Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mightytboy on September 08, 2006, 09:44:52 AM
-
ABC folds under pressure on pointing out Clinton's hand in 9/11 attacks in upcoming show.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212935,00.html
I'm suprised they even considered airing anything at all that has Clinton's name and 9/11 mentioned any where close together.
Everyone knows Clinton did everything he could to get Osama and that 9/11 was all Bush's fault.
-
9/11 was an inside job. Everyone knows this. OBL and Cheney share a grandkid fer cryin out loud :cry
-
"I know there are some scenes where words are put in characters' mouths. But the whole thing is true to the spirit of 9/11."
True to the spirit of 9/11? Just like Pearl Harbor(2001) was true to the spirit of 12/7? ABC needs to stop selling this miniseries as if it is factual and just come out and say they just interlaced it with untruths for publicity and ratings. None one needs to spice of the events leading to 9/11 for better marketability.
The whole thing is embarrassing.
-
"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/07/911.film.clinton.offic.ap/index.html
What, 9/11 wasn't dramatic enough for TV? Give me a break.
-
In a statement released late Thursday, ABC said, "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."
of course they could just be back pedaling to cover their asses
"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."
kinda like Tora, Tora, Tora i think, except they waited 30 years
The miniseries is drawn from interviews and documents including the report of the Sept. 11 commission. ABC has described it as a "dramatization" as opposed to a documentary.
How bout we wait until someone actually sees this before we judge it?
-
The embarrassing thing is not that they were under pressure for the untruthful parts, the embarrassing thing is that they were Openly threatened by Senate Democrats (http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&) with the pulling of their broadcast license because the series laid much of the blame for government missteps at the feet of the Clinton administration - especially in regards to his own admission that in 1996 they declined to take Osama from Sudan. Clinton's own excuse was that he had nothing to hold him on, but AQ was already implicated in the '93 bombing of WTC.
To quote from their own document about what they most disliked: "Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace."
The clear implication is that had it been more Michael Moore anti-Bush left wing political propaganda, it would have raised no complaints. This despite the fact that the series attacked the Bush administration as well. Apparently unless the Clinton administration is absolved of all responsibility, and all blame laid at the feet of the one year old Bush administration, no presentation can go forward.
To me, it was a clear misuse of government power for political purposes.
- SEAGOON
-
Inside job..:lol
-
Bummer, I was looking forward to watching this.
Democrats trample the first amendment yet again.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
The embarrassing thing is not that they were under pressure for the untruthful parts, the embarrassing thing is that they were Openly threatened by Senate Democrats (http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&) with the pulling of their broadcast license because the series laid much of the blame for government missteps at the feet of the Clinton administration - especially in regards to his own admission that in 1996 they declined to take Osama from Sudan. Clinton's own excuse was that he had nothing to hold him on, but AQ was already implicated in the '93 bombing of WTC.
To quote from their own document about what they most disliked: "Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace."
The clear implication is that had it been more Michael Moore anti-Bush left wing political propaganda, it would have raised no complaints. This despite the fact that the series attacked the Bush administration as well. Apparently unless the Clinton administration is absolved of all responsibility, and all blame laid at the feet of the one year old Bush administration, no presentation can go forward.
To me, it was a clear misuse of government power for political purposes.
- SEAGOON
Hehe.. Your logic is astounding. The implication that left wing propaganda would be OK is not clear at all.. except in your head.
-
"Tell me republicans don't play the American people like a violin! How come a gas prices falling so fast? Nov. is fast approaching. Why rewrite history about 9/11? The truth is inconvient for them! How dispicable can one party be? Well, the party that brought us Watergate, Iran-Contra, and just look at Bush & Co and the crimes its been raking up!"
quote from huffpst on this subject today^^
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
"Tell me republicans don't play the American people like a violin! How come a gas prices falling so fast? Nov. is fast approaching. Why rewrite history about 9/11? The truth is inconvient for them! How dispicable can one party be? Well, the party that brought us Watergate, Iran-Contra, and just look at Bush & Co and the crimes its been raking up!"
quote from huffpst on this subject today^^
Is it a crime to kill the rag heads that are trying to kill us???
Go watch a Al gore global warming movie Dweeb!!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hehe.. Your logic is astounding. The implication that left wing propaganda would be OK is not clear at all.. except in your head.
Michael Moore's hateful lies are about as much propaganda as one can get away without losing absolutely everyone. I've seen his crap aired. No objection from Bush except that Moore should get a real job.
I guess it's irrefutable now that Bush supports the first amendment while Clinton and his cronies do not.
-
Originally posted by Kaw1000
Is it a crime to kill the rag heads that are trying to kill us???
Go watch a Al gore global warming movie Dweeb!!
thanks for the low-road name calling..
fact:you have no writing skills and debate very poorly
College educated? :rofl
(time to go back to your job at McD's, lunch is over)
-
democrats favor censorship, libruls ignore 1st amendment, threaten to pull ABC's broadcast license. where is mikey moore when you need him? where is the ACLU?
i demand a congressional investigation.
of course, all the publicity will be good for ratings.
bill:: oh baby, yeah yeah.
ring ring.
bill:: this is the president ,---- what ?---- ben who?----- call me back, i'm bizzy right now.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Michael Moore's hateful lies are about as much propaganda as one can get away without losing absolutely everyone. I've seen his crap aired. No objection from Bush except that Moore should get a real job.
I guess it's irrefutable now that Bush supports the first amendment while Clinton and his cronies do not.
produce even 1 lie from f9/11 lukster
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
produce even 1 lie from f9/11 lukster
Admittedly I couldn't stomach more than about 45 minutes of that drivel so I'll refer you to this for the deceitfulness of MM's f9/11.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
-
Hello MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hehe.. Your logic is astounding. The implication that left wing propaganda would be OK is not clear at all.. except in your head.
Can you produce the outraged letter from the Senate Democrats to CBS over Dan Rather's "counterfeit but true" national guard story?
One doesn't exactly need to be a mind-reader to realize why they felt the need to remind ABC about how this discredits the "legacy" of noted left-wing newsmen (then again they might have gone completely over the top and reminded them that Stephanopoulos is now their chief Washington D.C. correspondent - "Come on guys, remember which side you're on!")
In any event, to assert that this series was "right-wing propaganda" when it attacks the Bush White House as well, displays the perceived need to maintain a lock-step "From Global Warming to 9/11 to the extinction of the Dodo - everything bad is Bush's Fault" in the media. We've gotten to the point where we can blame his administration for Hurricanes, and I expect Volcanoes, Bird Flu, and Earthquakes will be next.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by lukster
Admittedly I couldn't stomach more than about 45 minutes of that drivel so I'll refer you to this for the deceitfulness of MM's f9/11.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
but you can stomach your government leading your country into war based on lies against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
Have you found the WMD yet?
(pentagon now says they were mistaken) LOL
Did you find the link between AQ and Iraq?
(pentagon now says there is/was no link) LOL
You did provide a document that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger, only to have be proven to be a fraudulent document within weeks after being stated. LOL
Have you found OSL? NO LOL
:rofl I can see why you are soooooo proud to support BUSH!:rofl
-
X sorry for the name calling....but you liberals crack me up......ahhh no use even trying to talk about liberals.......I know a girl that is a single mother...she gets a 1% rate on a home loan because of her irrresponsibilty..a liberal program......the liberals are fighting to keep the estate tax in play.......the liberal way..... give away programs.....people take advantage of welfare....food stamps.....I sit in the grocery store and watch people buy candy, steaks and every thing that they don't need...with liberal give away programs......liberals= do as I say not as I do
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
but you can stomach your government leading your country into war based on lies against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
Have you found the WMD yet?
(pentagon now says they were mistaken) LOL
Did you find the link between AQ and Iraq?
(pentagon now says there is/was no link) LOL
You did provide a document that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger, only to have be proven to be a fraudulent document within weeks after being stated. LOL
Have you found OSL? NO LOL
:rofl I can see why you are soooooo proud to support BUSH!:rofl
Sudam played a game and he lost....do you remember when he went into kuwait??raping killing and stealing for no reason???do you want that type of person running a country????wait till Iran gets a nuke and drops it on some country...you x will be the first to say....why did'nt we go in there and take care of iran before they did that!
-
Originally posted by Kaw1000
...do you remember when he went into kuwait??raping killing and stealing for no reason???
damn straight I remember that.
I stood behind the American led attack to help the Kuwait's 100%. Sadam was the aggresser in that case and the US were heroes to me (and most of the world).
That was then...this is now.
ps: yes I know I was supporting G Bush senior...I liked him
-
Originally posted by lukster
Democrats trample the first amendment yet again.
That's quite a stretch. The GOP controls the House and the Senate. Neither have taken any legislative action.
...and yet the Democrats are so powerful even in the minority they can strip the 1st Amendment rights of ABC.
:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Mightytboy
ABC folds under pressure on pointing out Clinton's hand in 9/11 attacks in upcoming show.
ABC made a choice.
-
Fahrenheit Lie #1
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is depicted in the movie telling a reporter, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”
The scene deceptively shows the Administration directly blaming Saddam and his regime for the attacks on 9/11 by taking her comments out of context. Now read the entire statement made by Ms. Rice to the reporter:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11. But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.” (CBS News, November 28, 2003 Interview)
Fahrenheit Lie #2
In the film, Moore leads viewers to believe that members of bin Laden’s family were allowed to exit the country after the attacks without questioning by authorities. o The September 11th commission, on the other hand, reported that 22 of the 26 people on the flight that took most of the bin Laden family out of the country were interviewed and found to be innocent of suspicion. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
The commission reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.”
Fahrenheit Lie #3
Moore claims that James Bath, a friend of President Bush from his time with the Texas Air National Guard, might have funneled bin Laden money to an unsuccessful Bush oil-drilling firm called Arbusto Energy.
Bill Allison, managing editor for the Center for Public Integrity (an independent watchdog group in Washington, D.C.), on the other hand, said, “We looked into bin Laden money going to Arbusto, and we never found anything to back that up,” (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Fahrenheit Lie #4
The movie claims that the Bush administration “supported closing veterans hospitals.” o “The Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
But Moore’s film fails to mention that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also proposed building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers (News Release, Department of Veterans Affairs, http://www.va.gov, 10/24/03)
Fahrenheit Lie #5
Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore’s film: that the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in 1998).
Moore “suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President Hamid Karzai … was to help seal a deal for … Unocal to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant.” (emphasis added) (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, “Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,” and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while President Bush was governor to discuss a potential project with Unocal.
While Moore implies that then-Governor Bush met with the Taliban, no such meeting occurred. The Taliban delegation did, however, meet with the Clinton Administration on this visit. (Matt Labash, “Un-Moored From Reality; Fahrenheit 9/11 Connects Dots That Aren’t There,” Weekly Standard, July 5-July 12 Issue)
Fahrenheit Lie #6
Even readily available figures are exaggerated for effect in Fahrenheit 9/11. The claims have a basis in reality, making them believable, but are false nonetheless. ü In the film, Moore asks Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, “How much money do the Saudis have invested in America, roughly?” to which Unger responds, “Uh, I’ve heard figures as high as $860 billion.”
The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy reports that worldwide Saudi investment approximated $700 billion – a figure much lower than Unger alleges the Saudi government to have invested in the U.S. (Tanya C. Hsu, Institute For Research: Middle Eastern Policy, “The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment,” http://www.irmep.org, Accessed 07/11/04)
The Institute reports that 60 percent of that $700 billion – roughly $420 billion, less than half of what Unger “heard” – was actually invested in the United States by the Saudi government.
Fahrenheit Lie #7
“Moore’s film suggests that [President] Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family – principally through [President] Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family – who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms – had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group ‘gained’ from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
“There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire [Soros] has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
Fahrenheit Lie #8
Not revealing relevant facts is dishonest enough. But to paint the Bush Administration as sympathetic and friendly to the Taliban prior to September 11, is not only dishonest, but maliciously so. ü Moore shows film of a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban delegation, claiming that the Administration “welcomed” the Taliban official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.”
But the Administration did not welcome the Taliban with open arms. In fact, the State Department rejected the Taliban’s claim that it had complied with U.S. requests to isolate bin Laden.
To demonstrate even further the Administration’s contempt for the Taliban and its illegitimacy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher – on the day of the terrorist regime’s visit – said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan.”
Fahrenheit Lie #9
Moore does more than simply downplay the threat posed to the U.S. by the former Hussein regime in Iraq. He goes so far as to assert that Saddam “never threatened to attack the United States.”
If by “attack the United States” one interprets this claim to mean that Saddam never threatened to send troops to the United States, then Mr. Moore has a point. ü But Saddam Hussein clearly sought to attack the United States within his own sphere of influence, even though he didn’t have the resources to attack U.S. soil from his side of the world:
On November 15, 1997, “the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein’s son Uday), ordered: ‘American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces.’” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
In addition, “Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country,” (Source: New York Times, 12/1/03).
Saddam Hussein also provided safe haven to terrorists who killed Americans, like Abu Nidal; funded suicide bombers in Israel who certainly killed Americans; and ran the Iraqi police, which plotted to assassinate former President George Bush.
-
From Newsweek.com
"Sure, “The Path to 9/11” makes up dialogue, invents scenes and creates a composite character or two, but sometimes you have to craft the facts in a certain way to tell a complicated story."
BS.
The right-leaning Marc Peyser (newsweek.com) called the mini-series "hugely engrossing".
The left-leaning Doug Elfman (Chicago Sun-Times) called the mini-series "the most anticlimactic, tension-free movie in the history of terrorist TV. [A] bore."
It's all BS. This country has become so polarized you can't believe what anyone says in the political or media arena anymore. Those of us independents in the middle call BS when we see it, regardless of party. Some of you need to get that through your thick skulls.
I don't/didn't like Bill Clinton. But that doesn't mean I become an ABC cheerleader when they broadcast an inaccurate "docu-drama" about the history of the last 10 years because it casts his administration in an unfavorable light.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
That's quite a stretch. The GOP controls the House and the Senate. Neither have taken any legislative action.
...and yet the Democrats are so powerful even in the minority they can strip the 1st Amendment rights of ABC.
:rolleyes:
ABC made a choice.
ABC made a choice under pressure from Clinton and his cronies. What's he afraid of anyhow? Those that love him will continue to do so no matter what and those that hate him are the same.
-
Originally posted by lukster
ABC made a choice under pressure from Clinton and his cronies.
The certainly did, but that doesn't make it a 1st Amendment issue.
-
wow thats alot of lies there!!!!.....Mikie Moore,,,,do as I say not as I do!!!
Wander if he sold his halibertan stock yet???
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The certainly did, but that doesn't make it a 1st Amendment issue.
Perhaps not from the pressure exerted by Clinton but if it's true that US senators threatened pulling their broadcast license then I disagree with you.
I just read the letter from the Democrat Senators. The threat, though somewhat veiled, was there. It's still scheduled for Sunday night. I may still watch it.
-
Klinton was too infatuated with getting hummers in the oval office to seriously deal with islamic facism. The record is there (if you understand what the definition of is, is). The record can be distorted and denied but we free people know the truth.
-
Its the oral office ....Yeager:rofl
-
Originally posted by lukster
Perhaps not from the pressure exerted by Clinton but if it's true that US senators threatened pulling their broadcast license then I disagree with you.
Exactly how would the Democrats in a GOP controlled House and Senate accomplish this?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Exactly how would the Democrats in a GOP controlled House and Senate accomplish this?
It would likely be an unsuccessful attempt to violate the first amendment but is an attempt nonetheless. All the more reason to ensure democrats remain a minority.
Actually, since ABC bowed under this pressure perhaps the attempt wasn't unsuccessful afterall.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Fahrenheit Lie #1
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is depicted in the movie telling a reporter, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”
The scene deceptively shows the Administration directly blaming Saddam and his regime for the attacks on 9/11 by taking her comments out of context. Now read the entire statement made by Ms. Rice to the reporter:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11. But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.” (CBS News, November 28, 2003 Interview)
Fahrenheit Lie #2
In the film, Moore leads viewers to believe that members of bin Laden’s family were allowed to exit the country after the attacks without questioning by authorities. o The September 11th commission, on the other hand, reported that 22 of the 26 people on the flight that took most of the bin Laden family out of the country were interviewed and found to be innocent of suspicion. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
The commission reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.”
Fahrenheit Lie #3
Moore claims that James Bath, a friend of President Bush from his time with the Texas Air National Guard, might have funneled bin Laden money to an unsuccessful Bush oil-drilling firm called Arbusto Energy.
Bill Allison, managing editor for the Center for Public Integrity (an independent watchdog group in Washington, D.C.), on the other hand, said, “We looked into bin Laden money going to Arbusto, and we never found anything to back that up,” (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Fahrenheit Lie #4
The movie claims that the Bush administration “supported closing veterans hospitals.” o “The Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
But Moore’s film fails to mention that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also proposed building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers (News Release, Department of Veterans Affairs, http://www.va.gov, 10/24/03)
Fahrenheit Lie #5
Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore’s film: that the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in 1998).
Moore “suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President Hamid Karzai … was to help seal a deal for … Unocal to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant.” (emphasis added) (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, “Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,” and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while President Bush was governor to discuss a potential project with Unocal.
While Moore implies that then-Governor Bush met with the Taliban, no such meeting occurred. The Taliban delegation did, however, meet with the Clinton Administration on this visit. (Matt Labash, “Un-Moored From Reality; Fahrenheit 9/11 Connects Dots That Aren’t There,” Weekly Standard, July 5-July 12 Issue)
Fahrenheit Lie #6
Even readily available figures are exaggerated for effect in Fahrenheit 9/11. The claims have a basis in reality, making them believable, but are false nonetheless. ü In the film, Moore asks Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, “How much money do the Saudis have invested in America, roughly?” to which Unger responds, “Uh, I’ve heard figures as high as $860 billion.”
The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy reports that worldwide Saudi investment approximated $700 billion – a figure much lower than Unger alleges the Saudi government to have invested in the U.S. (Tanya C. Hsu, Institute For Research: Middle Eastern Policy, “The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment,” http://www.irmep.org, Accessed 07/11/04)
The Institute reports that 60 percent of that $700 billion – roughly $420 billion, less than half of what Unger “heard” – was actually invested in the United States by the Saudi government.
Fahrenheit Lie #7
“Moore’s film suggests that [President] Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family – principally through [President] Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family – who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms – had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group ‘gained’ from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
“There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire [Soros] has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
Fahrenheit Lie #8
Not revealing relevant facts is dishonest enough. But to paint the Bush Administration as sympathetic and friendly to the Taliban prior to September 11, is not only dishonest, but maliciously so. ü Moore shows film of a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban delegation, claiming that the Administration “welcomed” the Taliban official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.”
But the Administration did not welcome the Taliban with open arms. In fact, the State Department rejected the Taliban’s claim that it had complied with U.S. requests to isolate bin Laden.
To demonstrate even further the Administration’s contempt for the Taliban and its illegitimacy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher – on the day of the terrorist regime’s visit – said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan.”
Fahrenheit Lie #9
Moore does more than simply downplay the threat posed to the U.S. by the former Hussein regime in Iraq. He goes so far as to assert that Saddam “never threatened to attack the United States.”
If by “attack the United States” one interprets this claim to mean that Saddam never threatened to send troops to the United States, then Mr. Moore has a point. ü But Saddam Hussein clearly sought to attack the United States within his own sphere of influence, even though he didn’t have the resources to attack U.S. soil from his side of the world:
On November 15, 1997, “the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein’s son Uday), ordered: ‘American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces.’” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
In addition, “Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country,” (Source: New York Times, 12/1/03).
Saddam Hussein also provided safe haven to terrorists who killed Americans, like Abu Nidal; funded suicide bombers in Israel who certainly killed Americans; and ran the Iraqi police, which plotted to assassinate former President George Bush.
ah toronto? hello, anybody there? operator, i must have a bad connection here.
-
This political whining is totally transparent and self serving, old Hairy hasn't even seen what he's complaining about... that should tell you something right there.
What exactly is Hairy whining about?, a few opinions?, supposition?.. cut through his own yammering, and here's his evidence ; 2 Dicks (Richard Ben-Veniste / Richard Clarke) expressed a negative opinion about a program they have yet to even see. Now that's sharp logic.
"Reports suggest.." something about an unnamed FBI agent who also expressed an opinion... now there's solid evidence.
Finally, Thomas Kean admitted, like ABC did, there's some fiction in it. FICTION ON TV!! no way. He adds that "...other experts..", who he can't name, disagree about stuff.. about a show they have yet to watch.
There is NOTHING here but opinion, no examples, nothing... he's using his political power in an attempt to censor, in advance, a show that 'might' cast his parties next pres candidate in a negitive light.
You can't embarass the future "1st lady" Bill Clinton on tv!
Govt officials, he did use his official title, trying to censor a television show related to politics based on a few select opinions is a very bad thing..
Besides, people are way too stupid to watch a TV show and form their own opinions, so Hairy has collected a few opinions that are good enough for everyone. What a puto this guy is.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
thanks for the low-road name calling..
fact:you have no writing skills and debate very poorly
College educated? :rofl
(time to go back to your job at McD's, lunch is over)
Dont waste your time X. Im pretty sure hes still in school and not older then 15.
-
I find it funny that the clintons are screaming for someone to tell the truth .. like they'd know it if it jumped up and bit them
-
Originally posted by john9001
ah toronto? hello, anybody there? operator, i must have a bad connection here.
just got back in john...
Fahrenheit Lie #1
...Now read the entire statement made by Ms. Rice to the reporter:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11[/b]..."
that's as far as I have read...this is just double-talk and totally useless...the two statements say opposite things and they appear back-to-back in the paragraph.
If you were to watch f9/11 you would see CNN footage of 3 top Bush officials saying SH had NO WMD and was totally incapable of making war against anyone. (near the beginning of the flick) Then within 12 months they completely change their story insisting with absoulte certainty that he did have deliverable WMD in 45 min....
How anyone on earth could defend this ******* is totally beyond me...at least the English got it right finally and forced Blair out with a ruined carreer. When will the rest of you Yanks catch up?
-
at least the English got it right finally and forced Blair out with a ruined carreer. When will the rest of you Yanks catch up?
American politics dont work the same way as British politics. Bush will serve out the rest of his term and wont be able to run again.
Another politician will replace Blair and the new one wont be any better than Blair. Same with Bush. Politicians are all the same, they tell the people what they want to hear in order to get elected, then follow their own agendas once in office.
What grows old is people who arent from America constantly spewing hate on this BBS about my country and my countries politics. Constantly whining about something you have absolutely no control over probably isnt the most productive thing you have done in your life.
-
ABC made a choice.
Do what we say or else....
Yeah they made a choice...
LOL
-
xrtoronto,
Hmmm...the F 9/11 out-of-context quote in question:
==================================================
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."
==================================================
These are the two sentences from the full quote you chose to respond to:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11..."
that's as far as I have read...this is just double-talk and totally useless...the two statements say opposite things and they appear back-to-back in the paragraph.
==================================================
Indeed, by themselves these two sentences would be logically opposite.
But there is a third sentence following that expounds on the two previous sentences.
"But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”
==================================================
Please explain.
Regards
Sun
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/. Funny a debate is raging on msnbc website. It now stands, 51% are conspiracy whackos who believe the govt had some hand in the attacks. and 43% who think the 51% are conspiracy whackos. Its funny, if this trend continues, those that believe the official story about 9/11 are going to be the conspiracy whackos :rofl msnbc (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/)
-
I expected ABC to flounder on this.
The Clinton Administration wants you to forget that for 8 years, they did very little about terrorism. They'd love to have the nation beleive its completely and absolutely the Bush Administrations 9 months that is solely responsible.
But regardless of that, the entire structure and miscommunication of government branches is what let to this. Clinton's screaming and complaining of daring to be held accountable for any bit of it is just absurd.
Especially when they hail Moore's film, yet object to things like the Swift Boat soldiers film and now this.
So the ultimate message one gets is...we're allowed to smack you around, even when we know it isnt true. Yet if you try to air anything that shows us and our failings isnt allowed.
-
too all the euro/canadian weenies, why don't you move to the USA, live here for 5 years, become citizens and vote for hillery in 2012 so she can save the world. your present whining does not help, it just makes you feel good..
-
Maybe ABC just realized the show made Clinton look bad, when all along they thought it was just about making Bush looking bad?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
The embarrassing thing is not that they were under pressure for the untruthful parts, the embarrassing thing is that they were Openly threatened by Senate Democrats (http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&) with the pulling of their broadcast license because the series laid much of the blame for government missteps at the feet of the Clinton administration - especially in regards to his own admission that in 1996 they declined to take Osama from Sudan. Clinton's own excuse was that he had nothing to hold him on, but AQ was already implicated in the '93 bombing of WTC.
To quote from their own document about what they most disliked: "Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace."
The clear implication is that had it been more Michael Moore anti-Bush left wing political propaganda, it would have raised no complaints. This despite the fact that the series attacked the Bush administration as well. Apparently unless the Clinton administration is absolved of all responsibility, and all blame laid at the feet of the one year old Bush administration, no presentation can go forward.
To me, it was a clear misuse of government power for political purposes.
- SEAGOON
Read the document linked. Saw no threat to revoke their license. And I don't see the "clear implication" you apparently do. Are you sure you're not a script writer for ABC? :D
-
The DNC basically told ABC that they would be in jepordy of losing their broadcast liscense (IE stifle free speech) if the democrats take control of the senate next year.
so much for the constitution.
-
Again .... don't see it. Just see the claims. ;) :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Again .... don't see it. Just see the claims. ;) :aok
Kinda like wiretapping and the SWIFT program huh
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
"Tell me republicans don't play the American people like a violin! How come a gas prices falling so fast? Nov. is fast approaching. Why rewrite history about 9/11? The truth is inconvient for them! How dispicable can one party be? Well, the party that brought us Watergate, Iran-Contra, and just look at Bush & Co and the crimes its been raking up!"
quote from huffpst on this subject today^^
Well, since most librules have no conception of economics, (Arriana prolly went to Wellsley or a similarly intellectually challenging school)--she should understand that gas supplies are UP, making it LESS valuable--and the REASON supplies are UP due is the end of the summer driving season and that the refineries aren't having to divert limited production capacity to the clean-burning blends they use out west during summer
(Note--next May we can start having this argument again:aok )
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Kinda like wiretapping and the SWIFT program huh
Are you working toward a point or are we just enjoying rambling hour? I'm good with rambling hour, yaknow ... being a fellow Texican. :D
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/07/911.film.clinton.offic.ap/index.html
What, 9/11 wasn't dramatic enough for TV? Give me a break.
that was the point I was gonna make.
There was enough that happened that they didnt need to fictionalise a single thing.
Why they would take crative licence on this is beyond understanding.
And is a little early foir revisionalist history
-
I waited to respond until I could research the story behind the hype...
It looks like the producers are putting in a bunch of BS "drama" into the story. As if the pure facts didn't have enough drama. Anyhow, I'm 100% behind the clinton staffers on this one. The show producers should have known better than to fictionalize something as important as the 9/11 events, especially after the critical reviews the last pearl harbor movie received for their total disregard for historical accuracy.
The facts are "good enough" for this show, and any fictional parts should get cut out or "fixed". This movie/show will become part of the event's historical record and ought to be accurate, not some made-up hollyweird version.
-
Yes but is it enough for a political party to want it stopped? Seriously....politicians not wanting "freedom of the press"? Sounds alot like they want the simpletons to keep carrying on. TV has allways dramatized events and reproced history in a fictionalized light.
I think it's scary that one political party would say they are for free speech but only certain kinds.
"all animals are created equal, some more equal than others"
-
I don't look at it as one political party trying to get the movie changed though... It's a group of people who were making decisions during the lead-up to a horrifying national event, and politics aside, it only makes sense that they would want the truth to be told, not some made-up, more dramatic version of what happened.
I bet it would make better headlines if they had a cut-scene showing Clinton saying something to the effect of "bin-laden can't possibly hurt us", but is that the truth? Politics has nothing to do with that sort of thing. If it's not the truth and can't be backed up with factual data, it has no place in a movie about 9/11, period. It's hard enough for the average person to comprehend the event without hollyweird making crap up and injecting it into the storyline.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
"Tell me republicans don't play the American people like a violin! How come a gas prices falling so fast? Nov. is fast approaching. Why rewrite history about 9/11? The truth is inconvient for them! How dispicable can one party be? Well, the party that brought us Watergate, Iran-Contra, and just look at Bush & Co and the crimes its been raking up!"
quote from huffpst on this subject today^^
The Huffington Post?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Oh boy, does THAT explain a lot!
The Huffington Post!!!!
:noid :rofl :noid :rofl
Please! Stop it! I can't take anymore! I'm laughing so hard it hurts!
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I'll judge it if and when I see it.
You do realize it's just a 6 hour docudrama, right?
They can't devote the entire six hours to exact reproductions of a couple of hundred hours of staff meetings from EITHER administration. They have a certain percentage of the time available in a 6 hour docudrama to give the viewer the feel of hours of meetings between members of each administration. They're giving their "Reader's Digest Condensed" version of those meetings.
If they make a mockery of it, they'll pay dearly, in any number of ways.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes but is it enough for a political party to want it stopped? Seriously....politicians not wanting "freedom of the press"? Sounds alot like they want the simpletons to keep carrying on. TV has allways dramatized events and reproced history in a fictionalized light.
I think it's scary that one political party would say they are for free speech but only certain kinds.
"all animals are created equal, some more equal than others"
I'd say its enough. Particularly if some of the things portrayed about the administration werent true.
Look how often on these boards when a war movie is made we see people jumping up and down about how inaccurate it is right down to the smallest detail "That tiger tank wasnt a tiger" etc.
Im with Clinton on this one also
-
Sounds like they are going to show it after all. Hey, like Dan Rather said about Bush, the memo may be fake, but the story is correct. So, following liberal logic, the docudrama may not be entirely accurate, but we should believe the story anyway. Or does that only work if it is painting a Republican badly?
I am convinced if history ever reveals the true Clinton Whitehouse, he will be regarded as not only a slimy scumbag, but a poor and ineffective leader.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
"Tell me republicans don't play the American people like a violin! How come a gas prices falling so fast? Nov. is fast approaching. Why rewrite history about 9/11? The truth is inconvient for them! How dispicable can one party be? Well, the party that brought us Watergate, Iran-Contra, and just look at Bush & Co and the crimes its been raking up!"
quote from huffpst on this subject today^^
Yea, we are gonna see massive propaganda before the elections. Terror is going to be used on the american people. There will be new videos, new threats, a bunch of thwarted 'terror plots'. All implying that we may be killed if we dont vote Republican. And ya know what, they scare the heck out of me:confused: . Makes ya wonder who the real terrorist are eh?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Yea, we are gonna see massive propaganda before the elections. Terror is going to be used on the american people. There will be new videos, new threats, a bunch of thwarted 'terror plots'. All implying that we may be killed if we dont vote Republican. And ya know what, they scare the heck out of me:confused: . Makes ya wonder who the real terrorist are eh?
The democrats have been the pc police for over 25 years now. I'd definitely characterize their tactics as terrorist.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Makes ya wonder who the real terrorist are eh?
You're right to wonder, and if you look hard enough you might find the biggest threat to the USA has been those in power who lacked the intestinal fortitude to protect us from outside threat ( read Clinton).
Bush may have made mistakes, but at least he had the guts to take action designed to protect our people. Now if he would just work on securing the border.
-
Thought one or two of you might appreciate Scott Ott's latest over on Scrappleface:
ABC Drama Marks 50th Anniversary of 9/11
by Scott Ott
(2051-09-11) — As part of the nation’s month-long celebration of the 50th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, ABC television tonight will show an educational drama called ‘The Path from 9/11‘.
The docudrama recounts the initial resistance to global jihad mounted by the infidels of the former United States of America in the immediate aftermath of the great martyrdom operation.
But then the tide turns in favor of the budding Islamic caliphate (Allah be praised!). As memories of the 2001 attacks fade, world opinion turns against the Great Satan. Then the Great Satan turns on itself, consumed from within by a toxic combination of political ambition and cowardice masquerading as tolerance.
The Path from 9/11: A Triumph of the Will illustrates the righteousness of Usama Bin Laden’s cause, and how his unswerving commitment to jihad ensured the establishment of our glorious global Caliphate, upon which today the sun never sets.
The program begins tonight at 7 p.m., right after Chief Justice al-Zawahiri leads Sunset Prayer Live from the National Mosque and just before a very special episode of American Idol.
The Path from 9/11, includes a scholastic study guide for boys, and is required viewing for all subjects of the Islamic Republic of America.
Advanced overnight ratings indicate the show will notch a 100 share and shall win its timeslot.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Makes ya wonder who the real terrorist are eh?
they are ones that blow themselves up on buses/malls filled with women and children, fly planes into 110 story buildings in NYC, ram refueling ships with torpedo laden runabouts, behead innocents on tv, scream Israel needs to be wiped from the face of the earth, are trying to build a nuke to use against the west or at least strong arm their future positions with it, have decided if you do not believe in their beliefs: you must die, would like nothing more than to see the US and her allies downgraded to third world country status more screwed up than their own - just to name a few of their identifying & enduring qualities...
-
You're talking about California, right Eagler? Or is it DC? I get those two konfused sometimes :)
-
If the Clinton Admin. wasnt in the wroung then why did they make such a big deal to stop it.<--- the Brodcast
Thats bad they can catch the Brodcast but they couldnt at least stop the attack's on 9/11 or notify the next Admin.???
I served under the Clinton Admin. I hated serving at that time. The Military didnt get crap for support. Clinton was too Busy banning guns
-
klinton who said "i never had sex with that women, not one time" accuses ABC of lying.
HAHAHAHAHA.
-
Here's a thought, how bout we all just watch it in it's original form and then everyone can have an honest debate about what's in it...
Even a film like Tora Tora Tora took licenses, but got the gist of it right. Everything I've heard about this 9/11 film appears to be the same.
This stinks.
-
Originally posted by john9001
klinton who said "i never had sex with that women, not one time" accuses ABC of lying.
HAHAHAHAHA.
he is teh xpurt
u cud hav probubly lurnd a lot abowt flieing frum Dick Bong, woo wus ground'd 4 teh unsayf flieing & daided in uh kresh:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I agree, Stang.
I've had to watch any number of historical pieces that I thought took outrageous license with actual events, some of which made me hopping mad after watching them. However, I would never argue that the film-maker did not have the right to make them or that we should use political pressure to slice them up or shut them down.
That after all is the way things would work in the Caliphate we are supposedly attempting to prevent from being created. Theo Van Gogh and the Danes found out what happens when you present history in a way that offends the umma of the future Eurabia, I'd rather we didn't start operating according to the same rules.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Debonair
he is teh xpurt
u cud hav probubly lurnd a lot abowt flieing frum Dick Bong, woo wus ground'd 4 teh unsayf flieing & daided in uh kresh:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
What the Hell are you talking about, and why would you want to disparage the top scoring U.S. ace of all time?
-
ABC could learn a thing or two from President Clinton about lying, regardless of his repeatedly getting caught in the act, just as any of us could receive education on the topic of flying from Major Bong, who was grounded after the Golden Gate Bridge incident & died in an aircraft of which he was PIC
-
You do know that Bong didn't cause the P-80 he was flying to crash when he was killed, don't you? He was a test pilot and the plane failed on take off. Hardly a valid comparison, and there's no need at all to disparage Bong, or even mention him in the same breath as Bill Clinton.
As good as Bong was, I'd take lessons from him any day.
-
911 was possible because of bureaucratic ineptness, government indifference, and the kissy-kissy approach to foreign policy engaged in by the State Department during the 1990s.
MSNBC shouldn't cave or waffle on a subject this important, if they really want to make an accurate documentary. Let the chips fly. Lay the blame where it deserves to be laid, regardless of the party line. Republicans or Democrats makes no difference to me.
Or is journalistic integrity an oxymoron?
-
its just slick & his buddies trying to protect his "legacy"
of course the majority of 9/11 happened on clintons watch, that is a logistical fact - can't blame the guy for not wanting that fact to be shown in a simplified format many of his voters could understand - a television mini-series ...
-
I'm pretty sure logistical facts weren't what was being challenged. ;)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You do know that Bong didn't cause the P-80 he was flying to crash when he was killed, don't you? He was a test pilot and the plane failed on take off. Hardly a valid comparison, and there's no need at all to disparage Bong, or even mention him in the same breath as Bill Clinton.
As good as Bong was, I'd take lessons from him any day.
u r making teh false ack uzation.
i demand an appology & will continue to post angry faces at u until you comply
:mad: :mad: :mad: :furious :furious :mad: :mad: :furious :furious :furious
-
Originally posted by eagl
I don't look at it as one political party trying to get the movie changed though... It's a group of people who were making decisions during the lead-up to a horrifying national event, and politics aside, it only makes sense that they would want the truth to be told, not some made-up, more dramatic version of what happened.
I bet it would make better headlines if they had a cut-scene showing Clinton saying something to the effect of "bin-laden can't possibly hurt us", but is that the truth? Politics has nothing to do with that sort of thing. If it's not the truth and can't be backed up with factual data, it has no place in a movie about 9/11, period. It's hard enough for the average person to comprehend the event without hollyweird making crap up and injecting it into the storyline.
I'm all for sprinkling some drama on it to make them look horrible... because it's the only punishment they'll get. Their incompetence cost thousands of lives, if it takes some drama to drive that point home and hold their feet to the fire.. so be it.
Politicians are the only folks who can totally fail to do their job, and because of sheer incompetence get people killed, then walk away smelling like a rose while passing the buck. F em, let the media rip em apart, they deserve it.
If the elite are screaming about it, all the more reason to let the people decide.. ABC letting a select few, who are clearly out for their own best interests and have stated agendas, decide what we watch, is censorship.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Thought one or two of you might appreciate Scott Ott's latest over on Scrappleface:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC Drama Marks 50th Anniversary of 9/11
by Scott Ott
How time flies.... it seems like only five years ago...
-
ABC caved. They skipped from 1995 to 1998. No mention at all of passing up an opportunity to take bin laden into custody. Still interesting though.
-
Originally posted by lukster
ABC caved. They skipped from 1995 to 1998. No mention at all of passing up an opportunity to take bin laden into custody. Still interesting though.
You must not be watching the same episode I am. Because they not only mentioned passing him up, but also that the failure allowed some terrorist attacks.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You must not be watching the same episode I am. Because they not only mentioned passing him up, but also that the failure allowed some terrorist attacks.
I posted before they moved on to the later attempts at capturing him. Looks like they cut about 20 mins out of tonight's episode.
-
didn't see it all but noticed a couple of Band of Brothers stars in it & what I saw looked good:
from myway: (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060911/D8K2E1G80.html)
NEW YORK (AP) - ABC aired its miniseries "The Path to 9/11" on Sunday but made editing changes after former Clinton administration officials complained it contained fabricated scenes about their actions prior to the terrorist attacks.
ABC's editing of the five-hour movie, airing on two successive nights starting Sunday, was evident from the very beginning. Twice, the network de-emphasized the role of the 9/11 commission's final report as source material for the film.
The version that aired Sunday also changed a scene that, in a copy of the movie given to television critics a few weeks ago, indicated President Clinton's preoccupation with his potential impeachment may have affected an effort to go after Osama bin Laden.
In the original scene, an actor portraying White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke shares a limousine ride with FBI agent John O'Neill and tells him: "The Republicans are going all-out for impeachment. I just don't see in that climate the president's going to take chances" and give the order to kill bin Laden.
But in the film aired Sunday, Clarke says to O'Neill: "The president has assured me this ... won't affect his decision-making."
O'Neill replies: "So it's OK if somebody kills bin Laden, as long as he didn't give the order. It's pathetic."
The critics' version contained a note in the opening scenes that the film is "based on the 9/11 commission report." That was omitted from the film aired Sunday. A disclaimer aired three times emphasized it was not a documentary.
"For dramatic and narrative purposes the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression," the note that ran before the movie said.
The note said the material is "drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 commission report and other published materials and from personal interviews." That differs from a note in the critics' version that said the dramatization "is based on the 9/11 commission report and other published sources and personal interviews."
Critics, such as historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., said it was "disingenuous and dangerous" not to include accurate historical accounts in the movie.
A scene in the movie depicting a team of CIA operatives poised in darkness outside of bin Laden's fortess in Afghanistan, ready to attack, was substantially cut down from the original. Pictures of the waiting Afghanistan operatives are interspersed with those of officials in Washington, who had to approve the mission.
The original version depicted national security adviser Samuel R. Berger hanging up on CIA chief George Tenet as Tenet sought permission to attack bin Laden. The movie aired Sunday did not include Berger hanging up.
The affect of the changes is to deflect specific blame. It ends with actor Donnie Wahlberg, head of the CIA team in Afghanistan, saying, "Are there no men in Washington?"
Another scene in the critics' cut pictured O'Neill asking Clarke on the telephone: "What's Clinton going to do (about bin Laden)?"
Clarke replies, "I don't know. The Lewinsky thing is a noose around his neck."
This was cut entirely from the film that aired Sunday.
Editors left intact a scene that had angered former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, portraying her as being behind a move to inform the Pakistani government in advance of a U.S. missile strike against bin Laden. The movie indicated that was a key factor in bin Laden getting away.
The movie, scheduled to air from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m., finished at 10:40 p.m. ET.
ABC has said little about the controversy, and said Sunday it would not comment.
Thomas Kean, head of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks and a backer of the film, said on ABC's "This Week" Sunday that he hadn't seen the final cut of the movie but urged Americans to watch it.
"If people blame Bill Clinton after seeing this, then the miniseries has failed," said Kean, the former Republican New Jersey governor. "That's wrong and it shouldn't happen."
John Lehman, another Republican commission members, said on the ABC News show that he's told the film is equally harsh on the administrations of President Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush.
"And if you don't like the hits to the Clinton administration, well, welcome to the club," Lehman said. "The Republicans have lived with Michael Moore and Oliver Stone and most of Hollywood as a fact of life."
-
Ya ol Lip and Guarnere were in it. I really thought it was well done for a made for tv movie. And it laid alot of guilt toward Clinton. I had forgotten the Monica mess was going on at that time. Maybe if he wasnt worrying so much how to pull his **** out of the fire, he would have reacted better. Probably not, but who knows.
-
clinton didnt want to do anything unpopular or that would upset the out of control stock market rise
he was useless for 8 years which is why the last 6 years have been hell
-
I didn't watch it but these are supposed to be some of the deleted scenes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2PO...h?v=UbZRM1Hci9k
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=truOlES9nWc
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sllNf7bvFJg
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sllN...h?v=DEs4qT-xfQw
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW1zIfdx-Lc
Can anybody verify if those scenes were edited out?
-
Only watched this one but it was in last night's episode.:
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=truOlES9nWc
#4 was shown also.
Only half of those links work. I think all of the ones that do work were aired.
-
It's fairly well known now that the Clinton administration passed up multiple opportunities to either capture or kill bin-Laden for various reasons. The ultimate results of his (imo) poor descions was 9-11.
-
Tonight seemed cut short too. Oh well, I found it interesting. I give ABC a :aok
When they focused on the cruise missile attack to get bin laden and the probability that he was tipped of by the Pakistanis who we told for fear they would believe themselves to be under attack by India it occurred to me that tipping them off was bad for two reasons. Not only did bin laden escape but we might have provoked Pakistan into attacking India who might then have destroyed Pakistan, two birds.... ;)
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
"I know there are some scenes where words are put in characters' mouths. But the whole thing is true to the spirit of 9/11."
True to the spirit of 9/11? Just like Pearl Harbor(2001) was true to the spirit of 12/7? ABC needs to stop selling this miniseries as if it is factual and just come out and say they just interlaced it with untruths for publicity and ratings. None one needs to spice of the events leading to 9/11 for better marketability.
The whole thing is embarrassing.
"A-frigging-MEN!
-
Originally posted by lukster
When they focused on the cruise missile attack to get bin laden and the probability that he was tipped of by the Pakistanis who we told for fear they would believe themselves to be under attack by India it occurred to me that tipping them off was bad for two reasons. Not only did bin laden escape but we might have provoked Pakistan into attacking India who might then have destroyed Pakistan, two birds.... ;)
Yes, I saw that part on my tivo last night. Hadn't realized before how much slick helped our cause by striking the pharmaceutical plant. How to win friends and influence ppl for sure. wtg slick!!
told about an administration without a backbone!
From what I have seen, it looks like ABC got it right more than they got it wrong. It is the closest thing to what I feel actually happened yet. Wtg ABC!