Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: PBS Frontline: Bush's War

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like

    PBS Frontline: Bush's War

    The best mass media journalism series in world news history has finally consolidated their body of works into one 3-hour epic.

    If you haven't watched it yet, and if you're being truly honest with yourself regarding the last 6 years and who said what to whom, you really should set aside the time. It's available onDemand, or any time PBS rehashes it. Or, just [URL="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/"][COLOR="Blue"]watch it on their Web site[/COLOR][/URL].

    [B][SIZE="6"]Bush's War:[/SIZE][/B]

    [URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=maOZwxVA3X4"].[/URL]


    Here's the [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/16/DI2008031602418.html"][COLOR="Blue"]producer's interview [/COLOR][/URL]about the release of the film as hosted by the Washington Post... including:

    [INDENT]Quebec City, QC: Mr. Kirk, are the interview candidates generally difficult to convince to do an interview? What kind of incentives can you provide them with? Thank you for an exquisite documentary.

    Michael Kirk: Thank you. We can never convince anyone to participate in our films. The best we can do is try to make it clear to them how important we think our projects are, and why their interview will be useful to getting the story before the American people. I always promise people their interviews will not be "gotcha"-driven or the typical talk-show "food fights". I try to give them the opportunity to clearly and cleanly tell us what they know in a fashion they can't do anywhere else (and that goes for both sides).[/INDENT]
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 03-30-2008 at 04:20 AM.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    Very well done, indeed. I always felt that if Bush had stuck with Afghanistan and done it right, he would have been measured as a very good president, despite his cluelessness. We would have believed once again that a guy who can't process the details and operates on his gut (Reagan, anyone?) and often gets the facts wrong, made the right decision. Instead, we see what a puppet of Cheney and Rumsfeld Bush has been. Some of you may be familiar with Lincoln's experience when he first came into office... Seward (who had been the front runner in the election for the Republicans before losing the nomination to Lincoln) made a move to usurp the presidency, in effect telling Lincoln "I'll handle things from here on, you just sit back." Lincoln swiftly put Seward in his proper place and asserted his leadership. Bush on the other hand, gave the whole chicken farm to the stronger egos of Cheney and Rumsfeld. This is THEIR war really, not Bush's. He wasn't and isn't a man of any vision at all, even a bad one. He's just a stooge.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is this the series where Phil Donahue was being interviewed? I saw that in the first five seconds, thought, "well, this is biased and funded by the American public", and switched the channel.

    It may very well be an excellent piece, but there was no way that I was going to sit through the whole thing to find out. Maybe if there were people who at least didn't immediately come across as biased, I would have watched it.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=LyonMtJet;2456811][B]Is this the series where Phil Donahue was being interviewed? [/B] I saw that in the first five seconds, thought, "well, this is biased and funded by the American public", and switched the channel.

    It may very well be an excellent piece, but there was no way that I was going to sit through the whole thing to find out. Maybe if there were people who at least didn't immediately come across as biased, I would have watched it.[/QUOTE]


    No.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=LyonMtJet;2456811]Is this the series where Phil Donahue was being interviewed? I saw that in the first five seconds, thought, "well, this is biased and funded by the American public", and switched the channel.

    It may very well be an excellent piece, but there was no way that I was going to sit through the whole thing to find out. Maybe if there were people who at least didn't immediately come across as biased, I would have watched it.[/QUOTE]

    Good one.

    I've never seen Donahue in any Frontline piece, and I believe I've seen them all. At least, all those related to Iraq. However, here's a few names that DO appear in Frontline interviews:

    Bremmer, Armitage, Yoo, Garner, Wilkerson, Clarke, Mueller, Rice, Zelikow, Blackwill, Goldsmith, Musharraf, Chalabi, Blix, Graham, Ritter,

    as well as [URL="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/interviews/h.html"][COLOR="Blue"]CIAs [/COLOR][/URL]Cofer Black, David Kay, Gary Bernsten, Paul Piller, John McLaughlin, Bob Baer, Vincent Cannistraro, and on and on and on and on and on...

    So, yes, ... Must just be a big "liberal hit piece" with no basis in fact.

    Of course, the Dynamic Duo -- Cheney/Rummy -- never agree to be interviewed.
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 04-01-2008 at 03:12 PM.

