ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure ("very slight alterations")

[sabra]

Not sure if this is what ABC will be announcing soon?

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-wk-channel7sep07,0,61...

ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure

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

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

...

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

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

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

[redqueen]

1. So are they going to say it's contains lies and distortions?

Saying it's only based 'in part' on the commission's findings doesn't go anywhere near far enough to warn the unsuspecting that they're being misinformed.

[Mike Daniels]

16. Yep, "based in part" is pretty much the same as "inspired by"

In effect, it allows the producers to change things for dramatic effect without having to be held accountable.

[Ganja Ninja]

22. Based in part on truth, based in part on lies and RW spin.

What's the old saying? A half truth is the worst kind of lie. 1/2 truth + 1/2 lies = 1 big lie.

[musette_sf]

2. WHAT BULL n/t

[KyndCulture]

3. Would seem redundant.

That statement was in the news yesterday.

[LostinVA]

4. Berger and Albright would sue

Especially Berger.

[warrens]

5. All they have to add is...

"based in part on partisan lies from shit-eating right-wing lunatics who are buddies of the producer"

That would be enough for me. As long as they leave it on screen for at least 2 minutes, and run it every half hour.

[notundecided]

18. They forgot Poland!

[dave29]

6. Still a Prop-umentary

[PegDAC]

32. Randi Rhodes

has been calling it a "crapumentary".

[rodeodance]

7. "a left-wing organization" as in ONE?

[rodeodance]

9. "failures of the Clinton and Bush administrations"

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

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

[BonnieJW]

28. Thomas Kean is a whore

Accepting money to distort a tragedy???????

[geardaddy]

29. Patricia Heaton...

I think she's quite conservative.

[kysrsoze]

31. Just love how they compare (one) "left-wing" group to "conservative"

what's with the blatant bias? It's as if news organizations are trying to out-do each other in smearing.

[Double T]

8. NOT good enough...........

Turn up the pressure, boycott the ABC networks, boycott the ABC networks sponsors, write letters

[Hissyspit]

55. Absolutely NOT good enough... We need to UP the pressure, now.

[MADem]

10. FIVE HOUR??? Thought it was SIX ass-numbing HOURS??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Did you know SCHOLASTIC publishes HARRY POTTER???? They like fantasy on EVERY level apparently. The contact number/address/email to JK ROWLING's can be accessed at the above thread.

ABC JUST ANNOUNCED THEY AREN'T CHANGING SHIT!!!!!!!

[confludemocrat]

11. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Dem biggies need to keep up the attack on it, as well as

the grass roots, of course because the latter cannot rely much on the former, experience shows.

[EarlG]

12. Don't worry, you won't be able to tell

ABC won’t give President Clinton, Madeleine Albright or Sandy Berger a copy of its 9/11 docudrama, “The Path to 9/11.” But there is virtually nothing about the film ABC won’t share with the right-wing blogosphere.

For example, an ABC insider sent this missive to right-wing blogger Hugh Hewitt about potential edits to the film:

The Disney execs met all through the weekend - unheard of in this business - debating what changes would be made and what concessions should be given. Here is what looks to be the conclusion:

- There will be a handful of tweaks made to a few scenes.
- They are minor, and nuance in most cases - a line lift here, a tweak to the edit there.
- There are 900 screeners out there. When this airs this weekend, there will be a number of people who will spend their free evenings looking for these changes and will be hard pressed to identify them. They are that minor.
- The average viewer would not be able to tell the difference between the two versions.
- The message of the Clinton Admin failures remains fully intact.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-assures-blogger...

[redqueen]

26. Sweet.

I love how they just openly admit they're trying to blame the Clinton administration.

It's almost as if they know they'll never be held accountable for their actions.

[Lochloosa]

27. And this....they sent it to Rush

Clinton allies have complained that advance copies were sent to a number of conservative commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, but not to liberals. Limbaugh, saying that the screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a friend of his, told his radio audience that the film "indicts the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger. It is just devastating to the Clinton administration. It talks about how we had chances to capture bin Laden in specific detail."

ABC said copies of the film were sent to media organizations and commentators without regard to ideology, and that Democrats and Republicans were invited to a screening in Washington. At the screening, Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the Sept. 11 commission, assailed the film as inaccurate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14707869/?GT1=8506

[Benhurst]

13. NOT GOOD ENOUGH! God damn the fascist bastards!

[0007]

58. Jesus Christ! Just when you think you've seen it all...there's more

[AngryOldDem]

14. The show is airing Sunday and it's still in the editing process?

Also, how does one define "docudrama"? If you are not accurately dramatizing, or taking in proper context, historical record -- as ABC claims it is NOT doing with this movie -- then that is being disingenuous.

