Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
ABC Backs Down
Posted by: Dale Franks on Thursday, September 07, 2006

The 9/11 docu-drama from ABC has been revised to lessen the impact of the ahistorcial scene that caused so much heartburn with the Clintonistas.
ABC toned down a scene that involved Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified. "That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said.

The network also decided that the credits would say the film is based "in part" on the 9/11 panel report, rather than "based on" the report, as the producers originally intended.
If only they'd had George Tenet red-lighting the Osama assassination instead of Sandy "Paper Pants" Berger, they'd be golden.

Ah, well, water under the bridge, now.

UPDATE:

Or, maybe not. The Senate Democrats have sent a letter to ABC CEO Robert Iger, essentially telling him to pull the mini-series, hinting that they'll try to pull ABC's broadcasting license if he doesn't.
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...

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.
SO, far, ABC's response has been, "Hey, whatever you've heard about the movie, we haven't even finished editing it yet! So, your objections may not even be valid!"

Well, maybe, but when I look at my watch, I can see it's September 7th. If they haven't finished editing the movie yet...well...that's cutting it awfully close, isn't it?

Now, again, ABC is in this pickle because they went a little to far in taking dramatic license with the story. All historically based movies tend to do that, but movies that purport to be documentarily correct shouldn't. That's ABC's fault. Management should've been all over this, demanding accuracy, and setting up detailed fact checking.

Still, if I was to get a threatening letter like this from Sen. Reid, I doubt I'd respond well. Threats make me unhappy. It'd be hard to stop myself from at least composing a reply that began:

Dear Sen Reid;

Let me begin with a message both to you, and the horse you rode in on...


I realize, of course, that actually sending such a message might be...unwise.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I realize, of course, that actually sending such a message might be...unwise.
I did not see the threat, but I did see the legal responsibilities of broadcasters spelled out.

I guess there are two ways one could take this...

1. Pointing out the law is a threat to use it to prosecute ABC, unfairly perhaps.

2. Pointing out the law is a reminder of a broadcast networks legal responsibilities so that they may reconsider whether they are meeting those responsiilities.

I guess with my total distrust of government, and considering the power the Democrats may have in several months, in either case, you are almost certainly correct, that sending such a message would be decidely unwise.

But wouldn’t it make a great story!

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
So, your boss says to you:

"Cap, when we hired you, we made it clear that you were supposed to be here Monday through Friday. If you insist on taking Friday off, you’ll show yourself to be unworthy of our trust in hiring you."

Is your boss just reminding you of your responsibilities, or is he threatening to fire you if you don’t show up on Friday?

Your family’s ability to eat, by the way, is contingent on you providing the correct answer.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Is your boss just reminding you of your responsibilities, or is he threatening to fire you if you don’t show up on Friday?

When did the TV networks start working for the Government?

So all the nutjobs teachers and professors who are not just funded by the government but also certified by the government and claim 9/11 was an inside job should be fired or gagged right now? I’m sure there’s all kinds of public obligation niceties in their certifications.

This movie can be handled the same way that F* 9/11 was handled. Through srutiny of the facts in the media by reporter articles, documentaries, etc.

And as far as I’m concerned this is unfair to Berger, somewhat, but not to Clinton. And I’m questioning if this is extremely unfair to Berger since he definitely was an element in the "capture only" and "capture but kill if necessary for self-defense" hee haw about how to get Bin Laden.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
"Cap, when we hired you, we made it clear that you were supposed to be here Monday through Friday. If you insist on taking Friday off, you’ll show yourself to be unworthy of our trust in hiring you."

Is your boss just reminding you of your responsibilities, or is he threatening to fire you if you don’t show up on Friday?
We could play semantic games like this all day, but I’ll play along.

If my boss said exactly that, then I would assume that I was in some jeapardy. Then I would determine IF that was the committment I made. If my understanding of my committment was that I had 15 vacation days and planned on using one of them on Friday, I would take my vacation day on Friday. If the boss fired me for taking a vacation day that I was entitled to, I would seek arbitration and win.

So essentially, if I was reminded of my responsibilities and I had met my responsibilities, I would not be concerned, but if I was about to fail to meet the responsibilities that I committed to and my boss informed me before my incorrect action, I would certainly appreciate the fact that he let me know before I did something really stupid and got myself in hot water.

