The Biggest Political Baby of All Time: William Jefferson Blythe Clinton

[PittsburghAfterDark]

BUBBA GOES BALLISTIC ON ABC
ABOUT ITS DAMNING 9/11
MOVIE

INSISTS NET PULL DRAMA

By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

September 7, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.
Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.

The movie is set to air on Sunday and Monday nights. Monday is the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

Based on the 9/11 commission's report, the miniseries is also being provided to high schools as a teaching aid - although ABC admits key scenes are dramatizations.

The letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton's office, accuses the ABC drama of "bias" and a "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."

Clinton, whose aides first learned from a TV trailer about a week ago that the miniseries would slam his administration, was "surprised" and "incredulous" when told about the film's slant, sources said.

Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger also dashed off letters to Iger, accusing the network of lying in the miniseries and demanding changes.

ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan last night defended the miniseries as a "dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews."

"Many of the people who have expressed opinions about the film have yet to see it in its entirety or in its final broadcast form," he said. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast before forming their own opinion."

Executive producer Marc Platt told The Washington Post that he worked "very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously of concern. We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view."

The miniseries' creator and the 9/11 panel's former co-chairman, Tom Kean, who was a paid adviser on the film, said some scenes are made up and plan to include a statement at the show's beginning.

In the movie, FBI anti-terror agent John O'Neill, played by Harvey Keitel, and a composite CIA operative named Kirk grouse about bureaucratic red tape following a meeting with Berger and Albright.

"How do you win a law-and-orderly war?" Kirk asks.

"You don't," O'Neill snaps.

The movie then cuts immediately to a newsreel close-up of Clinton insisting he did "not have sex with that woman" - Monica Lewinsky.

Although the movie thrust Lewinsky into the mix as a White House distraction, the 9/11 commission's report found Clinton was "deeply concerned about bin Laden" and that he received daily reports "on bin Laden's reported location," Clinton's letter notes.

In another scene, CIA operatives working with Afghani anti-al Qaeda fighter Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance who was assassinated by bin Laden days before 9/11, gather on a hill near bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms - the terror thug easily in their grasp.

"It's perfect for us," says Kirk, a composite character played by Donnie Wahlberg. But the team aborts the mission when an actor portraying Berger tells them he can't authorize a strike.

"I don't have that authority," the Berger character says.

"Are there any men in Washington," Massoud asks Kirk later in the film, "or are they all cowards?"

The reps for an outraged Clinton wrote to Iger that "no such episode ever occurred - nor did anything like it."

The 9/11 commission report echoes his denial, and found that Clinton's Cabinet gave "its blessing" for a CIA plan to capture bin Laden and determined that ex-CIA Director George Tenet squashed the plan.

The third contested scene focuses on Albright, who is depicted alerting Pakistani officials in advance of a 1998 U.S. missile strike against bin Laden in Afghanistan - over the objections of the Pentagon. The movie claims the tip-off allowed bin Laden to escape.

But the 9/11 commission reported that it was a member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff - not Albright - who met with a senior Pakistani Army official prior to the strike to "assure him the missiles were not coming from India."
Link (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/bubba_goes_ballistic_on_abc_about_its_damning_9_11 _movie_nationalnews_ian_bishop_________post_corres pondent.htm)

What an everloving a-hole Clinton remains.

I want to know where President Bush's 4 page letter to Farenheit 9/11's distributor and studio is. I want to know where President Bush's 4 page letter to theater chains is that showed that piece of garbage. I'd like to see where the President Bush sent a 4 page letter to major retailers demanding they not sell the DVD is. I'd love to know where that same 4 page letter might be threatening Blockbuster or Hollywood Video is.

Clinton, thy name is pussy.

Clinton, thy legacy is 9/11.

[Labrocca]

Clintons legacy is well...it's Clinton. It's about his own self worth as a President. He was and is very concerned about his popularity.

[Drocket]

Yeah, he's unhappy just because they made a movie pretending to be a documentary that contains scenes that are entirely fictional with the deliberate intention of slandering him. What an a-hole, huh?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You're also delusional Drocket.

ABC is calling it a dramatization with ACTORS, not a documentary.

Now, get back to us when you've confronted reality head on.

http://www.communistsforkerry.com/images/Seenoevil_large.jpg

[Rider]

I have to admit that I'm dumbfounded that ABC would turn on Clinton. I know that the head of the news division there was in pretty tight with the Clintons. PAD has it right, though. This is going to be tame compared with Michael Moore's bullsh1t, right Drocket?

[Drocket]

ABC is calling it a dramatization with ACTORS, not a documentary.

*NOW* they're calling it a dramatization, after massive outcry and threats of boycotts from left-leaning blogs and organizations. It was originally advertised as a 'dramatized documentary', then later a 'docu-drama'. They also claimed that it was based on Congress's 9/11 report, despite the fact that it contains information that the report specifically disproves. They're also sending tens of thousands of free copies of the film to schools for 'educational purposes', as well as deciding to show the movie commercial free because of its 'historical value'.

This isn't a movie: this is propoganda.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Oh yes.... oh yes, the dreaded blogs of sanity!

Do you think any viewer out there would think Harvey Keitel was actually a member of a Clinton era government?

Yes or no.

[Drocket]

This is going to be tame compared with Michael Moore's bullsh1t, right Drocket?

Its rather amusing that you'd mention Michael Moore, as in 2004, ABC chose not to run Fahrenheit 9/11 because they 'didn't want to air politically oriented movies' during the election season for fear of influencing voters (its worth noting that although Fahrenheit 9/11 is heavily slanted in the liberal direction in how it presents information, the information presented is also entirely accurate.) They also pulled a movie about Reagan, not because it was inaccurate in any way, but because it wasn't sufficiently flattering. Yet they plan to air a movie containing outright falsehoods to slander Democrats during an election season. ABC/Disney seems to have decided which side their bread is buttered on.

[Drocket]

Do you think any viewer out there would think Harvey Keitel was actually a member of a Clinton era government?

What a stupid argument.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Yes, or no.

[dsanthony]

Clinton knows that history will display him as a sexual predator, and correctly relate that he missed the boat on terrorism. He is naturally cowardly (Liberal) and that personality flaw was exacerbated by his legal troubles over inappropriate sexual conduct in his office. He was too occupied with trying to save his presidency, and too afraid that a strike against Bin Laden or Al Quaeda would be seen as attempt to "wag the dog" and change the story from his predation...

He was a failure as a president. He is a failure as an ex-president.

[Drocket]

No, they want. They will, however, believe that he's an actor portraying a member of the Clinton administration who is acting out a scene that's roughly historically accurate. The scene, however, is a complete fabrication that was written for the specific purpose of slandering Clinton.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Ah okay, so no viewer will mistake Harvey Keitel as a government official.


*NOW* they're calling it a dramatization, after massive outcry and threats of boycotts from left-leaning blogs and organizations.??It was originally advertised as a 'dramatized documentary', then later a 'docu-drama'.


Now, how will they confuse it with a documentary?

[Rider]

Drocket wrote- Its rather amusing that you'd mention Michael Moore, as in 2004, ABC chose not to run Fahrenheit 9/11 because they 'didn't want to air politically oriented movies' during the election season for fear of influencing voters (its worth noting that although Fahrenheit 9/11 is heavily slanted in the liberal direction in how it presents information, the information presented is also entirely accurate.) They also pulled a movie about Reagan, not because it was inaccurate in any way, but because it wasn't sufficiently flattering. Yet they plan to air a movie containing outright falsehoods to slander Democrats during an election season. ABC/Disney seems to have decided which side their bread is buttered on.
My point was that this piece would be tame in comparison to F911. And, like most conspiracy theories it is full of true facts... edited, chopped up and "cut and pasted" together to tell a preposterous lie.
According to dozens of people who knew Reagan and worked for him the piece on him was very inaccurate.
To sum up, I don't like "hit pieces". Like a kid's shoving match, they escalate into fights that serve no purpose.

[Drocket]

Now, how will they confuse it with a documentary?

How about because its been advertised as a 'docu-drama'? Or because the movie claims to be based on Congress's 9/11 report? There's also the fact that up until a couple of days ago, ABC had a website up pushing the movie as a 'historical drama' (the site has since been pulled because of the controversy. Never-the-less, the site was publicly advertised and visited by who-knows-how many people who believe the movie is historically accurate because they've been explicitely told that it is.) And again, the movie is also being pushed as 'educational material' for schoolchildren.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Yes, many viewers will assume that Harvey Keitel is indeed a historical figure in a docu drama.

I can see the problem clearly now.

Actors = real

[Drocket]

Yes, many viewers will assume that Harvey Keitel is indeed a historical figure in a docu drama.

When the actor is playing a real-world person in a movie supposedly based on historical events, a movie that claims to be a dramatization of a Congressional report, then yes, they're going to assume that what that actor does is roughly historically accurate.

And you know this. And so do the people who made this movie. And that's EXACTLY why it was made.

[BoogyMan]

Yeah, he's unhappy just because they made a movie pretending to be a documentary that contains scenes that are entirely fictional with the deliberate intention of slandering him.??What an a-hole, huh???


Hey Drocket, havent seen you in a while.


So exactly how do we know that these scenes are fictional? Ohh, bubba says so. This is amusing, most of those up in arms about this probably own their very own, well watched and worn version of Farenheit 9/11.

[dsanthony]

Of course the scenes and dialogue are fictional. But the truth they represent is pretty accurate. Clinton missed the opportunity to kill or capture Bin Laden, and failed to recognize the danger his organization posed, even after 4 attacks. And, he was consumed by the impeachment and wanker-gate. He should have stepped aside to save the country from that process, and to ensure the president was focused on national security.

[lily]

BoogyMan




So exactly how do we know that these scenes are fictional???Ohh, bubba says so.??This is amusing, most of those up in arms about this probably own their very own, well watched and worn version of Farenheit 9/11.


Well, it actually isn't just Bubba saying it. Allbright, Clarke, Tenet and the 911 commision is also saying it.

Personally I have no problem with ABC showing it. Although as mentioned, it is rather hypocritical of them. I'm not for censoring period. People have the choice to watch it or not. I'll save my criticism until after I've watched it.

What I do have a problem with is, ABC handing it out to schools as historical fact. But on the other hand, I have faith in the school system. If they choose to use it, students can then decide, after reading what really happened what they choose to believe and what they don't. Could be they might learn something.

[BoogyMan]

Well, it actually isn't just Bubba saying it. Allbright, Clarke, Tenet and the 911 commision is also saying it.

Personally I have no problem with ABC showing it. Although as mentioned, it is rather hypocritical of them. I'm not for censoring period. People have the choice to watch it or not. I'll save my criticism until after I've watched it.

What I do have a problem with is, ABC handing it out to schools as historical fact. But on the other hand, I have faith in the school system. If they choose to use??it, students can then decide, after reading what really happened what they choose to believe and what they don't. Could be they might learn something.

It IS bubba and his cronies saying it.??The 9/11 commission report has been bandied about a good bit today but the comission has come out and said nothing.??Minor points have been made from the report, but don't try to make it sound like the 9/11 commission is out there making statements.

Makes you wonder about a group of people who will hond up Sandy Berger as a credible person after her stole material from the national archives to cover his huge derrier.

[BoogyMan]

Wow, a new twist from the democrats.

Link Here (http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&)

This is the equivalent of saying "You have a nice network there, it would be a shame if something BAD happened to it!"

SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP URGES DISNEY CEO TO CANCEL MISLEADING 9/11 MINISERIES

Washington, DC ? Urging him to cancel the grossly inaccurate upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11, the Senate Democratic Leadership today sent the following letter to Disney President and CEO Robert Iger. Disney?s subsidiary ABC erroneously claims the misleading miniseries is based on 9/11 Commission report and is planning to air it on September 10 and 11. Shockingly, the network is also planning to use the program as a teaching tool through Scholastic, potentially misinforming thousands of children about the most important event in recent American history.


The text of the letter, signed by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, and Senators Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, and Byron Dorgan, is below.



September 7, 2006


Mr. Robert A. Iger

President and CEO

The Walt Disney Company

500 South Buena Vista Street

Burbank CA 91521


Dear Mr. Iger,


We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney?s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.


The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.


Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, ?When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.?


Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.


Despite claims by your network?s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.



Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, ?As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission?s findings the way that they had.? [?9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,? New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as ?deeply flawed? and said of the program?s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, ?It?s 180 degrees from what happened.? [?9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,? New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, ?he thought they were making things up.? [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [?9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,? New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.


These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.


Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.


As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, ?It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why ? so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.?


Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.



Sincerely,


Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Byron Dorgan

[lily]

boogyman

It IS bubba and his cronies saying it. The 9/11 commission report has been bandied about a good bit today but the comission has come out and said nothing. Minor points have been made from the report, but don't try to make it sound like the 9/11 commission is out there making statements.

From your own article:

Despite claims by your network?s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.


Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, ?As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission?s findings the way that they had.? [?9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,? New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as ?deeply flawed? and said of the program?s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, ?It?s 180 degrees from what happened.? [?9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,? New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, ?he thought they were making things up.? [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [?9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,? New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

Makes you wonder about a group of people who will hond up Sandy Berger as a credible person after her stole material from the national archives to cover his huge derrier.

Nice strawman argument.

[BoogyMan]

boogyman

It IS bubba and his cronies saying it.??The 9/11 commission report has been bandied about a good bit today but the comission has come out and said nothing.??Minor points have been made from the report, but don't try to make it sound like the 9/11 commission is out there making statements.

From your own article:

Despite claims by your network?s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.


Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, ?As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission?s findings the way that they had.? [?9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,? New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as ?deeply flawed? and said of the program?s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, ?It?s 180 degrees from what happened.? [?9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,? New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Nice strawman argument.

Nice try on your part Lily as Richard Ben-Veniste and Richard Clarke are BOTH partisan rock tossers and you know it. The only place where either of those two are revered is on the left of center blogs and left-wing web sites. Plus you tried to make it sound as if the commission itself was out there repudiating this film, not just Ben-Veniste. This kind of misdirection is beneath you.

[lily]

Nice try on your part Lily as Richard Ben-Veniste and Richard Clarke are BOTH partisan rock tossers and you know it. The only place where either of those two are revered is on the left of center blogs and left-wing web sites. Plus you tried to make it sound as if the commission itself was out there repudiating this film, not just Ben-Veniste. This kind of misdirection is beneath you.

9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

This is your own article. I didn't need to do any research. Like I said in my original post.....I have no problem with this movie being shown on TV. In fact I have my TIVO set. ABC itself said it was still being edited. I'll wait for the discussion after the film. I can't possibly see how I can discuss something I haven't even watched. I'll gladly discuss the "facts" and the facts when I watch the movie.

[BoogyMan]

This is your own article. I didn't need to do any research. Like I said in my original post.....I have no problem with this movie being shown on TV. In fact I have my TIVO set. ABC itself said it was still being edited. I'll wait for the discussion after the film. I can't possibly see how I can discuss something I haven't even watched. I'll gladly discuss the "facts" and the facts when I watch the movie.

Who are those "commissioners" Lily? Have you been watching the news? Ben-Veniste is an ABJECT partisan with much to gain from obfuscation of the type in which he is currently involved.

The point was the commission is not involved as you originally intimated, but a couple of the commissioners (1 only just) ARE talking about it.

BTW: I love TIVO, don't know how we lived without it!

[lily]

Who are those "commissioners" Lily???Have you been watching the news???Ben-Veniste is an ABJECT partisan with much to gain from obfuscation of the type in which he is currently involved.
You know......I was curious about Ben-Veniste and your remark that he is a partisan rock tosser. I really don't know much about him, so I checked Wiki. Seems he is a bi-partisan equal opportunity rock tosser.


Richard Ben-Veniste (born January 3, 1943), a member of the 9/11 Commission, is known for his pointed questions and criticisms of members of both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

The point was the commission is not involved as you originally intimated, but a couple of the commissioners (1 only just) ARE talking about it.
The only thing I did, was quote from the article you posted.

BTW:??I love TIVO, don't know how we lived without it!

I'm ashamed to admit, that I have two!

[Labrocca]

Odd the Democrats are so scared of this. When Michael Moore released his movie lots of Republicans were pissed but I don't recall an official letter from the GOP or the President.

What a bunch of cry babies.

[dsanthony]

clinton is really just up to his old tricks. As he did with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, Clinton is trying to avoid being held responsible for his actions by going on the attack. This is a blatant power play and an attempt to stifle free speech. All we need is Carville going on Meet the Press and calling Patricia Heaton "trailer park trash" to make the analogy complete.

[lily]

Odd the Democrats are so scared of this. When Michael Moore released his movie lots of Republicans were pissed but I don't recall an official letter from the GOP or the President.

What a bunch of cry babies.