[wtmusic]

15. "The series is based in part on the truth,

the other part is based on the fascist delusions of Cyrus Nowrasteh."

Is that unreasonable?

[SDDEM06]

17. Are they going to include the scene

where Resident Bush and Osama bin Laden plan 9/11? That has just as much factual basis as some of the crap in this mockumentary.

[maseman]

19. Liberal media at it again

[Javaman]

20. A quick brain storm meeting at ABC to fix the inaccuracies

Several top execs at ABC huddle in a room. The room is a twitter with nervous stressful energy.

Exec #1: Okay okay, calm down, we can weather this, we do a little nip and tuck and off we go. Let's keep it simple...

Exec #2: Right, right, we have been through worse before, are you with me?

Exec #3: Let's get down to this, I have an tee time to make. Frankly, I read this thing several times, okay, once, well maybe the first few pages and didn't find a thing wrong with it. But here we are. Suggestions?

Exec #4: Well, I read up to page 32 and I'll tell you, this thing reads like a love story. Snap. I do have one thing that may make them happy...

Exec #5: spit it out...

Exec #6: oh I know the part you are talking about, the one with Godzilla, right?

Exec #7: Oh that was great. I was like freaking rolling on that one.

Exec #8: it's a drama dude.

Exec #9: But with light moments, like when the prez* rolled in with the tank, now that was some riveting action

Exec #10: Loved the tank, especially when he rolled over the terrorists in the subway...

Exec #11: that was ground breaking special effects you had there, I'll tell you, but it was done with warmth...

They all nod.

Exec #12: I especially loved the part where chaney strafed the attack boats in the hudson. and that line,"VP stands for very precise!"

They all laugh...

Exec #13: well, dang, what do we cut...

Exec #14: I guess we could actually look at the 9/11 report...

The room is dead silent, the suddenly they all burst out laughing...

Exec #15: facts are boring!

Exec #16: exactly, like I say, never let a fact get in the way of a good true story.

They all laugh.

Exec #17: Sounds like we're done, I'm off to Tahiti. See ya, don't want to be ya!

As they all file out, someone bumps into the table and the only copy of the 9/11 report falls into the trash.

[geardaddy]

33. Gone one!

You should submit that to the Daily Show or something like that.

[anitar1]

21. ABC

Why not also boycott Disneyland, DisneyWorld ect ? I want nothing to do with these slimeballs. Hope they are sued bigtime. Lies and money run them.

[Supersedeas]

23. is that like saying the documentary "might" have "some" truth in it

[Roy]

30. Of course not.. silly...

They just reworded some of the lies. :}

[Zorra]

24. These MSM fascists are 10 times more subtle than Goebbels and

100 times more dangerous.

Who knows what new technological devices and techniques these lying, greedy, anti-American freaks are using to shove lies down our throats and brainwash us and our kids.

Question: If they are willing to air this propaganda in an undisguised, obvious attempt to use lies in order to to change the outcome of the election in November, what else are they doing to make sure that the fascists retain power?

Answer: Every fucking thing they can.

[Spacemom]

25. "alleged inaccuracies"

There are no alleged inaccuracies. Something is either factual or it's bullshit. It sounds like most of this mini-series is based on the latter.

edit: typo

[jseankil]

34. ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-wk-channel7sep07,0,61...

[electropop]

35. I'll bet the changes don't address any of the lies.

Maybe just adding some more lies.

[brentspeak]

36. The "Clinton let Osama go" myth was debunked almost immediately

back in 2001, when GOP henchmen cooked it up to distract attention away from the fact that Bush and Condi had almost zero interest in Osama prior to 9/11. More GOP attempts to hide the truth about their actions (or, in this case lack of actions) by lying about their opponents.

[pat_k]

45. March 3, 1996 Sudan offer; March 16, 1996, HW visits Saudi

March 3, 1996
---------------
Sudan (under pressure of international sanctions) offers to extradite Osama bin Laden and to Saudi Arabia. Despite pressure from Clinton administration, Saudi Arabia refused. After failing to get Saudi Arabia to take him, Sudan expels him to Afganistan in May 1996.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61251-2001Oct...

