• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Democrats urge ABC to withdraw 9/11 movie

Cityboy

Cityboy

Banned
Why is the left against free speech? Hmmmmm.....
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060907/2006-09-07T234626Z_01_N07260695_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SEPT11-DEMOCRATS-FILM-DC.html



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid an election-year debate over who can best defend America, U.S. congressional Democrats urged ABC on Thursday to cancel a TV miniseries about the September 11 attacks that is critical of former Democratic President Bill Clinton and his top aides.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada denounced the five-hour television movie, set to air in two parts on Sunday and Monday nights, as "a work of fiction."

Reid and other leading Senate Democrats wrote to Robert Iger, president and CEO of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., urging him to "cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program."

Chronicling events leading to the September 11 attacks, the movie suggests the Clinton administration was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to deal properly with the gathering threat posed by Islamic militants.

The furor comes as Democrats and Republicans jockey for political position in advance of the November 7 congressional elections over who can best secure the United States from another attack.
Democrats have chided Republicans for failing to implement security recommendations by the 9/11 commission, and Republicans have portrayed Democrats as soft on terrorism.

In recent days, former members of the Clinton administration also lodged complaints with Iger, urging ABC and Disney to fix or eliminate what they called errors and fabrications.

ABC issued a statement saying the production, "The Path to 9/11," was still being edited and that criticism of the film's specifics were thus "premature and irresponsible."

'DRAMATIC LICENSE'

Executive Producer Marc Platt acknowledged that "there is dramatic license taken" in the docudrama to "render the program effective and accessible for viewers." Speaking to Reuters by telephone from London, he added, "We have no intention or desire to be political, to intentionally distort."

Platt also said one scene singled out for criticism by Democrats -- depicting CIA operatives and Afghan fighters coming close to capturing Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, only for then-national security adviser Samuel Berger to refuse authorization of the mission -- was a "conflation of events."

Berger said in a letter to Iger earlier this week that "no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it."

The September 11 attacks occurred about eight months after Clinton turned over the presidency in January 2001 to Republican George W. Bush.
For several years, Democrats have complained the Bush administration failed to capture or kill bin Laden when he reportedly was cornered in Afghanistan's Tora Bora region in late 2001. They also argue the war in Iraq later took away resources for tracking down bin Laden.

ABC said its movie was not a documentary but a dramatization drawn from the official 9/11 commission report, personal interviews and other materials.

"As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the film contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression," ABC said.

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican who chaired the 9/11 commission and served as a consultant for the ABC miniseries, defended the production as politically balanced.

"People in both parties didn't particularly like the commission report, and I think people in both parties aren't going to love this one," he said.​
 
Democrats want to censor ABC

Hey, great minds think alike I saw the story on YAHOO! This version of the story is very slightly different than the one you posted, but pretty much says the same things.

ABC has a mini-series The Road to 9/11 and it portrays some Clinton administration officials in a less than flattering manner. Apparently it does not portray President Clinton in any unflattering way, but it does dramatize some events, and perhaps not accurately. So the Dems have their collective panties in a bunch and are not in a good mood.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada denounced the television movie, set to air in two parts on Sunday and Monday nights, as "a work of fiction."
"Yes, they should pull it," Reid said
​
But what is so spectacularly hypocritical is that NOBODY has actually seen the final movie according to ABC. So the Dems are doing preemptive censoring based only on what they feel may portray them poorly :confused2:
ABC issued a statement saying the production, "The Path to 9/11," was still being edited and that criticism of the film's specifics were thus "premature and irresponsible."
. . .
ABC said the movie was not a documentary but a dramatization drawn from the official 9/11 commission report, personal interviews and other materials.

"As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the film contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression," ABC said.
The statement concluded: "The attacks of 9/11 were a pivotal moment in our history, and it is fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue. However, we hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."

​
When was the last time the Dems wanted to censor the entertainment industry? Oh, yeah, I remember. Her name was Tipper Gore. Wow, that was also during the Clinton reign :blahblah:
 
Re: Democrats want to censor ABC

B_Skurka said:
When was the last time the Dems wanted to censor the entertainment industry? Oh, yeah, I remember. Her name was Tipper Gore. Wow, that was also during the Clinton reign :blahblah:
Click to expand...

