutionally mandated function of leading a nation against what he, rightly or wrongly, perceived to be a threat to the nation.

Clinton was using all of the resources of office of the presidency for personal reasons. As I said, I would not have impeached Clinton and at the time worried that he was completely distracted by the Jones/Lewinsky mess. However, I give a lot less slack to a President misusing the office for personal gain (or, in this case, to avoid personal loss) than I do to a president who is acting against what he perceives to be a threat to the national interest.

I think the real issue here' date=' from a political perspective, is that this is falling during the very time when Democrats/liberals are launching their effort to "retake the White House". The mid-term election in a few weeks, and the 2008 presidential election, will form a two-prong attack on that goal.

 

The situation is identical to how it was with conservatives in the late 1990s. That's when they were at their most vociferous, argumentative and unilateral (not to mention popular).

 

The prime focus of that effort will be the attempt to portray the Bush administration as not only a failure, but a [i']commonly accepted[/i] failure. Mark my words, the position will be that "everyone thinks so", regardless of what everyone actually does think. They'll use the a standard brainwashing tactic -- say something enough times and sooner or later everyone thinks it's actually true.

 

That, also, is no different from what conservatives did at the end of the Clinton era. Didn't work then. Won't work now.

I hear what you are saying and I agree that the same dynamic is in play where many people desparately want the other side to be nothing short of evil. We've even seen it on this board with Bush being compared to Hitler. Nothing sates the emotional need to simplify a complex world than the belief that those with whom you disagree are bad guys.

I respected Clinton's intellect and political gift just not his character. While impeachment would have set a terrible precedent, it will not do to underestimate Clinton's offenses.

I continually marvelled at the ability of the left to give him a pass for committing perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit, hiding behind Hillary and then Albright's skirts (who he sent out to the cameras to lie for him) and villifying women with whom he was alleged to have relationships ("I did not have sex with that woman!"). It was a sordid affair and it did diminish the office of the Presidency. Say what you will, but at least Bush hasn't used the office to extract his own ... neck off of the chopping block of a forceful wronged wife.

At the core of the Clinton/Lewinsky mess was Clinton's core misdeed - not sex in the oval office but perjury in a federal court building in front of opposing counsel and a federal district court judge. It was no defense to say the lawsuit did not have merit (which was an open issue when Clinton paid $850,000 to settle the appeal). Every litigant is entitled to have his questions answered fairly in the discovery process and the Judge in this case concluded that Clinton had, in fact, committed a serious misdeed for which she referred him to the bar authorities.

Judge Susan Webber Wright ultimately sided with Clinton on the legal question involved (e.g. that the Lewinsky issue would not be admitted in the Jones v. Clinton case). Judges are often reluctant to permit a side issue to develop in the trial. It delays the case and you end up with a trial within a trial on side issues. However, this is a decision which could have gone either way and Jones was entitled to have her questions in the initial discovery phase of the litigation answered honestly. This same judge, having made the call as fairly as she could and, as it happened, in favor of Clilnton, still held Clinton in contempt of Court for a "willful failure to testify truthfully."

At the time and still today, I believed the constant mantra of the left in defense of their man that this was all "just about sex" to be intellectually dishonest in the extreme. None of this would have gone anywhere if Clinton hadn't lied under oath in a serious proceeding which he ultimately was forced to settle. Clinton intentionally committed a serious crime and I think it is hillarious how so many give him a pass (not talking about you now Pangloss). This is undisputed.

Despite the constant slander of the press and the left, I do not think Bush intentionally exaggerated intelligence information nor do I think the existence of WMDs at the precise moment of an invasion was particularly germane.

James Fallows, no fan of the Bush administration, thinks it is time to declare victory against al-Qaeda.

Mission accomplished?

Well said, Pangloss.

I wouldn't celebrate until you know whether or not the inaccuracies are true. I suspect they are. I suspect they hung onto their paid consultants' words' date=' just to find that they're not quite as reliable as you'd think.