So again, if ABC is meeting their responsibilities, then they have nothing to worry about, but if they are about commit a breach of those responsibilities, do you think that they would like to know before, or after?

Seriously though, beyond the semantics, if you were a legislator and you believed a network was about to violate the spirit or the letter of the legal requirements placed on them when they were granted free and exclusive rights to certain broadcast frequencies, it is automatically a threat or extortion to share that opinion?

This is not Terri Schiavo, the public airwaves, whether you agree or not, is well within the purview of the federal government and it’s legislators.

I guess they COULD have gone through proper channels and skipped this part and just sought an injunction from a court, but this seems a bit more civilized and less heavy handed to me.

Of course the real power here is the FCC, if the FCC breathed the slightest discontentment with ABC, they would fold like a lawn chair, not in fear for their license, or in fear of being fined, but in fear of getting less favorable answers when they request more and more media ownership approvals.

Besides, I think the focus of Democrats in this cultural contest is to make everyone suspect of this film, however ABC ends up qualifying it, and this open letter seems to be part and parcel of that effort.

ABC screwed the pooch by not paying enough attention to what they had committed to air, the producers essentially lied to them, telling them that this was based on the 9/11 COmmission Report, when in fact it was based on a lot of sources, some less than reliable, and some totally partisan.

Like Rush Limbaugh said, "the film really zeros in on the shortcomings of the Clinton administration in doing anything about militant Islamofascism or terrorism during its administration."

It’s a touchy subject, ya know?
When did the TV networks start working for the Government?
Oh, and yes, TV networks have a responsibility that movie theaters and other pay media do not, it is technically a responsibility to the people, but being that the people are ostensibly respresented by our government, the government holds ENORMOUS sway over broadcast networks. So this is different that Farenheit 911, but imagine the firestorm if one of the networks wanted to show THAT on broadcast TV. Remember, Disney (ABC parent company, refused to even distribure F911). If the FCC sneezes, networks catch colds.

Cap






 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
I don’t remember such consernation about accuracy and upholding their duty to serving civic needs when the Reagan docudrama was aired??

Maybe the networds should say, well, since the Presidential debates are all a bunch of who-hah anyway, our civic duty lies elsewhere.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
It is another episode of docudrama twisting the facts to present a biased viewpoint. No such "dramatized" meeting happened involving Sandy Berger.

Republicans rightfully protested the factually incorrect sliming of the Reagan’s BioFiction and then made similar insinuations about how they would not let the public airwaves be used as a partisan "attack vehicle" forum.

In this case, the viewpoint is dumb to start with. IF.....IF...Clinton had whacked bin Laden, it would not have stopped 9/11. The Single Evil Mastermind theory - much beloved by the press, Hollywood, [to simply plots to distill a movement down to one individual for consideration of audience attention span and soundbite brevity] and the fools on the Far Left, who believe that once we catch Binnie and give him 100 ACLU Jews to defend him we win the War...well, that "Single Evil Mastermind" concoction is wrong. Wrong as the other side, which try and distill a good movement or ideology spanning hundreds of years and thousands of leaders down to a figurehead like Mandela or MLK.

If Clinton had whacked Binnie, the whole plot was already well underway as a sequel to the 1995 Bojinko Plot and the 1993 failure to take down the WTC. All Khalid Sheik Mohammed would have done was get the green light for al-Zawahiri, Atef, Sulieman al-Rashib, or whatever successor he needed.

And if Clinton was rather feckless, terrorism wasn’t even on the Bush radar -other than as a policy shift well down the priority list of both Ashcraft and Bush.

It’s woulda, shoulda territory. Both Bush and Clinton ignored warnings. But did have other, unassailably true, high priorities to pursue. Clinton’s time trying to end the Palestinian issue - the center of radical Islamic recruitment outside the Bush Family friends the Saudis - was time well spent.