March 16th, 1996
---------------------------
H.W. Bush is in Saudi, recieved at the Al-Salama Palace in Riyadh, being given the King Abdul Aziz Medal.

http://www.saudiembassy.net/1996News/News/UsrDetail.asp...

What was H.W. doing there?

Why would a visit from a former President at such a critical time in the "back channel" negotiations fail to be noted in any report of these events?

Unless parties to the events talk, it will never be proven, but I have No Doubt he was there use his influence with the Saudi's to make sure they refused to take bin Laden.

Motive? At best, to deny the Clinton administration a "win" -- at worse. . .

[Megahurtz]

47. Blah!

What a hypocritical crock of shit!
Every time I hear of Poppy brown-nosing with the Saudis it just makes me ill.

Who is putting out this lame-ass 9/11 movie anyway, and who's paying them to do it?

[donco6]

37. How many non-documentaries come with study guides?

Hmm?

[ixion]

38. this is a great example of subtle RW bias in 'objective' journalism

it uses subtle queues to try and kill the messenger.

For example:


"alleged inaccuracies"

-- NOT alleged. A matter of the public record.


urging the network to "correct"

-- Putting the word 'correct' in quotes implies there is nothing that needs correcting.


on and on in this piece, it does nothing to further the truth, only undermine those who would demand it from something claiming to follow the historical record.

[bluedeminredstate]

50. Bingo

I had to go back and really read it to see the obvious bias against Democrats. For Example:

The movie dramatizes what it deems intelligence and operational failures of the Clinton and Bush administrations, relying heavily on public records. Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 commission, served as a consultant.

After a screening of the first episode in Washington last week, some audience members attacked the film's depiction of the Clinton administration's pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Among those unhappy was Richard Ben-Veniste, an attorney and member of the 9/11 commission whom some conservatives have dismissed as a Democratic attack dog.

Implicit in their narrative is that since the some of info came from public records, therefore all of it is true, and Thomas Keane, (GOP) chairman of the commission, was a consultant so he can be trusted.
BUT those unhappy with the presentation of "facts" attacked the film's depiction of Clinton's actions AND Richard Ben Veniste is dismissed as an attack dog by repukes, so therefore his views are suspect.

This happens every day in every newspaper and every online news story, not to mention the cable bash-fests of the morally bankrupt, scheming Democrats. The information presented is always presented from the repuke view of Democratic motives, and they're very good at doing just what you point out - loaded words, false comparisons and the affirming idea that repugs are trustworthy no matter what.

[pat_k]

39. Get Bob Menendez to sue Kean? (Libels Clinton to help Kean Jr.)

The case goes like this:

Clinton is fundraising for Bob Menendez. (e.g., event last night).

Clinton's reputation and support has tangible value that affects the race.

For personal gain (to help Tom Kean Jr. unseat Bob Menendez) Thomas H. Kean approves libelous portrayal of President Clinton to damage Clinton, and thereby damage Menendez by reducing the value of Clinton's support.

Could be fun!

[SeattleVet]

40. Unless they've altered it to concentrate very heavily on the final

8 months leading up to 9/11, they haven't done their job.

[ShockediSay]

41. Dear ABC affiliate: Please advise when and where your license renewal

comes up for public comments before the FCC.

I am concerned about your abilitiy to serve the public interest with what I hear about "the Path to 9/11."

I am even more concerned about lack of real journalism in the ramping up to the attack in Iraq by our President, when independent investigators were not finding any evidence of the WMDs.

I shall look forward to your reply.


Very truly yours,

A Concerned Citizen

[MaineDem]

48. I'm asking who the sponsors are, as well

I truly think we need to go after the sponsors as vigorously as the affiliates.

[reprobate]

53. Thank you, ShockediSay. I copied your note without even asking.

I sent it to our local affiliate and added the following:

"Or am I contacting the wrong people. Perhaps my concerns would be better expressed to your sponsors?"

[diamidue]

60. license

Glad to see the Dems are thinking along those same lines:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/senate-democrat...

[ShockediSay]

61. WOW! Your link definitely recommended reading! nt

[ShockediSay]

85. Sinclair Affiliates (refused to carry names of war dead)most challengeable

I should think.

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=sinclair+affiliates+n...

These were the BushCo ABC affiliates who refused to carry Ted Koppel's Nightline episode reciting the names of our soldiers killed in Iraq, presumably for political reasons.