 

And with the number of investigations and testimonies from people that all have something to lose, it's no wonder fabrications find their way into the script.

 

I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference though. Clinton clearly dropped the ball from the very beginning. There's no covering up all of his administration's and the democrats' mistakes or else there wouldn't be much of a movie left.

 

I'm still enjoying it myself a little though, regardless, because all I've heard from half the people I know - which are mainly liberals - is how so-and-so and so-and-so screwed up and blah blah blah concerning 9/11.

 

Hindsight is twenty-twenty, and we always seem to use it to hang somebody...[/quote']

 

It's a given that any movie based on any historical event will have inaccuracies. In this case, merely by focussing on the time frames involved (years of control for Clinton vrs. months for Bush), the movie will do a service to bring some rationality back into the national discussion.

I have to admit I am enjoying this immensely.

The ABC television network in the US is frantically re-editing its $40 million mini-series about September 11 amid a blistering backlash over fictional scenes that lay the blame on the Clinton administration.

How dare they suggest St. Bill might have some responsibility?

It will be interesting to learn to what extent ABC ultimately bows to the democrats. The dems problem is that it's impossible to do a story on the path to 9/11 which doesn't emphasis the multiple years of failure before Bush took office more than it does the eight months he had in office pre 9/11/01.

Note how Clinton used his charitable foundation to press his demand:

While Mr. Clinton has not commented publicly, a demand that ABC do still more came from his foundation, through which he advances his humanitarian work around the world.

The entire matter has me chortling in my margarita tonight.

How many times have we heard about the respected sanctified 9/11 commission report yet this film has the head of that commission as a paid consultant.

ABC is frantically recutting its $40 million miniseries about 9/11 amid a blistering backlash over fictional scenes that lay the blame on the Clinton administration.

Also feeling the heat was Scholastic, which yanked a classroom guide tie-in to the program.

 

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, the former head of the 9/11 commission and a paid consultant on the ABC miniseries, told the Daily News yesterday that some controversial scenes in "The Path to 9/11" were being removed or changed.

 

"ABC is telling me that the final version I'll be pleased with," said Kean, softening his own previous defense of the movie.

 

Unmollified, Democrats continued to demand that ABC yank the two-night docudrama that former President Bill Clinton's spokesman called "despicable." It is scheduled to start airing Sunday.

 

And Clinton's lawyer sent Kean a chiding letter expressing "shock" that a man so dedicated to accuracy had worked on a movie "that has been widely criticized for its libelous historical inaccuracies."

 

The chorus of outrage - ranging from Clinton cabinet members to liberal bloggers to 9/11 families to ordinary moms canceling trips to Disneyland - put ABC and parent company Disney under tremendous pressure just days before the movie's premiere.

*chortle*

Since this thread seems to have very little direction, let me ask a question. Would it be better or worse for world peace in the long term, if the state of Israel ceased to exist?

It depends on how the "state of Israel ceased to exist."

When I was a college debater a "few" years ago, one of the teams argued the US should surrender to the USSR. The resolution was something like "Resolved that the US should significantly increase its foreign military commitments." (Heh, googled that and I remembered it exactly!) An ivy league team argued that the US should not increase its commitments but should simply surrender. Communism would then moderate and show it's true benign face and everlasting world peace would ensue.

I personaly support due process and am against torture. If waterboarding is shown to be effective will most Americans support its us on "illegal combatants".

What due process should FDR have given Nazi spies in WWII?

As it happenened, he appointed a military commission which had them executed.

What do you think of President Lincoln's treatment of confederate spies?

Bush wants to eliminate Republican War Crimes Act Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act[/url']Says it was voted in by a Republican congress. How will they blame this on the libs?

It is possible there is more here than meets the eye. I wouldn't immediately accept the Washington Post or an opinion piece in The Nation as providing objective truth.