Bubba and Dems Upset over ABC Mini-Series.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

looks like he's been drinking again.

 

Who? Bush?

 

CJ0001F

[mattp]

ABC is apparently re-editting the movie.

New York Daily News

 

 

First to go was a made-up scene showing Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger hanging up on CIA operatives who were moments away from killing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. "You will not see that in that way in the final edition," Kean said.

 

The Clinton White House did scotch several opportunities to kill Al Qaeda's founder because intelligence was sketchy. But unlike in the film, the CIA was never steps away from Bin Laden, nor did Berger hang up on agents in the field, Kean admitted.

 

If this is typical of the truthfulness of the film, then I'd say the flap is justified.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

ABC is apparently re-editting the movie.

New York Daily News

 

 

First to go was a made-up scene showing Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger hanging up on CIA operatives who were moments away from killing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. "You will not see that in that way in the final edition," Kean said.

 

The Clinton White House did scotch several opportunities to kill Al Qaeda's founder because intelligence was sketchy. But unlike in the film, the CIA was never steps away from Bin Laden, nor did Berger hang up on agents in the field, Kean admitted.

 

If this is typical of the truthfulness of the film, then I'd say the flap is justified.

 

The truth is not interesting... or dramatic enough for the average viewer. Ratings, ratings...

[cj001f]

go browse myspace.com.

mattp thinks I'm a pedophile

mattp thinks I'm a pedophile

[archenemy]

go browse myspace.com.

mattp thinks I'm a pedophile

mattp thinks I'm a pedophile

I don't believe he thinks that highly of you.

 

anyone else read the Commission report on 9/11? It clarifies what Clinton tried to accomplish and the roadblocks he faced from whom.

[cj001f]

I don't believe he thinks that highly of you.

[Recycled]

The 9/11 report was a pretty good read. I bought it in an airport, took it along as trip reading on a flight and remember getting a few odd looks.

 

If I recall correctly, Clinton had several opportunities to whack OBL, but was not ready to assassinate him (though either tribal proxies or directly) unless he had a clean opening. Unlike Bush, I imagine Clinton probably gave some thought to the potential for killing civilians. He definately wanted pay back for the embassy and Cole bombings, but was cautious about inflaming the region with a sloppy assassination. It's also interesting that all the information about the ongoing attempts to locate and deal with OBL fell on deaf ears when presented to the incoming Bush team.

 

I'm always amazed at how few people have read the report. Too many words, I guess.

[tivoli_mike]

If I recall correctly, Clinton had several opportunities to whack OBL, but was not ready to assassinate him (though either tribal proxies or directly) unless he had a clean opening. Unlike Bush, I imagine Clinton probably gave some thought to the potential for killing civilians. He definately wanted pay back for the embassy and Cole bombings, but was cautious about inflaming the region with a sloppy assassination. It's also interesting that all the information about the ongoing attempts to locate and deal with OBL fell on deaf ears when presented to the incoming Bush team.

 

So basically Clinton was a pussy.

[Recycled]

Pussy? No, I don't think so.

 

There are always tough choices to be made. I'm glad I didn't have to decide whether it was worth dropping a daisy cutter on a village because OBL might have been there. How many dead children would have been acceptable to you to knock off OBL. Remember, it was pre 9/11.

[cj001f]

Pussy? No, I don't think so.

 

Get with your retarded oversimplifications. WTF is your problem! Comeon in for the big win!

[tivoli_mike]

Pussy? No, I don't think so.

 

There are always tough choices to be made. I'm glad I didn't have to decide whether it was worth dropping a daisy cutter on a village because OBL might have been there. How many dead children would have been acceptable to you to knock off OBL. Remember, it was pre 9/11.

 

I think American voters have demonstrated several times that dead foreigners really don't sway them...

[tivoli_mike]

Pussy? No, I don't think so.

 

Get with your retarded oversimplifications. WTF is your problem! Comeon in for the big win!

 

Inside every Iraqi is an American trying to get out

 

I loved Full Metal Jacket ;-)

Edited September 8, 2006 by tivoli_mike

[mattp]

How do you think they'll portray this scene:

 

The CIA tried to warn Bush about the threat with the hope that presidential action could energize government agencies and head off the attack. On Aug. 6, 2001, the CIA sent analysts to Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, to brief him and deliver a report entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.”

 

Bush was not pleased by the intrusion. He glared at the CIA briefer and snapped, “All right, you’ve covered your ass,” according to Suskind’s book.

 

Then, ordering no special response, Bush returned to a vacation of fishing, clearing brush and working on a speech about stem-cell research.

 

This woiuld make for good entertainment, eh KK?

 

web page

[lI1|1!]

 

Accuracy aside, ABC's '9/11' deserves to bomb

 

September 8, 2006

 

BY DOUG ELFMAN TELEVISION CRITIC

 

I once sat in a car forever waiting for my mom to come out of a grocery store. I thought that was the definition of "interminable." I had no idea "The Path to 9/11" was in my future.

 

This is what happens during 4 1/2 lonnnng hours of "Path." Terrorists talk about killing Americans for Allah. FBI and other security officials try to track them but fail. 9/11 happens.

 

You don't say.

 

This is the most anticlimactic, tension-free movie in the history of terrorist TV.

 

It's hard to fathom a brouhaha brewed over such a bore. ABC has received tens of thousands of letters -- including one from Bill Clinton's office -- insisting "Path" is wildly inaccurate and should not air. But ABC still plans to air the two-part movie.

 

Controversy could boost viewership, except "Path" is the dullest, worst-shot TV movie since ABC's disastrous "Ten Commandments" remake. It substitutes shaky handheld cameras and dumb dialogue for craftsmanship. It could not be more amateurish or poorly constructed unless someone had forgotten to light the sets.

 

An appalling secondary concern is the tone makes almost every pre-9/11 American look like a fool.

 

Look, there's a security guard yawning while terrorists plant the 1993 bomb at the World Trade Center. How dare a security guard work while tired.

 

Oh, hey, there's an airline agent checking in a 9/11 terrorist even though he has a carry-on bag. Stupid airline agents.

 

Excuse us all, writer Cyrus Nowrasteh and director David L. Cunningham, for not acting like Hitler Youth in the glory days before ordinary Americans knew commercial planes could be turned into missiles.

 

Idiots.

 

Cheap emotions are on orange alert. Of all the people who died in the 1993 attack, who does the camera focus on? Ding-ding-ding, you are a winner if you said "a pregnant woman rubbing her belly."

 

Harvey Keitel and Donnie Wahlberg portray key U.S. agents who give canny speeches about how they can't take out Osama bin Laden because politicians and high-ranking officials balk at giving them the OK. This is the big lie around which other lies scurry, according to both Republican and Democratic policy experts.

 

If you read some of the investigations into 9/11, you realize fault spreads far and wide, from FBI and CIA agents to politicians of both parties. "Path" depicts most of these Americans as villainous morons, rather than as flawed people committing errors.

 

The film uses composite characters and ignores some real players. A section centering on Yemen is laughable to anyone who read Lawrence Wright's recent New Yorker piece on Ali Soufan, who was the only Arabic-speaking FBI agent in New York. He was thisclose to busting the terrorists but got stonewalled by CIA agents who didn't share information.

 

Soufan was a pivotal point man on the path to 9/11. He is not a character in "The Path to 9/11."

 

Ground Zero is a sobering soil worthy of facts, not flimsy fiction. The victims of 9/11 deserve 2,996 times more careful and compelling filmmaking than what Nowrasteh, Cunningham and ABC have bored together. They are bearing false witness to the memory of the fallen.

 

Key scenes draw flak as false or misleading

 

More than 25,000 people have written to ABC to complain about "The Path to 9/11," penned by Cyrus Nowrasteh, whom Rush Limbaugh calls a friend. On Thursday, Bill Clinton's office called for ABC to "fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely."

 

James Bamford, an author who writes about national security agencies, told MSNBC an FBI agent hired as an adviser on "Path" quit halfway through production "because he thought they were making things up."

 

ABC's defense: "The movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression. 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."

 

Most of the furor concerns a few key scenes.

 

Scene: The CIA and Northern Alliance come within killing distance of Osama bin Laden, but former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is portrayed saying they don't have the presidential authority to kill. ABC reportedly has toned down this scene in recent days.

 

Reaction: None of that happened, according to the film's senior adviser, Thomas Kean, a Republican who chaired the 9/11 Commission. He admits the scene is a "composite," as are some agents in the film.

 

"It's utterly invented," President Bush's former terrorism czar Richard Clarke said this week.

 

"No such episode ever occurred -- nor did anything like it," Berger wrote to ABC. "In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or U.S. military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al-Qaida."

 

Scene: Agents complain Clinton is too caught up in the Republicans' impeachment effort to act against bin Laden.

 

Reaction: Citing the 9/11 Commission report, the Clinton letter insists that he and Berger told former CIA Director George Tenet to get bin Laden. "Secondly," the letter says, "Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism from 1999-2001, has said, on more than one occasion, 'Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaida.' "

 

Scene: Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, is portrayed as giving Pakistan a heads-up about a U.S. air strike against bin Laden, allowing him to get away. The strike failed, and Republicans complained it was a political ploy.

 

Reaction: "It is my understanding that the notification to Pakistan was delivered once the missiles were already in the air," Albright says in a letter to ABC. "At no time did I inform the Pakistanis independently that a strike was to take place. The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory."

 

The 9/11 Commission report claimed the alert came from someone on the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

Scene: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other Bush officials are shown taking no action at pivotal moments when terrorists may have been stopped.

 

Reaction: Bush officials have not complained to ABC.

 

Doug Elfman

 

[cj001f]

 

Fuckin' Fairies.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Fuckin' Fairies.

 

Fairies Wear Boots

[Fairweather]

Matt, Jim, Cj, and W must have been just as upset when "The Reagans" was scheduled for broadcast a couple years back. ...And isn't Sandy Berger a convicted felon? Something about stealing secret documents related to 9/11 from the national archives two or three years ago? Hey, did any of you folks see Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911"? I hear it was really factual and raw.

[olyclimber]

It is funny to see the coin flipped:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/04/cbs.reagans.ap/

 

note that that show never made it to broadcast TV...and it certainly wasn't the hotbutton that is the admitted fictionalization of events leading up the 9/11...a very current and real political topic.

 

Micheal Moore's movie could definitely be argued as the other side of this crap, but at least it wasn't put out on broadcast TV. You had to go pay to see it in the theater or buy/rent the video/dvd.

[Crux]

Matt, Jim, Cj, and W must have been just as upset when "The Reagans" was scheduled for broadcast a couple years back. ...

Do you really mean to compare a gossip story about Reagan's family with a $40 million propagandization of the 9/11 catastrophe?

 

Please reconsider what we are talking about here.

[Fairweather]

How simple and predictable of you to pick off the weakest point and ignore the others. Care to engage those? Regardless, since you're interested in real issues, how do you feel about senate Democrat's not-so-subtle threats against ABC's broadcast license? Freedom of the press...D-style. And spare me the source-attack, please.

 

http://media.nationalreview.com/

 

Senate Dems Threaten Disney's Broadcast License

09/07 06:45 PM, Media Culture

Sens. Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer, and Dorgan sent a letter to Disney today containing the following passages:

 

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. [...]

 

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.

 

Who in the press will stick up for ABC's right to air this miniseries without having its broadcast license threatened?

[Crux]

I submit to you that your bit about "The Reagans" was not the weakest but the strongest part of your post as it was the only part that related in any way to the topic of abusing public airwaves access and because the remainder of your post was off-topic and factually erroneous: Sandy Berger is not a convicted felon, nor was he ever actually accused of stealing anything. Thus, in regard to the Michael Moore film that you cite as an example of erroneous information, I submit to you that there are technically more factual inaccuracies in your post than there are in Fahrenheit 9/11. In your favor, I concur that Moore's film is deceptive and I will continue to assert that the film is irrelevant to the topic at hand - which is the matter of the shameless and defamatory propagandization of the 9/11 tragedy.

 

Now, regarding your news that Senate democrats are talking about pulling Disney's FCC license, that is definitely predictable: I have argued it is a violation of federal law for public sector resources to be allocated for the purpose of dissemination of propaganda for political purposes. The public airwaves thusly abused by Disney/ABC present not only grounds for revocation of the broadcasting license but for criminal prosecution under the provisions of the respective statutes.

 

In a letter of petition that I emailed yesterday to Disney and my Senators, I made the same complaint in regard to the legality of using the airwaves for the purpose planned. In that light, you will understand I am pleased to hear that at least some of our elected representatives are now standing up for the applicable law that is intended to protect the public's right to be told the truth.

 

Cheers.

 

[Fairweather]

In your favor, I concur that Moore's film is deceptive and I will continue to assert that the film is irrelevant to the topic at hand - which is the matter of the shameless and defamatory propagandization of the 9/11 tragedy.

????Are you serious???? Read back to yourself what you just wrote above.

 

Now, regarding your news that Senate democrats are talking about pulling Disney's FCC license, that is definitely predictable: I have argued it is a violation of federal law for public sector resources to be allocated for the purpose of dissemination of propaganda for political purposes. The public airwaves thusly abused by Disney/ABC present not only grounds for revocation of the broadcasting license but for criminal prosecution under the provisions of the respective statutes.

 

In a letter of petition that I emailed yesterday to Disney and my Senators, I made the same complaint in regard to the legality of using the airwaves for the purpose planned. In that light, you will understand I am pleased to hear that at least some of our elected representatives are now standing up for the applicable law that is intended to protect the public's right to be told the truth.

 

Cheers.

 

Tell it to Dan Rather. Despite your past attempts to claim the middle ground, you are exposed as a political hack. Nothing wrong with choosing sides - just be honest with yourself (and others) about it. I find it telling that you, and those like you, claim to be the frontline protectors of free speech and press....until that freedom upsets you in some way.

 

TR

Edited September 9, 2006 by Fairweather

[G-spotter]

For real freedxom of the moviemaker speech these days you gotta go to Russia. This American 911 stuff is bullshit. In Russia they would be making the Clinton/Lewinsky porn with lookalikes.

 

RUSSIAN FILMMAKER REPORTEDLY TO PORTRAY BELARUSIAN PRESIDENT IN EROTIC MOVIE.

 

 

 

 

"Moskovsky komsomolets" reported on August 28 that

 

Russian film director Aleksandr Valov is working on an erotic film

 

that will mockingly depict Belarusian President Alyaksandr

 

Lukashenka. Valov revealed that his film will show the life of a

 

Belarusian collective farm manager named Luka whose hobbies are limited to skiing, playing hockey, and philandering.

 

 

 

 

The action of the film is to focus on the visit of a foreign delegation to the farm, to which Luka has invited fashion models from Moscow to personify milkmaids. The film will reportedly also parody Ukrainian Progressive Socialist Party leader Natalya Vitrenko, a staunch supporter of Lukashenka. Valov assured the newspaper that central characters in the film will bear a "100 percent similarity" to their real-life prototypes.

 

 

 

 

"We will have six erotic scenes. Sex and satire are our main direction," he added. Valov is the author of a scandalous erotic film "Yuliya," which presents a love affair between heroes resembling former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko

 

and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.

[Crux]

In your favor, I concur that Moore's film is deceptive and I will continue to assert that the film is irrelevant to the topic at hand - which is the matter of the shameless and defamatory propagandization of the 9/11 tragedy.

 

????Are you serious???? Read back to yourself what you just wrote above.

 

Now, regarding your news that Senate democrats are talking about pulling Disney's FCC license, that is definitely predictable: I have argued it is a violation of federal law for public sector resources to be allocated for the purpose of dissemination of propaganda for political purposes. The public airwaves thusly abused by Disney/ABC present not only grounds for revocation of the broadcasting license but for criminal prosecution under the provisions of the respective statutes.

 

In a letter of petition that I emailed yesterday to Disney and my Senators, I made the same complaint in regard to the legality of using the airwaves for the purpose planned. In that light, you will understand I am pleased to hear that at least some of our elected representatives are now standing up for the applicable law that is intended to protect the public's right to be told the truth.

 

Cheers.

 

Tell it to Dan Rather. Despite your past attempts to claim the middle ground, you are exposed as a political hack. Nothing wrong with choosing sides - just be honest with yourself (and others) about it. I find it telling that you, and those like you, claim to be the frontline protectors of free speech and press....until that freedom upsets you in some way.

 

TR

 

 

Your rebuttal is interesting and apparently I failed to distinguish Michael Moore’s independent film from the mainstream production now in question. For me, the contrast is self evident, but I concede that both works arguably comprise propaganda related to 9/11.

 

About the Disney work, may it suffice to contrast it by observing that it is a major media ($40 million) dramatization (not a collection of sound bites) of events leading up to 9/11 and it will be broadcast over the public air waves. Moreover, to extend its “lessons” into schools, "educational materials" have been prepared for distribution to 100,000 high school teachers. Thus, the “docudrama” really is being delivered as a history lesson even though producers admit it is fictional.

 

Imagine, for contrast, that the Moore film was produced on this scale, that it comprised fictional Hollywood enactments presented as historical accounts, and that it was also pumped into schools as being educational material. For many people who think the ABC presentation is an overt falsification and politicization of the facts about the centrally tragic 9/11 event, this is an upsetting development.

 

All the specific accounts I’ve found about the movie’s contents indicate its producers insisted on weaving patently false accounts – “content that is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate” – about the things that were done or said prior to the 9/11 attacks and about the findings of the 9/11 commission.

 

Because extreme damage is attributed to similar misrepresentations of fact in our nation’s recent history – most particularly by the false linking of Iraq with 9/11 – I think the apprehension being voiced is understandable and not necessarily a reflection of extreme political bias.

 

According to Disney/ABC the movie in question was developed in cooperation with over 300 right-wing bloggers and political conservatives who viewed screenings and provided input.. But from the left all reports are that not one liberal or progressive has been allowed to view the movie nor participate in its development.

 

In response to leaked transcripts, the movie has received scathing criticism from the left, but none from the right. The movie was written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, who appears to be regarded on the left as being a conservative political hack. Rush Limbaugh, the somewhat controversial right-winger who happens to be a friend of the screenwriter, advised in the production of the movie and now gushes praise for the work but yesterday boasted the movie says something quite different from what is stated in the report by the 9/11 Commission – and all the while the movie is being presented as a “docudrama” that is based on the 9/11 Report.

 

I think what is exposed here is nothing about my own irrelevant and somewhat ordinary political views, but the fact that Disney/ABC is taking a political position on 9/11.

 

That will be all.

 

[JayB]

Now, regarding your news that Senate democrats are talking about pulling Disney's FCC license, that is definitely predictable: I have argued it is a violation of federal law for public sector resources to be allocated for the purpose of dissemination of propaganda for political purposes. The public airwaves thusly abused by Disney/ABC present not only grounds for revocation of the broadcasting license but for criminal prosecution under the provisions of the respective statutes.

 

In a letter of petition that I emailed yesterday to Disney and my Senators, I made the same complaint in regard to the legality of using the airwaves for the purpose planned. In that light, you will understand I am pleased to hear that at least some of our elected representatives are now standing up for the applicable law that is intended to protect the public's right to be told the truth.

 

Cheers.

 

You can't be serious. Are you for real, or is this some kind of self-parody inspired by "Animal Farm"? "Free speech is sacred and inviolable *unless* it contains something that I object to, in which case I want the government to shut them down and charge them with crimes."

 

ABC is acting within its rights here, however much you may disagree with the manner in which it is choosing to do so. If there are factual inaccuracies, I don't blame the members of the Clinton administration and others for being upset with the manner in which they are portrayed, and I am glad that there's a legion of private citizens, columnists, etc who will work hard to expose them. Write ABC and tell them why you think that they should not air the program, write to corporations that do business with the network, boycott the network, burn the head of the network in effigy, turn your house into a giant anti-NBC billboard, stroll up and down I-5 wearing an anti-NBC sandwhich board - but the moment you call for the government to silence and/or prosecute people who are expressing sentiments that you object to, you've become the very thing that you've been warning others about.

 

I've never been too crazy about the docu-drama genre for many of the same reasons, but I'm happy to let public outrage and lost revenues work their magic in the event that a network chooses to air something along the lines of "Hero and Patriot: The Timothy McVeigh Story."