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,988
    Post Thanks / Like
    Watched it on the Sunday it came out, and it highlights how poor of a job Rumsfeld and Bremer especially did at handling the immediate post-invasion occupation. The part about General Ricardo Sanchez's inexperience when he was nominated amazed me most. That being said we must have a plan in place to keep the elected government afloat when we leave, if the ISF must purge its enemies and sympathizers brutally to keep Baghdad from falling to the militias or insurgents then they must as their officers have shown an inability to plan complex military maneuvers or assaults and their loyalty is suspect. Perhaps it will take another modern day Grozny for these militiamen and foreign fighters to end their operations and submit to the government. We cannot allow another Lebanon-like situation to remain after we leave as that will invite another attack on American military personnel in the Middle East or perhaps in this country.
    Last edited by XingDaorong; 04-01-2008 at 03:23 PM.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,988
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2456129]Very well done, indeed. I always felt that if Bush had stuck with Afghanistan and done it right, he would have been measured as a very good president, despite his cluelessness. We would have believed once again that a guy who can't process the details and operates on his gut (Reagan, anyone?) and often gets the facts wrong, made the right decision. Instead, we see what a puppet of Cheney and Rumsfeld Bush has been. Some of you may be familiar with Lincoln's experience when he first came into office... Seward (who had been the front runner in the election for the Republicans before losing the nomination to Lincoln) made a move to usurp the presidency, in effect telling Lincoln "I'll handle things from here on, you just sit back." Lincoln swiftly put Seward in his proper place and asserted his leadership. Bush on the other hand, gave the whole chicken farm to the stronger egos of Cheney and Rumsfeld. This is THEIR war really, not Bush's. He wasn't and isn't a man of any vision at all, even a bad one. He's just a stooge.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not entirely sure about that yet, Bush had a personal vendetta against Saddam since H.W stopped short of Baghdad in the First Gulf War and since the Iraqi Mukhabarat (intelligence services) tried to kill H.W with a car bomb in Kuwait back in '93. The extent of Bush's influence and control will be better known a decade after the fact, sort of like the books that have been written about Nixon's tenure in office recently.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,280
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2456082]The best mass media journalism series in world news history has finally consolidated their body of works into one 3-hour epic.

    If you haven't watched it yet, and if you're being truly honest with yourself regarding the last 6 years and who said what to whom, you really should set aside the time. It's available onDemand, or any time PBS rehashes it. Or, just [URL="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/"][COLOR="Blue"]watch it on their Web site[/COLOR][/URL].

    [B][SIZE="6"]Bush's War:[/SIZE][/B]

    [URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=maOZwxVA3X4"].[/URL]


    Here's the [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/16/DI2008031602418.html"][COLOR="Blue"]producer's interview [/COLOR][/URL]about the release of the film as hosted by the Washington Post... including:

    [INDENT]Quebec City, QC: Mr. Kirk, are the interview candidates generally difficult to convince to do an interview? What kind of incentives can you provide them with? Thank you for an exquisite documentary.

    Michael Kirk: Thank you. We can never convince anyone to participate in our films. The best we can do is try to make it clear to them how important we think our projects are, and why their interview will be useful to getting the story before the American people. I always promise people their interviews will not be "gotcha"-driven or the typical talk-show "food fights". I try to give them the opportunity to clearly and cleanly tell us what they know in a fashion they can't do anywhere else (and that goes for both sides).[/INDENT][/QUOTE]
    completely unbiased??...yeah right.left wing garbage.clinton closed his eyes while a million people(rawanda,bosnia,iraq) were murdered.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    This must've been like porn for Press_Coverage.


    But, not really anything new was presented.

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,988
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2459841]completely unbiased??...yeah right.left wing garbage.clinton closed his eyes while a million people(rawanda,bosnia,iraq) were murdered.[/QUOTE]

    [B]1.5 million[/B] actually. Oh and let's not forget the war that started in the Congo that has killed [B]5 million[/B] since 1997. Or the Algerian Civil War that lasted ten years ('92-'02) and left [B]160,000[/B] dead. Or the Somali Civil War which has lasted since Clinton turned a famine relief mission into a search and destroy mission in '93 and then withdrew U.S forces entirely ([B]400,000[/B] dead so far with more bodies piling up). Or how about the two year war between Ethiopia and Eritrea ('98-'00) where over [B]100,000[/B] were killed? Or the Angolan Civil War ([B]500,000[/B] dead) which lasted for 27 years until it ended in '02?

    Well I guess there was the Indonesian war in East Timor where [B]100,000[/B] were killed, oh wait Clinton helped the Indonesian Army in that process by selling them weaponry...

    You have it all wrong, Clinton never started, aided, or ignored mass murder he was a great president and everything was fine back in the nineties.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2459849]This must've been like porn for Press_Coverage.


    But, not really anything new was presented.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, I'm quite sure you knew everything in the 3-hour piece.

    As for you others, what does Bill Clinton have to do with "Bush's War" on PBS? What is "left wing biased" about interviews with guys like Armitage, Wilkerson and Bremmer? Just curious.

    Does the spin ever stop?

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Frontline has more shows about Iraq than any other topic.


    A year or two ago, they had one titled, "Rumsfelds' War".

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,376
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2460803]Frontline has more shows about Iraq than any other topic.


    A year or two ago, they had one titled, "Rumsfelds' War".[/QUOTE]

    And last night I watched one called "Bad Voodoo's War"...

    It was about the worlds most highly trained trucking company...the US Army. :rolleyes:

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2459849]This must've been like porn for Press_Coverage.


    But, not really anything new was presented.[/QUOTE]

    No, Oliver Stone's upcoming movie The Life Story Of George W Bush will be like porn to Press_Coverage.

    I'm sure he'll orgaz in the theater. Probably in his popcorn.....

  15. #15
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    358
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2460090]Yes, I'm quite sure you knew everything in the 3-hour piece.

    As for you others, what does Bill Clinton have to do with "Bush's War" on PBS? What is "left wing biased" about interviews with guys like Armitage, Wilkerson and Bremmer? Just curious.

    Does the spin ever stop?[/QUOTE]

    PBS just has no credibility any more as being unbiased. From your side of the aisle, would you believe a Fox News documentary?

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2461105]No, Oliver Stone's upcoming movie The Life Story Of George W Bush will be like porn to Press_Coverage.

    I'm sure he'll orgaz in the theater. Probably in his popcorn.....[/QUOTE]

    Are you speaking for me, you unrivalled fraud? I'm not a big Oliver Stone fan, and never announced that I enjoyed any of his films, so please do yourself the favor of S'ingTFU...

    Now watch me get a week off for calling a spade a spade, while you'll have carte blanche to continue running your mouth.

    [QUOTE=LyonMtJet;2461195]PBS just has no credibility any more as being unbiased. From your side of the aisle, would you believe a Fox News documentary?[/QUOTE]

    Again, I'll ask. What is biased about the direct quotes of people like Bremmer, Wilkerson, Pillar, and Chalabi? What is "biased" about the public factual record? Did Frontline somehow conjure up those statements? You people just don't seem to get it, do you?

    As for Fix News, well... If they EVER put forth a journalistic series that included direct statements from their mortal enemy -- the Clinton Administration -- that proved they committed fraud, negligence and countless other forms of malfeasance in regards to this "War on Terror", then I'd certainly give it creedance and not run around denying the facts for no apparent reason. Unfortunately for your argument, Fox isn't capable of that kind of work.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2461631]Are you speaking for me, you unrivalled fraud?[/QUOTE]

    [b]Yes[/b]

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2461656][b]Yes[/b][/QUOTE]

    Ok, well, I'll let you get back to making up shyt and attributing it to others... It's what you people do.

  19. #19
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    358
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2461631]Are you speaking for me, you unrivalled fraud? I'm not a big Oliver Stone fan, and never announced that I enjoyed any of his films, so please do yourself the favor of S'ingTFU...

    Now watch me get a week off for calling a spade a spade, while you'll have carte blanche to continue running your mouth.



    Again, I'll ask. What is biased about the direct quotes of people like Bremmer, Wilkerson, Pillar, and Chalabi? What is "biased" about the public factual record? Did Frontline somehow conjure up those statements? You people just don't seem to get it, do you?

    As for Fix News, well... If they EVER put forth a journalistic series that included direct statements from their mortal enemy -- the Clinton Administration -- that proved they committed fraud, negligence and countless other forms of malfeasance in regards to this "War on Terror", then I'd certainly give it creedance and not run around denying the facts for no apparent reason. Unfortunately for your argument, Fox isn't capable of that kind of work.[/QUOTE]

    The point was that PBS has such a biased image that I wouldn't want to waste my time watching every one of their documentaries in hopes that one of them is actually fair. If you don't know what this means, then please re-read the story about the little boy who cries wolf.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=LyonMtJet;2461838]The point was that PBS has such a biased image that I wouldn't want to waste my time watching every one of their documentaries in hopes that one of them is actually fair. If you don't know what this means, then please re-read the story about the little boy who cries wolf.[/QUOTE]

    In other words, you have absolutely no factual basis that any of the Frontline pieces are "biased," ... You just feel that they are because they're coincidentally unflattering for the Bush Administration. Gotcha.

    Well, blame Boy King and his henchmen. It's not biased if a news report displays your heroes themselves ultimately saying "we were lying." It's simply a news report you don't like to acknowledge.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us