THe American public had ample time to assimilate all the Muslim attacks from WTC#1 to the USS Cole, but were fat, dumb, complacent, and lazy. If 9/11 had somehow been thwarted, they would still be riveted on summer shark attacks, J Lo, and if Gary really did kill Chandra. It takes crisis, pain, or blood to educate the American public and wake them up. Without 9/11 there is no way Congress would have authorized invading Afghanistan. Without 9/11, there is no way Bush would have deviated from tax cuts for the wealthy as his only real objective he went after with passion.

9/11 was inevitable. Clinton was not an appeaser. Bush not a Churchill who warned the nation unheeded for years.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
No such "dramatized" meeting happened involving Sandy Berger.
... that we know of. There’s a better than average chance that the documents in his pants might tell a different story.
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
I don’t remember such consernation about accuracy and upholding their duty to serving civic needs when the Reagan docudrama was aired??
More to the point, I do remember all the hue and cry from the usual leftoids about "freedom of speech" and "censorship" and the all time favorite "McCarthyism" over Republican criticism of the Reagan drama.

Funny, I’m not hearing any of those refrains from the left today over this.

MK, Glasnost, Cindyb or Mona- care to explain? Would any of the regular or visiting lefties care to enlighten me?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I’m amazed that it took till the last poster (shark) for the work "censorship" to appear.

That is what Sen Reid and his collegues are threatening.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
More to the point, I do remember all the hue and cry from the usual leftoids about "freedom of speech" and "censorship" and the all time favorite "McCarthyism" over Republican criticism of the Reagan drama.

Funny, I’m not hearing any of those refrains from the left today over this.

MK, Glasnost, Cindyb or Mona- care to explain? Would any of the regular or visiting lefties care to enlighten me?


As a quasi-liberal I’d be happy to enlighten you.

There is little difference between the Reagan mini-series and this dramatization, it is a valid comparison, as opposed to say, comparisons to this 9/11 and Farenheit 911. The main difference are the people making the most noise, but the fundamental principals are the same. Broadcast networks have a unique responsibility to be intellectually honest and fair in their broadcasts as a result of the deal that was made giving exclusive broadcast rights to television networks a long, long time ago.

It may be objectionable to have partisan bias in some network presentations, but it is not necessarily a violation of the public trust, however, when there is a presentation on subject of great national interest or controversy, it IS a critical element of the networks responsibility to accurately describe the presentation. In the case of the Reagan miniseries, the claim was that the miniseries was a bio-pic, but the final product was really a slanted fictionalization. I watched the thing on Showtime, and although I am not a huge fan of Ronald Reagan, this went far beyond the actual failings of Ronald Reagan and invented failings from whole cloth. CBS could have aired the mini-series anyway, but in order to be intellectually honest, they would have had to work very hard to undo the advertised bio-pic nature of the show with constant advisements during the mini-series that it was a fictionalized account. Esentially, they would have had to make viewer aware on a constant basis that they were presenting crap.

This is PRECISELY the situation with the The Path to 9/11. This has been sold as a fact based dramatization of real events based on the 9/11 Commission report. To undo that publicity, the network will have qualify it’s presentation to the point that they will have to admit throughout the program that they are presenting crap.

There are no such editorial standards for theatrical release or cable broadcasts or other pay to play media.

Those that are suggesting that this fictionalized account of the events leading up to 9/11 should be censored or cancelled are basing this suggestion on this basis.

I would like to see this as the producers intended, bias and all, but I would also expect that ABC go as far as needed to undo the false advertising that preceded this show.

There is no doubt that some folks cried "censorship" when the Reagan mini-series was cancelled, and if the Reagan miniseries were factually accurate, those people would have been right, but under the circumstances, to have presented it, or this Path to 911, would have either been a violation of the public trust, or would have required so much qualify as the nature of the show, that it would have rendered it pointless.


There, how’s that?

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
So Cap-

You really kind of sidestepped my question you know.

But anyway-

Under your scenario, CBS should’ve lost their license for Dan Rather’s forged memos broadcast.

Interesting....

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Shark,

Are you actually expecting coherency? I was getting used to hearing what the latest talking point were. I never expected coherency. ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Federal officeholders in the Democratic Party issued a thinly veiled threat to ABC’s broadcast license.

Even the Times didn’t get this treatment from the White House.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Federal legislators are threatening content-based governmental regulation of speech. Not exactly the same as "protesting" or even "objecting" to a Reagan docudrama.
 