NOW if they carry this blatantly political Path to 9/11, how on earth can they withstand a challenge to their station licenses, inasmuch as they clearly represent partisan, rather than the public interest required for maintenance of a station license, IMO

[Nite Owl]

42. Alleged inaccuracies?

Like historical facts are a matter of opinion?

This tiger hasn't changed any stripes. It's not a matter of liberal vs conservative. Facts are facts and they aren't allowed to make them up.

[warrens]

43. The bottom line is...

No one is going to watch the fucking thing. Maybe a bit of morbid curiosity, but seriously, are you going to skip the Simpsons premiere to watch this horseshit? Even wingnuts know better than that.

[Not Me]

44. Exactly, AND...

When it airs, and Clinton comes out with his rebuttal, ABC is going to look pretty stupid.
Say what you want, Clinton enjoyed, and still enjoys a higher popularity measure than *does.

[calimary]

49. Well, maybe you and others like you, here, who are discerning and

informed won't bother with that dreck. But I'm afraid a lot of other people will. I have a good friend (we've NEVER fought in something like 40 years - except about politics - she's a confirmed, in-yer-face, unapologetic knuckledragger) whose Clinton-hatred and bush-admiration is FILLED with all the talking points you'd expect. ALL the crap - "well, Clinton let Osama get away TWICE," and "fight them here so we don't have to fight them there" - while insisting she watches everything - not just Pox "news." But from her stated viewpoints, I'd guess she DOESN'T watch much else than Pox, and certainly has never bothered with Keith Olbermann. It's a shame. And when we DO argue about politics, she is NEVER convinced, NEVER swayed a single inch, by anything I have to say, no matter how much information I present her to back up my statements, or how many times I try to jog her memory - like "well, it wasn't Clinton who diverted our troops away from Tora Bora when they had Osama cornered" or "9/11 happened on bush's watch, despite Al Gore's anti-terrorism task force, Sandy Berger's handing the whole playbook to contradicta - who then promptly filed it all in the 'round file' in January 2001," or "Clinton tried to do TONS of things to fight terrorism and nab Osama, and every time he made a move, the republi-CON majority in Congress blocked him at EVERY turn and kept hollering 'WAG THE DOG!!! WAG THE DOG!!!'" NOTHING shakes her out of the Stone Age. And this is otherwise a wonderful, well-educated, compassionate woman who's had a lot of bad breaks in life and had to struggle mightily to raise two kids while a widow. You'd think the Democrats would speak loudly and strongly to her, as far as whose interests OUR party tends to keep on a higher priority. But no. This lady just WILL NOT SEE OR HEAR THE TRUTH. She's even referred to Clinton as "slick Willie" like a lot of her redneck friends do. It's sad. It's the one area where we have a disagreement, and it's a LOO-LOO of a disagreement.

She and others like her WILL watch this program, and then turn to people like me/us and say - "SEE???? I told ya so!!!"

[reprobate]

51. calimary, is she aware of where the Bush family money came from?

I refer of course to Union Bank which was confiscated by the government in October 1942 for trading with the enemy. Prescott Bush (BoyGeore's grandfather) and one of the Harrimans where the stockholders and each got a million and a half for their stock from Uncle Sugar. This was the money that was split with the family to invest in oil.

Just google 'Prescott Bush' for the entire sordid story. I don't see how anyone who is aware of the Bush family history could defend the scum when they are in large part responsible for financing Hitler's arms build up which enabled him to start WWII. IMO the whole family is guilty of treason.

Try the 'T' word on your friend and see how high she jumps.

[calimary]

54. Sigh... I'm not sure about that, but I doubt it would sway her.

She hangs out with cowboys and stunt guys and rednecks and gun nuts. Her in-laws still have a ranch in Montana and fancy themselves as quite the cowpokes. She is active in the celebrity rodeo circuit, and actually was in Texas, shooting with some of these people on the same weekend when cheney shot that guy in the face. She said that's all anybody was talking about, and that they all heard about it very quickly, the afternoon before it made the news.

It's just such a drag. I try and try and try and try and try to reason with her. She won't hear of it. She's even said that the only people who have ever helped her charities and her fundraising activities have been wealthy wrong-wingers and that Dems and liberals have never helped her (I guess she doesn't count how THIS particular Dem/liberal HAS been there for her many times, as has my family). She's correct about one thing: many of them are rich, and she likes hanging out with 'em, but then again, I'm not sure how many Democrats or liberals or peaceniks frequent the rodeo circuit, so I'm not surprised if she only encounters those from the Dark Side. She doesn't live close to me, so I'm not always able to decontaminate her since we don't see each other very often.