Maybe we can get Dee Snyder to testify again in Congress? :yum:

(BTW....that was in 1985 when Tipper lead the Family Values campaign. Right in the middle of the Reagan administration.)
 
Well the Associated Press took a slightly different view of the same story. Basically saying similar things, but with a focus on the specific Clinton administration members who apparently must feel they were caught bending over with their pants down around their ankles? They obviously have not seen the movie, but they certainly seem to be making a big stink over it. I suspect they would not do that if they didn't think they would be portrayed in an unflattering way.

I think they go a little overboard claiming that ABC/Disney is spreading right wing propoganda.



ap_small.gif

Clinton officials protest ABC 9/11 film

By DEEPTI HAJELA, Associated Press Writer 45 minutes ago


A miniseries about the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks is "terribly wrong" and ABC should correct it or not air it, a group of former Clinton administration officials and Senate Democrats said in letters to the head of the network's parent company.

But in a statement released Thursday afternoon in apparent response to the growing uproar, ABC said, "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's parent The Walt Disney Co., to express concern over "The Path to 9/11."


They were joined Thursday by Democratic Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Charles Schumer of New York and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who sent a joint letter to Iger asking the broadcast be canceled.

The two-part miniseries, scheduled to air Sunday and Monday, is drawn from interviews and documents including the report of the Sept. 11 commission.

The Clinton administration letter writers said the miniseries contained factual errors, and that their requests to see it had gone unanswered.
"By ABC's own standard, ABC has gotten it terribly wrong," Lindsey and Band said in their letter.
"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."
"ABC/Disney acknowledges this show is fiction and in direct contradiction of the 9/11 commission report and the facts, and it is despicable that ABC/Disney would insist on airing a fictional version of what is a serious and emotional event for our country," Clinton Foundation spokesman Jay Carson said in a statement Thursday. "No reputable organization should dramatize 9/11 for a profit at the expense of the truth."

In their letter, the senators questioned the political leanings behind the miniseries.

"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," the letter said.

The letter writers pointed out examples of scenes they had been told were in the miniseries, but which they said never happened. Albright objected to a scene that she was told showed her insisting on warning the Pakistani government before an air strike on Afghanistan, and that she was the one who made the warning. "The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory," she said.

Berger objected to a scene that he was told showed him refusing to authorize an attack on Osama bin Laden despite the request from CIA officials. "The fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license," he wrote.

Lindsey and Band objected to advertisements for the miniseries, which they said suggested that Clinton wasn't paying enough attention to the threat of terrorism.

"While ABC is promoting `The Path to 9/11' as a dramatization of historical fact, in truth it is a fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans," they said. "Given your stated obligation to `get it right,' we urge you to do so by not airing this drama until the egregious factual errors are corrected, an endeavor we could easily assist you with given the opportunity to view the film."

The five-hour miniseries is set to run without commercial interruption. Director David Cunningham said it was a massive undertaking, with close to 250 speaking parts, more than 300 sets, and a budget of $40 million. Cunningham has said he shot 550 hours of film. The cast includes Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton and Donnie Wahlberg.
​
 
B_Skurka said:
...who apparently must feel they were caught bending over with their pants down around their ankles? They obviously have not seen the movie, but they certainly seem to be making a big stink over it. I suspect they would not do that if they didn't think they would be portrayed in an unflattering way.
Click to expand...
You sound just like my wife. Whenever someone defends themselves, she says it must be because they feel guilty. It has never apparently occurred to her that someone might fight back because the other side is wrong.

What if it airs, and it can be proven that the segment is total fiction? What will that tell you? What would be the purpose of fictionalizing it except to make one side look better and the other side to look bad?

If ABC is supposes to be this great "liberal bias" member of the media, why would they be ready to boradcast lies about Democrats just before the election?

If, indeed, the miniseries protrays Berger as reported, it is, indeed, total fiction. That will be easy to examine for anyone who wants to go back and check the facts.