Written By: jinnmabe
URL: http://
Federal legislators are threatening content-based governmental regulation of speech. Not exactly the same as "protesting" or even "objecting" to a Reagan docudrama.
First of all, legislators, especially from the party not in power, have no sway over the broadcasting license of a network. That power is reserved to the FCC, a department within the executive branch, which of course is run by the Republican President, the top political office holder in the Republican party.

When the Reagan miniseries was scheduled, the top non-office holder in the Republican party who actually hold sway over the FCC, sent a letter to CBS demanding that they cancel the broadcast or have a disclaimer every ten minutes during the broadcast indicating the presentation was fictional.

1. Congress can’t pull ABC’s license
2. Democrats don’t have enough votes to get a bill passed even if they did have the authority.

Conclusion - It is not a threat if you do not have the power to cause a negative consequence.

But this is a really good try at changing the subject from whether it is appropriate to air this thing.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
Mr. Sarcastic: "I think the focus of Democrats in this cultural contest is to make everyone suspect of this film, however ABC ends up qualifying it, and this open letter seems to be part and parcel of that effort."
"MK, Glasnost, Cindyb or Mona- care to explain?"
Assuming that Mr. Sarcastic has correctly interpreted the Liberal Narrative on this issue, we don’t need to wait for the above lefties to draft their response. It will go something like this:

This film is suspect. It is a good thing that we have Democrats to hold the networks to a high standard of never insulting Democratic administrations and it is just too bad that we don’t have more Democratic administrations to be the subjects of suspect films like this. This whole controversy is the fault of the Bush administration. Since Democrats sent this letter there can be no question of "chilling effects" on free speech, censorship or content regulation. Bush clearly broke the law in this matter; oh, and he lied as well."

I think I covered the main points.[talking, that is.]

 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Wow, look at this inconvienent truth. Not sure why the documentary did show this one film instead of the bogus one. More grist for killing the sibboleth of Clinton having the terror thing handled until Bush screwed it up.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Personally, I find the whole fighting over the "truth" behind 9/11 very tiring.

I would be happy if everyone could come to terms with the fact that it was screwed up from 1992 onwards. The various attempts to rewrite history and pretend that everything was hunky dory, everyone loved the US and then suddenly the Bush Admin got elected and everyone hated the US. That is just plain daft.

As Michael Scheurer points out on Chris Matthews show (Matthews the conversative firebrand and Bush apologist).
O‘DONNELL: That‘s very interesting. I don‘t think that many Americans know that or think that everything that they‘ve heard—you‘ve spent your life tracking Osama bin Laden. From what we know now and what you know, how many missed opportunities were there to prevent the 9/11 attacks?

SCHEUER: Well, we had—the question of whether or not we could have prevented the attacks is one you could debate forever. But we had at least eight to 10 chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all occasions decided that the information was not good enough to act.
8-10, pared with that video, interesting. So who was in charge then, inquiring minds and all.
SCHEUER: I don‘t know firsthand information about Able Danger, ma‘am, but from what I‘ve read in the media, that the lawyers prevented them from passing the information to the FBI, that certainly rings true. The U.S. intelligence community is palsied by lawyers.

When we were going to capture Osama bin Laden, for example, the lawyers were more concerned with bin Laden‘s safety and his comfort than they were with the officers charged with capturing him. We had to build an ergonomically designed chair to put him in, special comfort in terms of how he was shackled into the chair. They even worried about what kind of tape to gag him with so it wouldn‘t irritate his beard. The lawyers are the bane of the intelligence community.

A special chair, ... worried about his comfort. Isn’t that just precious.

That is what happens when you treat the situation as a law enforcement problem.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Clinton having the terror thing handled
The latest al Qaeda video shows UBL et al, has the men saying that their actions were inspired by an urge to avenge the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.

Doesn’t that map to Clinton and Putin ? Bill doesn’t even get credit for trying to end suffering in Kosovo. I guess late to the dance doesn’t count.