Scared? From what I've been hearing, it's not scared, it's just wanting to get the facts straight. If it was just Clinton saying the facts weren't right, then I'd agree with you, but others that were there are also saying things were made up. As I said, I'll wait until I watch it, before I can honestly debate it. I am a bit upset though, I had to change my TIVO setting on Monday, because Bush asked for national TV time to commerate 911, which if I have my times right, will be somewhere in the middle of the movie. While on the subject of 911........questions were asked when United 93 and The World Trade Center came out......was it too soon? I have to ask the question.......if this movie distorts the facts, is it too soon to re-write history?

As for an official letter from the Republicans, it's been so long that I can't remember and doing a short google didn't find any letter, but to make people think that the Republicans weren't upset about F911, is rather bending the truth, isn't it?

There were many fallacies in F911, which sparked tons of debate on many forums. I look forward to watching The Path to 911 and if the same is true, debating that also.

[BoogyMan]

Scared? From what I've been hearing, it's not scared, it's just wanting to get the facts straight. If it was just Clinton saying the facts weren't right, then I'd agree with you, but others that were there are also saying things were made up. As I said, I'll wait until I watch it, before I can honestly debate it. I am a bit upset though, I had to change my TIVO setting on Monday, because Bush asked for national TV time to commerate 911, which if I have my times right, will be somewhere in the middle of the movie.??While on the subject of 911........questions were asked when United 93 and The World Trade Center came out......was it too soon? I have to ask the question.......if this movie distorts the facts, is it too soon to re-write history?

As for an official letter from the Republicans, it's been so long that I can't remember and doing a short google didn't find any letter, but to make people think that the Republicans weren't upset about F911, is rather bending the truth, isn't it?

There were many fallacies in F911, which sparked tons of debate on many forums. I look forward to watching The Path to 911 and if the same is true, debating that also.


Lily, you cannot be as blind as this post would indicate. You think Farenheit 9/11 or that Reagan hit piece were accurate and without distortion. This is just the liberals turn to squirm. No-one has said that the republicans were not upset, they said that the republicans didn't try to have Farenheit 9/11 censored.

DID YOU ASK IF IT WAS TOO SOON TO REWRITE HISTORY WITH FARENHEIT 911 OR THE REAGAN MOVIE?

Egads

[lily]

You think Farenheit 9/11 or that Reagan hit piece were accurate and without distortion.

I guess you missed this part:

There were many fallacies in F911, which sparked tons of debate on many forums.


Also....don't forget to adjust your TIVO.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Dear Bob,

Despite press reports that ABC/Disney has made changes in the content and marketing of "The Path to 9/11," we remailn concerned about the false impression that airing the show will leave on the public. Labelng the show as "fiction" does not meet your responsibility to the victims of the September 11th attacks, their families, the hard work of the 9/11 Commission, or to the American people as a whole.

At a moment when we should be debating how to make the nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, "The Path to 9/11" calls into question the accuracy of the Commission's report and whether fabricated scenes are, in fact, an accurate portrayal of history. Indeed, the millions spent on the production of this fictional drama would have been better spent informing the public about the Commission's actual findings and the many recommendations that have yet to be acted upon. Unlike this film, that would have been a tremendous service to the public.

Although our request for an advance copy of the film has been repeatedly denied, it is all too clear that our objections to "The Path to 9/11" are valid and corroborated by those familiar with the film and intimately involved in its production.

-- Your corporate partner, Scholastic, has disassociated itself from this proect.

-- 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, who served as co-executive producer on "The Path to 9/11," has stated that he raised concerns about the accuracy of several scenes in the film and that his concerns were not addressed during production.

-- Harvey Keitel, who plays the star role of FBI agent John O'Neill, told reporters yesterday that while the screenplay was presented to him as a fair treatment of historical events, he is upset that several scenes were simply invented for dramatic purposes.

-- Numerous Members of Congress, several 9/11 Commissioners and prominent historians have spoken out against this movie.

-- Indeed, according to press reports, the fact that you are still editing the film two days before it is scheduled to air is an admission that it is irreparably flawed.

As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. "The Path to 9/11" not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film.

Sincerely,

Bruce R. Lindsey
Chief Executive Officer
William J. Clinton Foundation

Douglas J. Band
Counselor to President Clinton
Office of William Jefferson Clinton
Link (http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/09/in_new_letter_clintons_lawyer_demands_abc_yank_fil m)

It's a blog so who knows what the accuracy level of this may be.

Clintoon is back to his totalitarian Stalinist tactics. Lie, threaten, deceive, veiled implications or "harm" yadda yadda yadda.

What's so stupid on his part is until Wednesday there was no mention of this film. I didn't know it was airing. I didn't know it was airing without commercials. I didn't know who was in it or anything else about this film.

Seemingly no one else did either until Rush Limbaugh mentioned he had received an early DVD of it and commented on it on the air.

Now the question isn't "Is ABC accurate or inaccurate?" it's "Why are Democrats and the Clintoons so pissed over this?".

This anger is not about two or three inaccurate scenes over a 5 hour movie. There's just no f'in way. Sandy Burglar hanging up a phone? Madeline Notsobright making a 6 word historically inaccurate quote?

These aren't things you threaten to have a movie pulled over. They're minor and most viewers won't even have those two or three scenes burned in their minds. Besides, here's the other thing.... they have nothing to do witn Clintoon himself.

So why the abject fear? Why the threats? Why the pressure?

Because no one in the dinosaur media has ever made a half assed attempt to investigate Clintoon's history with OBL, which, for the unitiated was abysmal.

History won't bend under legal threat Mr. Clintoon and the more you and yours protest the more the American people ask "What's he trying to hide?".

An absolute pussified Democratic party using the worst of dictatorial threats in a most public manner I have ever seen.

[lily]

What's so stupid on his part is until Wednesday there was no mention of this film. I didn't know it was airing. I didn't know it was airing without commercials. I didn't know who was in it or anything else about this film.

I have had my TIVO set for two weeks. I hate to keep repeating myself, but I look forward to discussing the "facts" and the facts, just as much as I did with F911. I hope ABC doesn't cave in. When which ever channel did with the Reagan film, I just watched it on cable. If ABC does cave, I'm sure the same opportunity will be available.

Let's face it.....both parties are making political hay over this.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

BS Lily.

One party is making political hay over this.

Republicans have said nothing.

[lily]

PAD.......why should they? They're getting the attention regardless. Last word on this subject, because I seem to be just repeating myself. I'll wait until the movie comes out, and then discuss it. I think I can wait until tomorrow.;)

[Labrocca]

As for an official letter from the Republicans, it's been so long that I can't remember and doing a short google didn't find any letter, but to make people think that the Republicans weren't upset about F911, is rather bending the truth, isn't it?

Read my post lily..I said..

...Republicans were pissed but I don't recall an official letter...

So you are just agreeing with me. Sure the Dems have a right to get pissy about it...but an official letter from the Party and the Ex-President? That's a bit much don't you think? They can easily contest the material in the media the same the Republicans did. Asking them to censor a work of FICTION isn't appropriate.

[Cobra]

Asking them to censor a work of FICTION isn't appropriate.I agree with you there, seems like their making a mountain out of a molehill to me. Presenting the show as fact or a documentary is also wrong, but I don't think ABC is still doing that.

[lily]

As for an official letter from the Republicans, it's been so long that I can't remember and doing a short google didn't find any letter, but to make people think that the Republicans weren't upset about F911, is rather bending the truth, isn't it?

Read my post lily..I said..

...Republicans were pissed but I don't recall an official letter...

So you are just agreeing with me.??Sure the Dems have a right to get pissy about it...but an official letter from the Party and the Ex-President???That's a bit much don't you think???They can easily contest the material in the media the same the Republicans did.??Asking them to censor a work of FICTION isn't appropriate.


Yes I am agreeing with you.

Asking them to censor a work of FICTION isn't appropriate.
......but that is not how they were promoting it in the begining. So much so, that they were offering it to schools.

[BoogyMan]

You think Farenheit 9/11 or that Reagan hit piece were accurate and without distortion.

I guess you missed this part:

There were many fallacies in F911, which sparked tons of debate on many forums.


Also....don't forget to adjust your TIVO.


Ahhh, but you didn't answer my question? Did you ask yourself the same "is it too soon" type of question when those two hit pieces came out? Somehow I think that the answer will most probably be no. :)

[lily]

I don't see how the Reagan movie could be too close to 911 to make much difference and as for Michael Moore........trust me, I'm not one of his biggest fans. That is why I look forward to discussing The Path to 911 as much as I did F911.