Why do the Dems have to have seen the series to know about it? Such plots and boradcasts are notoriously the fount of leaks. If I dig a little, I'm sure I can come up with dozens of cases of conservatives protesting under similar circumstances.

But, you would conveniently forget that when the time comes, just like you forgot about Tipper and her campaign. What part of her campaign do you object to?
 
Hey I was impressed with what CBS is doing on the nightly news with KC. They have a "freespeak" segment at the end of the program where they let guest rant. Tonight was Limbaugh and he had at the muslim terrorist, quite refreshing for getting a right side view in the media.
 
Don, ABC says the whole thing is a fictional depiction of a non-fictional event. Further, they claim that it has not been aired because it is still being edited. So for the Dems to denounce it so vocally screams of censorship, media manipulation, and their offer to help correct it sounds a lot like they want to re-write history. Those are the facts. This is not a political mini-series. This is a historical drama based on the 9/11 commission's report, which paints things bad for Republicans, Democrats and apparently several agencies. But the fact that they are screaming so loudly simply stinks to high heaven. I would bet that the Republicans don't fair any better in the depiction. I would bet the FBI, NSA and CIA also catch hell. And perhaps all of them should? So be it. Let's hear the story and all gain a better understanding of what happened. And if bits and pieces of it are 'drama' based on the testimony, and if some of those bits and pieces are not 100% historically correct, but if the GENERAL INTENT AND OVERALL THEME AND TONE are basically accurate, then I think all sides should be happy with that.

Based on the news stories, the Democrats are not being attacked. They are doing the attacking. And they have not even seen the thing they are attacking. Seems like a very stupid position to take.
 
I just saw a news blip with Clinton saying the mini series is misleading and does not tell the truth. Clinton went on to say he just wants them to tell the truth and not mislead the American public.
How Ironic, coming from Clinton. He'd be better off not commenting at all.
 
B_Skurka said:
Don, ABC says the whole thing is a fictional depiction of a non-fictional event. Further, they claim that it has not been aired because it is still being edited. So for the Dems to denounce it so vocally screams of censorship, media manipulation, and their offer to help correct it sounds a lot like they want to re-write history. Those are the facts. This is not a political mini-series. This is a historical drama based on the 9/11 commission's report, which paints things bad for Republicans, Democrats and apparently several agencies. But the fact that they are screaming so loudly simply stinks to high heaven. I would bet that the Republicans don't fair any better in the depiction. I would bet the FBI, NSA and CIA also catch hell. And perhaps all of them should? So be it. Let's hear the story and all gain a better understanding of what happened. And if bits and pieces of it are 'drama' based on the testimony, and if some of those bits and pieces are not 100% historically correct, but if the GENERAL INTENT AND OVERALL THEME AND TONE are basically accurate, then I think all sides should be happy with that.

Based on the news stories, the Democrats are not being attacked. They are doing the attacking. And they have not even seen the thing they are attacking. Seems like a very stupid position to take.
Click to expand...

Very true from what I have heard about it...Someone else(on the radio) broght up the comparison to Farenhight 9/11... It didnt get sensored, so this shouldnt either..whats fair for one, should be fair for all.. And like you said, just because it paints Clinton in a bad light, I'm sure Bush will not come out unscathed either..
 
Doc said:
I just saw a news blip with Clinton saying the mini series is misleading and does not tell the truth.
Click to expand...
HOW THE HELL DOES HE KNOW? He has not seen the show!

Seriously, ABC filmed 500+ hours and has to edit it down to 5 TV hours (which average only 44 minutes long, per hour, after deducting for commercials).

Chicken little got boinked on the head by an apple and went into town screaming that the sky is falling. Seems to me that the Democrats are doing the same thing. Much ado about nothing.

Now if the bi-partisian 9/11 report is critical of the Clinton administration then it just seems like:
A) they may deserve some critical review and
B) the Dems are using a PR tactic that discredits anyone who might not be a total supporter prior to anyone actually saying anything good or bad. Bascially they lower the expectations of the viewers and set them full of doubt, whether real or imaginary, so that partisians will mimic their criticisms after any event even if they don't know the truth.
​
 
B_Skurka said:
HOW THE HELL DOES HE KNOW? He has not seen the show!

Seriously, ABC filmed 500+ hours and has to edit it down to 5 TV hours (which average only 44 minutes long, per hour, after deducting for commercials).

Chicken little got boinked on the head by an apple and went into town screaming that the sky is falling. Seems to me that the Democrats are doing the same thing. Much ado about nothing.



Now if the bi-partisian 9/11 report is critical of the Clinton administration then it just seems like:
A) they may deserve some critical review and
B) the Dems are using a PR tactic that discredits anyone who might not be a total supporter prior to anyone actually saying anything good or bad. Bascially they lower the expectations of the viewers and set them full of doubt, whether real or imaginary, so that partisians will mimic their criticisms after any event even if they don't know the truth.


​
Click to expand...

I heard something in a movie once to the likes of "They/you can't handle the truth" ............. ;)

There is a reason they're being defensive without knowing what exactly will be seen, I wonder what that might be .................. :whistle:

Being defensive is a typical cover ploy for hiding something or distracting from the truth.............. Hummmmmmmmmmmm
 
I would guess they have seen a version of the film (at least some of them). They do prerelease copies of these movies for the entertainment industry and the movie critics and such. It might not be the final version, but the majority of the edits have been done.
 
Got this in a eMail on September 6th......
ACTFORCHANGE ACTIVISM UPDATE: September 6th, 2006

** URGENT ALERT **

Tell ABC to Cancel Their Inaccurate and Slanted Sept. 11th Program
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/epic0ICEeG0Ubi0BMZC0Eu

On September 10th and 11th, ABC is planning to air a "docu-drama"
called "Path to 9/11," which is being billed as "an objective telling
of the events of 9/11." In fact, the film was written by an unabashed
conservative who twists the facts to blame President Clinton.

Tell ABC to cancel this show. Click here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/epic0ICEeG0Ubi0BMZC0Eu

ABC's new six-hour film was apparently screened in advance ONLY to
conservative bloggers and journalists -- and received extensive praise
from none other than Rush Limbaugh. The film is apparently also
riddled with factual errors and distortions; former counterterrorism
czar Richard Clarke has completely refuted one of the key scenes in
the show.

It's simply stunning to think that as this fall's election approaches,
a major television network would devote six hours of prime-time
programming to air such a slanted and inaccurate program.

Tell ABC -- this type of inaccurate and slanted program does not
belong on primetime television, and they should cancel this show.
Click here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/epic0ICEeG0Ubi0BMZC0Eu

*** Want to increase your impact? Share this message with everyone you
know who's interested in unbiased reporting on the tragic events of
Sept. 11th, 2001. ***

THANK YOU for working to build a better world.

Will Easton
Manager, ActForChange.com
Working Assets
Click to expand...
 
Got this one today......
ACTFORCHANGE ACTIVISM UPDATE: September 8th, 2006

** URGENT ALERT **

ABC's 9/11 Distortions Get Even Worse
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/eplK0ICEeG0A0BMku0Ex

On September 10th and 11th, ABC is planning to air a "docu-drama"
called "Path to 9/11," which is being billed as "an objective telling
of the events of 9/11." In fact, the film was written by an unabashed
conservative who twists the facts to blame President Clinton.

And since we wrote you on Wednesday, new details have emerged that
show EVEN MORE distortions and intentional conservative slant to the
program.

Tell ABC to cancel this show -- and Scholastic, Inc. not to distribute
it in our nation's schools. Click here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/eplK0ICEeG0A0BMku0Ex

Among the latest developments:

- Approximately 900 copies went out to conservative bloggers and
media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh -- but the producers
flat-out refused to send a copy to former President Bill Clinton for
review.
- The show's producers have reassured conservatives that "blame on
the Clinton team is [still] in the DNA of the project."
- ABC has teamed up with Scholastic, Inc -- a textbook publisher --
to offer this propaganda with an accompanying "study guide" to 100,000
teachers across America.

It's simply STUNNING to think that as this fall's election approaches,
a major television network (which pretends to be politically neutral)
would devote six hours of prime-time programming to air such a slanted
and wildly inaccurate program. It's unacceptable -- and we all need to
take action to prevent it from happening.

Tell ABC and Scholastic to cancel the broadcast airing of this show,
as well as its distribution to schools and teachers. Click here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/eplK0ICEeG0A0BMku0Ex


*** Want to increase your impact? Share this message with everyone you
know who's interested in fair media and unbiased reporting on the
events that led to Sept. 11th, 2001. ***


THANK YOU for working to build a better world.

Will Easton
Manager, ActForChange.com
Working Assets
Click to expand...
 
Being that I am trained in the art of "salesmanship" and being that I take seminars on influencing people, etc, it is very interesting to read these two posts from Junkman.

There are dozens of "key" manipulator techniques scattered through these two emails Junkman got. There are also very few specifics. It claims there are "new details" that have "emerged" to show distortions, but it does not provide any examples or proof. It makes allegations of "conservative slant" without evidence of such. It makes a claim that "apparently" only conservatives were on the pre-screending list but that is wordplay which is a great way of saying they don't want to find evidence to the contrary because it would destroy their arguement.

Here are the latest developements:
- Approximately 900 copies went out to conservative bloggers and media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh -- but the producers flat-out refused to send a copy to former President Bill Clinton for review.
- The show's producers have reassured conservatives that "blame on the Clinton team is [still] in the DNA of the project."
- ABC has teamed up with Scholastic, Inc -- a textbook publisher -- to offer this propaganda with an accompanying "study guide" to 100,000 teachers across America.
​
Taking each, the first is so highly implausable that you would have to wonder how this group defines "conservative" and I suspect it means anyone who is not them. Second, it states that shows producers did not send one to President Clinton, but there is no evidence that ANY politician or ANY administration official got copies from either party. So they use the technique of exluding evidence to enhance their point. The allegation that the shows producers have reassured conservatives is not backed up in any way, the quotation is not attributed to any of the producers and is likely attributed to the group that send these "alerts" out. And it is also interesting to see Scholastic get brought into this because many teachers, who are typically supporters of liberal causes, tend to see liberal bias in the materials from Scholastic, Inc.

Again, this type of propoganda is always fun to see. It is rarely full of actual evidence. It is typically full of emotional words, which they combine with unsubstantiated "evidence" and mix in with their opinions and inuedo, and then use their own definitions (or make groundless implications) to lead readers to determine the political leanings of all the other players in such a way that the reader assumes the leanings are contrary to their own.

Talk about "spin" these should be case studies used in schools!
 
B_Skurka said:
- ABC has teamed up with Scholastic, Inc -- a textbook publisher -- to offer this propaganda with an accompanying "study guide" to 100,000 teachers across America.
Click to expand...

This is the scarriest part of the whole thing.
 
DaveNay said:
This is the scarriest part of the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Why?

If the materials Scholastic provides are historically accurate then what is the problem? So many people are making so many presumptions here that this is laughable to watch.

And then we would also have to presume that Scholastic, which is an education publishing house, will not do any editing of the ABC material. And we are still presuming that the ABC material is inaccurate, and that may not be true. There may be some dramatization, but that does not mean it is not going to accurately represent the intent and tone. Then again it may be inaccurate on all levels. WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW.

I'd suggest that since the audience of Scholastic is a young, uneducated audience (school kids) then the materials will be broken down into several different grade levels and reading skills levels for the kids to read/see. Now that is just my guess, but it certainly seems like a rational guess.

I would also guess that Scholastic, if it sees a huge outpouring of grief aimed at ABC, and if it sees that that is well deserved grief due to inaccuracies, then Scholastic probably will take their own action which would be corrective action. (or perhaps their opinon of corrective action).
 
OK here is an update. And because of my great respect for Junkman I will not post the entire article. But below there is a link to the whole article, and you will find that reported comments made by ABC, the producers, and people who have actually been involved in the mini-series. So this is a ONE SIDED view. But read the FACTS about who has/has not seen this and what is being done. Then ask yourself if so much of the fright tactics by the Democrats aren't just a bunch of HOT AIR.


ap_small.gif

ABC: 9/11 program criticism 'premature'

By DEEPTI HAJELA, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 17 minutes ago


ABC defended a miniseries on the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks after Clinton administration officials said it distorts history so drastically that it should be corrected or shelved.

"No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible," the network said in a statement Thursday.

Executive producer Marc Platt said editing of the miniseries was going on and "will continue to, if needed until we broadcast," but declined to discuss the specific scenes that were being changed, The New York Times reported Friday.

"From Day 1, we've examined any issue or question that's arisen," Platt said. "And we'll continue to do so until the last possible moment."
The Times, citing Kean, reported that one scene being changed portrayed Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser, hanging up on a CIA officer at a critical moment of a military operation. Two others under review, according to Kean, portrayed former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright apparently obstructing efforts to capture Osama bin Laden and Clinton being too distracted by impeachment and his marital problems to focus on bin Laden.

Thomas Kean, a former Republican New Jersey governor and chairman of the 9/11 Commission, defended the program.

"It's something the American people should see," he said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" Friday. "Because you understand how these people wanted to do us harm, developed this plot, and how the machinations of the American government under two administrations not only failed to stop them, but even failed to slow them down."

Kean said he hoped people would watch the miniseries to "understand better what went on, and hopefully understand what still needs to be done."

ABC said that for dramatic and narrative purposes "the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression."

"We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it," ABC said.

​
NOW, in an issue of fairness, here are the words of the Democratic critics. Notice the tone, notice the inuendo, notice the wording like "the way it was portrayed to me . . . " Or wording he "was told . . ." And then ask yourself if these are grounded in any real fact or if this is very similar to Chicken Little's sky is falling proclomation.


ap_small.gif

ABC: 9/11 program criticism 'premature'

By DEEPTI HAJELA, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 17 minutes ago


Former administration officials and Senate Democrats said in letters to the head of the network's parent company that the "The Path to 9/11" was "terribly wrong."

Former President Clinton, speaking with news reporters after a Democratic fundraiser in Arkansas on Thursday, said he hadn't seen the ABC film. "But I think they ought to tell the truth, particularly if they are going to claim it is based on the 9/11 Commission report," he said. "They shouldn't have scenes that are directly contradicted by the findings of the 9/11 report."

Albright, Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's parent, The Walt Disney Co., to express concern over "The Path to 9/11."
They were joined Thursday by Democratic Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Charles Schumer of New York and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who sent a joint letter to Iger asking that the broadcast be cancelled.

"By ABC's own standard, ABC has gotten it terribly wrong," Lindsey and Band said in their letter. "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."
In the senators' letter, they questioned the political leanings behind the miniseries.

"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," the letter said.

The letter writers pointed out examples of scenes they had been told were in the miniseries but that they said never happened. Albright objected to a scene that she was told showed her insisting on warning the Pakistani government before an airstrike on Afghanistan, and that showed her as the one who made the warning.

"The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory," she said.

Berger objected to a scene that he was told showed him refusing to authorize an attack on bin Laden despite the request from CIA officials.

"The fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license," he wrote.
​
 
B_Skurka said:
Seriously, ABC filmed 500+ hours and has to edit it down to 5 TV hours (which average only 44 minutes long, per hour, after deducting for commercials).
Click to expand...
The miniseries is to be broadcast commercial free.

B_Skurka said:
Chicken little got boinked on the head by an apple and went into town screaming that the sky is falling. Seems to me that the Democrats are doing the same thing. Much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...
Typical conservative spin -- attempt to minimize the other side. If this was happening to conservatives, you'd be screaming your head off at that injustice. But, it's just liberals -- so you bring up Chicken Little.

B_Skurka said:
Don, ABC says the whole thing is a fictional depiction of a non-fictional event.
Click to expand...
Oh, that explains it. How about a minseries showing how Germany won WWII, and the Holocaust never happened? That would be a fictional depiction of a non-fictional event; sounds like a good candidate to send to Scholastic America.

This is exactly the same kind of revisionist history that is used by tyrannical governments to depict things favoable to themselves.

Big Dog said:
I heard something in a movie once to the likes of "They/you can't handle the truth" ............. ;)

There is a reason they're being defensive without knowing what exactly will be seen, I wonder what that might be .................. :whistle:

Being defensive is a typical cover ploy for hiding something or distracting from the truth.............. Hummmmmmmmmmmm
Click to expand...
Why don't you come right out and just say that you think the Democrats are lying? How do you know? On what do you base it? Is it just because of your blind prejudice against Democrats that you automatically assume the worst? Boy, are you going to look like a jerk if it turns out that the Dems' claims are true!

B_Skurka said:
This is a historical drama based on the 9/11 commission's report, which paints things bad for Republicans, Democrats and apparently several agencies.
Click to expand...
HGM said:
And like you said, just because it paints Clinton in a bad light, I'm sure Bush will not come out unscathed either..
Click to expand...
Remember that the Bush adminstration was totally against the 9/11 commission, did not want the report to become public. The 9/11 Commission, however did NOT produce a fictional depiction of a non-fictional event. As long as ABC sticks to the 9/11 report and other accurate data, I have no objection, and I'm sure no reasonable Democrat would, either.

Of course, the odds are that it is the Bush administration and agencies under the control of Bush, et al that came out on the short end of the 9/11 report, and ABC probably felt it was necessary to phony it up a little in order to make the Dems look bad, too. It looks as if they may have been caught with their pants down.
 
This whole scenario is laughable.

The left is so desperate to re-write history to make Clinton something other than what he was, they will go to nearly any means necessary.

Clinton and his staff (the likes of Jamie Gerelic, Janet Reno, and Sandy "Sloppy" Berger) should all have been (should be?) under indictment for thier rolls in allowing the stage to be set for 911.

Remember "Able-Danger"?
 
B_Skurka said:
...But read the FACTS about who has/has not seen this and what is being done.
Click to expand...
They are not facts, yet -- just claims by parties who are not disinterested.

B_Skurka said:
Then ask yourself if so much of the fright tactics by the Democrats aren't just a bunch of HOT AIR....

"No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible," the network said in a statement Thursday.

Someone is editing this film, so the editors have seen it. Is it inconceivable that one or more of the editors is upset at the bias that is shown and would report it to the offended party?

 "From Day 1, we've examined any issue or question that's arisen," Platt said. "And we'll continue to do so until the last possible moment."

So, in order to issues or questions to arise, someone must be aware of the contents. Why is it so hard to believe that these contents have been leaked?

The Times, citing Kean, reported that one scene being changed portrayed Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser, hanging up on a CIA officer at a critical moment of a military operation. Two others under review, according to Kean, portrayed former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright apparently obstructing efforts to capture Osama bin Laden and Clinton being too distracted by impeachment and his marital problems to focus on bin Laden.

Read that carefully. Even though ABC has said that no one has seen the film, and that there is no bias, said, "One scene BEING CHANGED..." It appears that the offending scene WAS in the series and is now being removed, because of the fury of the Democrats, and because it was untrue. How else could this be interpreted? Plus, they admit there are at least two other scenes under review for the same reasons. This does not sound like "Hot air", "much ado about nothing", or "Chicken Little".
​
Click to expand...
 
Typical conservative spin -- attempt to minimize the other side. If this was happening to conservatives, you'd be screaming your head off at that injustice. But, it's just liberals -- so you bring up Chicken Little.
Click to expand...

Again, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.. Censorship has no place here.. Michael Moore got to spew his typical liberal spin--attempting to minimize the other side... It did happen to the conservatives with his movie, and guess what, it was international so the world could see.. Fair is fair, I'd like to see this one...
 
Av8r3400 said:
This whole scenario is laughable.

The left is so desperate to re-write history to make Clinton something other than what he was, they will go to nearly any means necessary.

Clinton and his staff (the likes of Jamie Gerelic, Janet Reno, and Sandy "Sloppy" Berger) should all have been (should be?) under indictment for thier rolls in allowing the stage to be set for 911.

Remember "Able-Danger"?
Click to expand...
Laughable? Historical facts are what they are. This entire "scenario" is about an attempt to rewrite history in favor of the right and to depict the left in an untruthful manner.

For you to try to twist that to the exact opposite is beyiond belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top