ABC 9/11 FAIRY TALE "The Path to 9/11"

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
censorship, censorship, censorship. poor madalyn, sandy, and bill....

Who is censoring?

 

[theeedude]

I aint watching no stinking ABC. Corporate media sucks.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
censorship, censorship, censorship. poor madalyn, sandy, and bill....

Since when is outing the truth considered censorship? Nobody's stopping ABC and Disney from air the show, but if you think others shouldn't be free to point out the factual errors in their fairytale, it sounds like you're the one in favor of censorship.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: randym431
Thats how this so called mini drama will play. So just keep in mind, if you bother to waste two nights watching this junket, keep in mind who wrote it, where it comes from and why its being aired, to play to the right wing nut cases.

So who wrote it?

 

[theeedude]

Shameful how ABC is exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 to score political points with conservatives.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Shameful how ABC is exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 to score political points with conservatives.

I find it ironic that so many people are bashing this miniseries without having seen it yet...and base their criticism on moans of foul play from former Clinton Administration officials.

Didn't some of you raise the same complaints against the Republicans bemoaning Michael Moore just a few short years ago for the same reasons.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Relax... ABC has cowed to the liberal crybabies...

Link

ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure

ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is quickly becoming a political cause célèbre.

The network has in recent days made changes to the film, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. Meanwhile, a left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the miniseries, while conservative blogs have launched a vigorous defense.


"The Path to 9/11," whose large ensemble includes Harvey Keitel and Patricia Heaton, offers a panoramic sweep of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The movie dramatizes what it deems intelligence and operational failures of the Clinton and Bush administrations, relying heavily on public records. Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 commission, served as a consultant.

After a screening of the first episode in Washington last week, some audience members attacked the film's depiction of the Clinton administration's pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Among those unhappy was Richard Ben-Veniste, an attorney and member of the 9/11 commission whom some conservatives have dismissed as a Democratic attack dog. Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, has criticized the movie for suggesting that the Clinton administration was in a position to capture Bin Laden in 1998 but canceled the mission at the last minute.

After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved.

"That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said, adding: "These are very slight alterations."

In addition, the network decided that the credits would say the film is based "in part" on the 9/11 commission report, rather than simply "based on" the bestselling report, as the producers originally intended.

ABC, meanwhile, is tip-toeing away from the film's version of events. In a statement, the network said the miniseries "is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews."

The statement adds: "The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it's not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate. The attacks were a pivotal moment in our history that should never be forgotten and it's fitting that the discussion continues."

None of ABC's moves is likely to quell the debate, however.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal advocacy group, said on Wednesday it had collected 25,000 letters asking ABC to either correct or cancel the miniseries. "The miniseries presents an agenda that blames the Clinton administration for the 9/11 attacks while ignoring numerous errors and failures of the Bush administration," the center said in a news release.

Probably won't do anything but make even more people pissed off. Oh well... Ratings!

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Shameful how ABC is exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 to score political points with conservatives.

I find it ironic that so many people are bashing this miniseries without having seen it yet...and base their criticism on moans of foul play from former Clinton Administration officials.

Didn't some of you raise the same complaints against the Republicans bemoaning Michael Moore just a few short years ago for the same reasons.

Well, ABC obviously has seen it, and it's doing last minute edits to the film, so obviously it doesn't even pass their own smell test. Shameful exploitation. May the 9/11 dead rest in peace undisturbed by ABC lies.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I aint watching no stinking ABC. Corporate media sucks.

:thumbsup:

Why anyone would watch this POS "docudrama" is beyond me... especially now that ABC admits it is going to alter the movie to suit Mr. Slick.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Relax... ABC has cowed to the liberal crybabies...

ABC are liberal crybabies. Singing to the choir is more appropriate.

I find it hilarious that the liberals who tout free speech are thrilled with such behavior.

 

[EagleKeeper]

So Moore's films are OK as a documentary but this has to be reclassified

".. a dramatization, not a documentary

Another double standard.

It seems that who-eer can scream the loudest gets their way.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
So Moore's films are OK as a documentary but this has to be reclassified

".. a dramatization, not a documentary

Another double standard.

It seems that who-eer can scream the loudest gets their way.

Because Michael Moore's films are documentaries, he's not acting out scenes that didn't happen pretending like it's based on some historical evidence.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Umm, Bush now had 5 years after 9/11 to get Bin Laden, with the full might of the US military and broad domestic and international support. And conserva-morons are blaming Clinton for not doing it with some missiles and special forces when noone really had appettite for a war in Afghanistan?

Ummm we haven't had a terror attack against a US target, outside of Iraq and Afganistan which are in wars, since 9-11.

Before 9-11 we were getting hit about once every year and a half. Since 9-11, not one attack.

Ex banned troll once again marginalized. :roll:

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
So Moore's films are OK as a documentary but this has to be reclassified

".. a dramatization, not a documentary

Another double standard.

It seems that who-eer can scream the loudest gets their way.

Because Michael Moore's films are documentaries, he's not acting out scenes that didn't happen pretending like it's based on some historical evidence.

You're talking about Michael Moore right? The fat guy who takes quotes out of context and uses video clips unrelated to the events he's discussing to emphasize a point? That Michael Moore?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Because Michael Moore's films are documentaries, he's not acting out scenes that didn't happen pretending like it's based on some historical evidence.

No, but Michael Moore does use creative editing to place historical footage out of context, and to paint a picture that meets the agenda of his films.

Documentaties are supposed to be factual in nature, not editorial...Michael Moore's world is as much fairytale as this ABC documentary allegedly is.

Well, ABC obviously has seen it, and it's doing last minute edits to the film, so obviously it doesn't even pass their own smell test. Shameful exploitation. May the 9/11 dead rest in peace undisturbed by ABC lies

And Michael Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, and is scheduled to release Fahrenheit 9/11&1/2 in time for the 2008 elections...convenient that his "documentaties" correlate to election years, just as this ABC drama does...shameful exploitation indeed.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

By those records it is ~52-48% to the Dems. Not quite the one sided favortism that you claim.

that's a little different from what you'd expect. usually corporations and such donate on a schedule fixing amounts based upon objective criteria such as tenure in office, what committees/subcommittees are chaired by a person, etc etc. considering that the dems have less of that, due to the fact that there are fewer dems in congress, you'd expect the donations to lean slightly republican.

of course, that's only top 10 recipients, so there are probably plenty of smaller donations to move the overall figure toward the republicans.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Because Michael Moore's films are documentaries, he's not acting out scenes that didn't happen pretending like it's based on some historical evidence.

No, but Michael Moore does use creative editing to place historical footage out of context, and to paint a picture that meets the agenda of his films.

Documentaties are supposed to be factual in nature, not editorial...Michael Moore's world is as much fairytale as this ABC documentary allegedly is.

Well, ABC obviously has seen it, and it's doing last minute edits to the film, so obviously it doesn't even pass their own smell test. Shameful exploitation. May the 9/11 dead rest in peace undisturbed by ABC lies

And Michael Moore released Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, and is scheduled to release Fahrenheit 9/11&1/2 in time for the 2008 elections...convenient that his "documentaties" correlate to election years, just as this ABC drama does...shameful exploitation indeed.

And so how many times has ABC aired Farenheit 9/11 and said it was historically based?

If a network TV station was going to air Farenheit 9/11 would conserative groups be whining?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: randym431
Not the same. This is 9/11, an attack on Americans. Why lie and try to rewrite the book of facts. Btw, ABC liberal??? Wasn?t it ABC that aired the junk against Kerry just before the election with statements from veterans that never actually served with Kerry, even though they said they did? ABC...??? Iraq...??? WMD...??? Facts or fiction...??? What do you want?
Michael Moore was about a sour election. The Path to 9/11 concerns deaths both 9/11 victims then and many many soldiers since.

People are going to watch this and think its fact. Thats sad...

its exactly the same as moores docudrama. Its Drama nothing else. And I can't tell you how many people I met that thought his movie was factual. The only difference is the dems are pushing for censorship of free speech now because thier on the recieving end.
I also find it amazing that all of this controversy is going on when ABC admits its not even done with it , and no one has seen it in its entirety.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Reminds me of the flap over the DiVinci Code

 

[Genx87]

lmfao at the libs on this movie.

 

[ProfJohn]

Well it now seems that the Democrats are sending a letter theatening Disney's broadcast license if they air this movie.

Here it is straight from a nice left wing blog so you can't accuse me of being biased.

"Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.

<text of letter here>

The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before."

Does anyone not see this as a problem? We have gone from "we don't like your movie" to "we are going to take away your license if you air this movie"

And people say that Bush is a threat to out freedoms? When has Bush threatened the New York Time, ABC, CBS or NBC for say things about him they don't like?



http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09...e-democratic-leadership-threatens.html

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Edit: Let's not forget that ABC is rather liberal and gives 66% of its campaign money to democrats.

Where do you get your information?

http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/...is/CompanyProfile.aspx?HOID=8034#Lobby

<Edited out long list>

By those records it is ~52-48% to the Dems. Not quite the one sided favortism that you claim.

Sadly I have yet to find the source of my information. It was an article about the "Path to 9-11" that pointed out how much money ABC or Disney had given to dems over Reps.

I will point out the following though:
Robert Iger, CEO of Disney, gives FAR FAR more money to Democrats.
Michael Eisner, former CEO, gave $40k to Republicans and $156k to Democrats

I don't think we have to debate whether Hollywood is liberal or conservative.


http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_det...y=Burbank&st=CA&last=Iger&first=Robert
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Michael_Eisner.php

 

[randym431]

Originally posted by: randym431

Thats how this so called mini drama will play. So just keep in mind, if you bother to waste two nights watching this junket, keep in mind who wrote it, where it comes from and why its being aired, to play to the right wing nut cases.

So who wrote it?

All I know is he is a right wing guy that is a good friend of Rush L.
Air America's Al Franken Show had a lot on this on his 9/6 radio show (you can get from their web site). The authors full name also.

This was written back after Bush won the 2004 election and Disney felt they had to step in line with the right wing agenda.
Things have changed since then (BOY HAVE THEY CHANGED!!) and now Disney is caught in the middle of a pile of horse poo.

Al Franken really takes this apart on his 9/6 radio show with guest. Worth the listening. He also exposes Rush L. "slip-up" in Rush's radio show when Rush states "in this docu there is an unbelievable scene - woops, scene that is about Clinton letting Bin Laden go".
Rush said it... "unbelievable scene".

Really... this is a fairy tale docu drama being pushed as fact. Schools are being told to record and show this to classes. They are trying to make fact out of a fairy tale. But now this has been exposed in the press and everyone has been warned. Thank goodness for that!

What gets me going is not only are or have they "tried" to put false blame on Clinton for Bush admin failures and deceit, but they are trying to cover the Bush admin flaws and incompetence. But.. GW... YOU'VE BEEN BUSTED!!!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Ah yes, when in doubt, blame Clinton for everything.
Never mind that Ashcroft didn't want to hear about Al Qaeda in 2001, maybe he was too busy covering nude statues.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/0...l-qaeda-in-high-threat-summer-of-2001/

Who is blaming Clinton for everything? There is blame enough for everyone. The problem is Clinton had 8 years to deal with Al-Qaeda, Bush had 8 months. Based on that it is hard to blame them equally.

But when Clinton actually tried to do something all the reps. started yelling "Wag the Dog!" I agree he didn't do enough, but the republicans put a quick stop to what he actually did attempt.

Here is a timeline of terror events, Clinton's responses and other notable events.

Feb. 26, 1993: First World Trade Center bombing
There is no military response.

June 25, 1996: The Khobar Towers are bombed killing 19.
There is no military response.

August 7, 1998: U.S. Embassy's in Tanzania and Kenya are bombed.
Aug. 17, 1998: President Bill Clinton becomes the first sitting president to testify before a grand jury investigating his conduct. After the questioning at the White House is finished, Clinton goes on national TV to admit he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Aug. 19, 1998: Word that Starr has requested and received a sample of Clinton's DNA becomes public.
Aug. 20, 1998: Monica Lewinsky testifies before the grand jury for a second time.
Aug. 20, 1998: The U.S. attacks targets in Sudan and Afghanistan.

Dec. 12, 1998: The House Judiciary Committee approves a fourth and final article of impeachment against President Clinton, accusing him of making false statements in his answers to written questions from Congress.
Dec. 15, 1998: UN inspector Richard Butler filed a report charging Iraq had failed to provide "full cooperation" with inspectors.
Dec. 16, 1998: In a coordinated strike, U.S. and British forces attack Iraq in retaliation for its failure to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. Because of the military action, House Republican leaders delay a planned impeachment debate and vote set to begin Thursday, December 17.
Dec. 17, 1998: Republicans reschedule the impeachment debate for December 18 over Democratic objections.
Dec. 19, 1998: After 13 1/2 hours of debate over two days, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment.
Dec. 19, 1998 at 1:25 PM The first article of Impeachment is approved.
Dec. 19, 1998 at 4:15 PM Clinton and Democratic house leaders hold "Impeachment 'pep' Rally on White House Lawn.
Dec. 19, 1998 at 6:00 PM Clinton makes a speech about the Iraq attacks saying among other things: "We began with this basic proposition: Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to develop nuclear arms, poison gas, biological weapons, or the means to deliver them. He has used such weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again." and "So long as Saddam remains in power he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world."

Oct. 12, 2000 USS Cole is attacked.
There is no military response.

Notice the pattern of behavior? Clinton responded with military action against terror attacks only 2 times as president, both while he was fighting impeachment.
Either Bill Clinton used military action to distract the country from his problems, or he has really bad timing.
There are studies that say his use of military action was probably not related to his other problems, but I think you can see by the timeline I present that the cries of "Wag the Dog" are not completely unfounded.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: randym431

Al Franken really takes this apart on his 9/6 radio show with guest. Worth the listening. He also exposes Rush L. "slip-up" in Rush's radio show when Rush states "in this docu there is an unbelievable scene - woops, scene that is about Clinton letting Bin Laden go".
Rush said it... "unbelievable scene".

Rush says "there is an unbelieveable scene" and you take it to mean that the scene can't be believed? Talk about reaching for straws.

So from now on when ever someone says "You're not going to believe what just happened to me" we can just ignore them because obviously we can't believe what they are about to tell us?