Interesting that the occupation of holy (Saudi) soil isn’t mentioned as a motivating principle.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
First of all, legislators, especially from the party not in power, have no sway over the broadcasting license of a network. That power is reserved to the FCC, a department within the executive branch, which of course is run by the Republican President, the top political office holder in the Republican party.
Yet in the very first post on this thread you note that with the power the Dems possibly can have in a few months, doing something to anger them (such as showing a movie that they think hurts them politically) "wouldn’t be wise"

No....I guess I didn’t expect coherency after all.

Second of all, I’m overall extremely pleased Bill and the Dems have done this. They look terrible, and the impression one is left with is that Bill and the Dems indeed have something to hide.

The regular person- not the Dem hacks who think history began the day Bush was sworn in, nor the GOP partisians who think Bush was 100% blameless on the issue - holds the (true) belief that everyone was responsible in the years leading up to 9/11. Both parties, multiple presidents, Congress, our news media.

Period.

Bill Clinton isn’t blameless, and his actions and the actions of the Dems only make him look MORE guilty. Fine by me.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
When I came across this interview my jaw nearly dropped to the ground.

Q: I mean, isn’t it the case that this film actually does show Sandy Berger hanging up the phone in the middle of a conference call, when there are U.S. personnel whose lives are at risk on the ground, and they have bin Laden in their sights, and that really nothing like that ever happened?

KEAN: Well, the question, Shaun, is whether — whether it was Sandy Berger, or whether it was the head of the CIA? Whether the call was hung up on or whether it was totally — whether it was disrupted by a failure in communications? I mean, these are all historically, I think, open questions. But again, this is a, you know, this is a miniseries, not a documentary.

It’s not like the scene that has been so upsetting never happened, but rather the detail of how the phone call ended is in dispute.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
As a conservative I STRONLY urge ABC to correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the upcoming “Path to 9/11” before it is shown. And I am not the only conservative saying this.

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch "The Reagans."

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.

Captain’s Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, "The Path to 9/11" is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.
 
Written By: clearwaterconservative
URL: www.arewereallysafer.com
First, they came for the docu-drama...

Then they came for the AM talk shows.

Reid’s threat was the most chilling abuse of power I’ve heard ever from a top ranked office holder.

If one party doesn’t like a public broadcast of point of view because the details (not the big picture) might be incorrect or undocumentable, then what’s to stop ANY political content being censored on the electromagnetic spectrum by the ruling party?

If the Dems can go after ABC, why can’t the Republicans pull the licenses of the Pacifica Foundation? They operate 5 FM station in major US markets, 4 of which are literally powerhouses with very strong signals and wide reach. Industry experts estimate the market value of their licenses to exceed half a billion dollars. The stuff they broadcast is far beyond even the Daily Kos crowd. Yet, we the people GAVE them the licenses.

Heck, one can argue without even evoking content or fairness issues that our socialist broadcasting company, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and NPR, should no longer receive taxpayer subsidies.
 
Written By: Whitehall
URL: http://
I seem to remember a huge brouhaha in the not to distant past over the appointment of Kenneth Tomlinson to the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because it was claimed that he would espouse Bush’s right leaning views. Now the direct intervention by Democratic officeholders in the Senate is somehow overlooked by most of the media and civil liberties groups and worse, applauded.

I’ve seen claims since the 60’s that the Democratic Party is the real protector or civil liberties and now, this whole "Path to 9/11" debacle, has shown that absolute support for civil liberties by Democrats is purely an illusion. Given the right motivation, they will dump them in a minute.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Yet in the very first post on this thread you note that with the power the Dems possibly can have in a few months, doing something to anger them (such as showing a movie that they think hurts them politically) "wouldn’t be wise"
Wow, imagine that, a conserative takes a quote out of context and applies it to a totally different scenario than intended.

No wonder this movie was made this way.


As you can read in the first post, what "wouldn’t be wise" would be to write a letter to Senator Reid that began... "Let me begin with a message both to you, and the horse you rode in on..."

One would have to be a moron not to be aware of the fact that the media/communication industry has been bending over backwards to please George Bush for 6 years. And Bush still runs the FCC, not Congress, and when Congress has a Demcoratic majority in a few months, they still won’t run the FCC. ONLY the FCC can threaten a broadcasters license. Anyone else pointing out what the legal responsibilities of a broadcast network are is doing just that, and nothing more.