One of these days, I suspect there'll be an opportunity to bring that up, about prescott bush and I.G. Farben and the Union Bank and how it took a frickin' act of Congress to get him to stop sleeping with (and laundering money for) the enemy. But it's just such a losing proposition. She will NOT hear of it. She's been very deeply programmed, and she KNOWS she's "right." She has this absolute certitude. The BEST I can get out of her, sometimes, is one of those vague cop-out-type "well, I don't know..." responses. It just devolves into a place where I don't want to be with her, since we've been best friends, otherwise, for 44 years and are godmothers to each other's kids. She dropped everything when my dad died to come be with us and help us. She's always considered my parents surrogate parents of her own, since hers weren't always there for her. Her husband died very early, and very young. She's struggled as a single parent ever since, and it hasn't been easy, especially since her mom will NOT help her at all - even though she's well-positioned to be able to do so. We've tried to help her whenever we could, within our own limited means (and, of course, there's all kinds of "currency" - not just money).

Now that I think of it, I suspect that, because her mom is very liberal - politics a lot like mine - and they had a VERY horrible falling-out several years ago (on top of an already-strained relationship), from which there has been NO recovery or forgiveness, that she might be rawther soured on liberals and Democrats in general. Probably left her very unfavorably predisposed and unreceptive to anybody who thinks like her mom.

Sigh... I STILL think souls can be saved. This is a very very dear soul, politics notwithstanding, and I truly love her, but she has VERY much embraced the Dark Side. I'll keep trying, but I'm also forced to be realistic. But she knows enough to realize that if she spouts something, I'm not gonna let it stand unchallenged.

My point was - there are some people who just will NOT hear. They're the horses you can lead to a bottomless artesian well and they won't drink even if they're about to die of thirst. I heard one such guy arguing with Randi Rhodes yesterday on the radio and despite the truckloads of facts she laid on him; despite her refuting his every argument and pre-fab, GOP-issued talking point with solid facts and verifiable truths, he just would not be moved. My friend is like that. And sadly, there are MANY like them. They just know what they know. Period. And they simply won't hear of anything different. I'm not entirely sure how you reach those people. Maybe you don't - maybe you just write 'em off and focus on someone who's more openminded or who is already in the process of waking up. I won't give up on my friend. But it's a thankless job with no positive results when I push it. A case in point: she thinks "bush did some good things." He evidently had "balls" in her mind, whereas Al Gore, she said, was really smart, but still knew nothing about foreign affairs (!). She conceded he was really smart, but that's about as far as I could get with her.

Thanks for your thoughts, reprobate. You and I are on the same page here, of course. Maybe you have a friend you'd love to redeem and bring in out of the darkness and he or she just won't come, won't listen, won't even consider it. Hopefully you don't, actually, because it's not only frustrating, it's damned HEARTBREAKING!!!

Er... sorry this is so long.

[John Q. Citizen]

46. Now if we could just get as many folks to question the commission report

as the movie, that would be truly progressive.

[citizen snips]

52. we need to still keep up the pressure.

[judaspriestess]

56. Read some entries on an MSNBC message board today

and it looks like the stupidity is continuing. There were posters already showing anger towards Clinton not giving the "order" to kill Bin Laden when a CIA operative had him in range.

Um that never happened idiots!!

[kitty1]

57. I guess they left out the part about the international alerts...

ahead of time from countries like Germany, Israel and Russia warning of an imminent attack coming. How convenient.
I guess they also neglected to open with the scene where Condi hands W the famous PDB in August which makes referrence to possible Al Quaida attacks coming to U.S. shores

[bliss_eternal]

59. Not good enough for me...

it must be pulled. No Reagan miniseries, none of this nonsense.

[Ignacio Upton]

62. ABC: 9/11 program criticism 'premature'

ABC: 9/11 program criticism 'premature'

By DEEPTI HAJELA, Associated Press Writer 4 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.

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."

The Washington Post, citing a network executive it did not name, reported in its Friday editions that ABC plans to make minor changes in response to the complaints from former Clinton administration officials

The ABC executive said the "adjustments and refinements" are "intended to make clearer that it was general indecisiveness" by federal officials that left the country vulnerable to terrorist attacks, "not any one individual," the Post reported. It said the executive requested anonymity because the network is making only written comments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_en_tv/911_film_c...

[LynnTheDem]

63. So WHO was in the White House almost one year before 911?

WHO did the 9/11 report actually criticize?

Wasn't Clinton.

[BlueManDude]

64. Yes - let's wait until they've polluted the atmosphere then debate it.

[Ignacio Upton]

66. Yeah, so then the lies will become impossible to debunk

It's fact that Iraq did not have that elaborate arsenal of WMD's, or that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11, yet both talkingpoints still persist today in the general public, in numbers larger than the "backwash" that supports Bush. The Path to 9/11 lies will join those lies and become ingrained in the public's collective memory.

If they air this mockudrama, our Congressional leaders should revoke their FCC license.

[BlueManDude]

69. Hey 30% think that Saddam was behind 9/11 n/t

[Ignacio Upton]

70. This article shows that it's more like 40%+

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[JuniperLea]

65. Former President Clinton

No such thing.

Past presidents are always referred to as "president".

"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."

That's funny. Yeah, they need to keep their lies straight! heh

[tsuki]

67. The film is not complete four days before they air it? They

sent an incomplete film to all their RW toadies to whip up a frenzied audience? If Disney/ABC was not a soulless, faceless corporate non-entity, I swear they were on crack.

[evatesq]

68. Vote "YES" on Vote.com to cancel crock-u-drama

Let's make our voices HEARD, loud and clear!  Go to Vote.com
and vote "YES" that ABC/Disney should cancel the
9/11 Miniseries because of Democratic and Clinton
Administration complaints:

http://www.vote.com/

Eva

[trotsky]

72. Vote.com is the toe-sucker's creation.

It's a right-wing scam. Don't ever go there.

[Fridays Child]

74. Isn't that Dick "Toe Sucker" Morris' site? I think I'll pass.

[leQ]

82. it's already been freep'd. at 77-23 voting no. (eom)

[Fridays Child]

71. If the editing process isn't complete, why dld Scholastic already...

...distribute a companion teaching guide? Wouldn't they want to make sure their material didn't discuss a scene that ended up on the cutting room floor?

[Doremus]

78. Scholastic has seen the light.

"Educational media giant Scholastic, Inc. announced it's dropping its original classroom companion guides to a controversial new docudrama, and replacing them with materials stressing critical thinking and media literacy.

"After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues," said Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic, in a press release."

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001483.php

[Fridays Child]

80. That's beside the point. They published their companion guide...

...on the Internet and distributed it to high schools. Now, why would they do that, if the editing process hadn't been completed? The fact that they did proves that ABC is lying.

[gasperc]

73. yeah, because only 900 copies were reviewed

assholes

[peace13]

75. ABC is 100% full of @*it!

[Neshanic]

76. The first step in "we are not going to pull it."

Next step this evening...."Disney/ABC would like this to be a start for a dialogue that helps heal the country from an event that forever changed us as a country."

Next...."We at Disney/ABC welcome all discourse on the program, and stand behind it, as we were challenged to make this airing. We will have internet dicussion boards at our corporate websites, and welcome all to join in the national conversation."

Next...Big guys brought in. Talking heads of various stripes discuss the importance of this airing in the national healing. Couple of first time lefties thrown in to add to the mix, and make it look unbiased, and newbies on air never do well, being nervous and all.

Showtime!

[samsingh]

77. they want us to wait i guess until its aired in all its lies

then its too late, and they can claim they didn't know about the lies being lies.

we are not that stupid - they must be thinking about the freepers.

[JerseygirlCT]

79. Don't you love this argument?

You can't criticize us for putting this on the public airwaves until we put it on the public airwaves.

At which point, of course, criticism is largely moot.

[orwell]

81. So were the 900 copies sent to RW flacks...

...just elaborate shiny coasters? Or did they need their "creative input" as pre-production propaganda specialists?

Spin, spin, spin...

[theophilus]

83. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. ABC and everybody

else should have learned THAT from 9-11, eh? So why not PREVENT another disaster by yanking this piece of RW propaganda. Once it has been telecast it will be as on a good Futurama episode....."You've watched it-you can't unwatch it!"

ABC should provide advanced copies to all those portrayed and then they can speak from direct experience. They can go ahead and contact their lawyers and the lawyers can sit in and have some popcorn to puke up as they watch this drivel.

Come on ABC, we know that you and your "masters" just want this to get out. Then you can issue your apology, in very small letters, on page 40 of the NYT later. Damage done!!!!!!

[Imagevision]

84. "very slight alterations"? enough to avoid prosecutions??