But it’s SOOOOOO much fun to say, oooh, that scary Senator Reid is going to shut down ABC if they don’t do as they say.

Sell crazy somewhere else.

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic (yeah, that one)
URL: http://
On the aftermath of 9/11 2001, George Bush and his administration have every resource available to them to fight Osama Bin Laden and the war on terrorism. Some of the resources are the $19 billion he has spent on the war, 140,000 troops he has deployed in the middle east, revoking the civil rights of the American people by means of the Patriot Act, Wire taping, spying on their finances, and the 5 year time from 9/11 to the present. He had all these and yet he is finding a very long and a very hard time on laying a hand on Osama Bin Laden and terrorism. So the question is, what is ABC’s "The Path to 9/11" asking from the Clinton admistration where he had none of any resource that Bush has? Should they have done a better job if they have focus on aftermath of 9/11, and in so order asking why did he waste all the resources that was given to him by the fear of the American people from 9/11 and terrorism.

jsy
 
Written By: Joseph S
URL: http://
So I’m watching the 911 movie, with a couple of disclaimers
indicating that "parts" of the movie are fictionalized, but that it
is based on the 911 COmmission Report "and other sources" including
a book called "the Cell" written by former reporter and current Bush
Administration Assistant Director of Public Affairs.

All of the fictional scenes that drew complaints were in the film,
so that so make the disinformation squad happy. Also, Clinton’s role
in the history was limited to references to Monica Lewinsky. Nowhere
was it referenced that Clinton was obsessed with OBL, and nowhere
was it mentioned how when Clinton launched cruise missile attacks,
the Republicans could not step away from their goal of destroying
Clinton with the Whitewater turned Lewinsky witch hunt, choosing
instead to accuse Clinton of "wagging the dog".

I understand that is a docu-drama, and I understand the need for
composite characters and some fictionalization where the exact
conversations are unknown and some guesses need to be made. But to
fictionalize what was already known is just wrong.

Worst of all, when every single bit of liberty taken pushes the same
theme, the higher you get, or the closer you get to Clinton, the
worse the decisions were.

Trashed in this movie were using fabricated scenes were:
Clinton
Janet Reno
Sandy Berger
George Tenet

No scenes were fictionalized to make these folks look good.

Now, what happens tomorrow?

If Bush is given the same treatment, then maybe I am over-reacting.
But if they add or change actual history to make anyone in the Bush
administration appear more engaged or more in tune with the al
Qaeda, then this will be a pure partisan hack piece.

I am most interested in how Condi Rice is depicted as 9/11
approaches. Will she be a hero that tried to stop it, or a goat that was caught completely by surprise, planning on giving a speech on the necessity of missile defense on 9/11?

We’ll see.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
By the way, after viewing the film and seeing that all of the controversial scenes that were fictionalized having real people making statements they never made, I have to think that ABC did send a message to the Democrats... and the horse they ran in on.

But like I said, it’s Bush and the FCC that can threaten a license, not the minority party in the Senate.

ABC - Always Blame Clinton

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
The only folks that would have their minds changed by this movie are those who would be fooled with the "Jedi mind trick," the weak minded.

Of course, the weak minded wouldn’t reconize Janet Reno, Sandy Berger or George Tenet. Frankly, I don’t remember the Janet Reno character. The Tenet actor did resemble George Tenet. But again, the weak minded folks couldn’t identify Tenet in a line up if all the others were Michael Jackson look alikes.

The only person who I thought might be mad as hell, is Sec. Albright. They made her look .. let’s say .. unpretty.

I have noticed that Memeorandum seems to have gone pretty much dead on the topic now. My guess, just as "F9/11" and "the Day After Tomorrow" were supposed to change the political landscape in 2004 and didn’t, the fallout from this TV movie will be in the noise. The hysteria that ran from the blogsphere to the US Senate last week now look quite silly. Next week the shouting will be gone and in a couple of weeks even the shouting will be forgotten, but I’m not so sure about the damage to the Democrats civil liberties repuation, a thin one at that, which took a fist to chin with the idiotic threatening by federal Democratic officeholders in the Senate, not to mention a certain former President.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider