|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 09/06/2006 : 23:55:30
|
http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/index.html
The Democratic party is, apparently, saying this show makes a crapload of false claims and is deliberately slanderous of democrats.
From the email they sent me:
quote:
That's false. "The Path to 9/11" is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats and revise history right before Americans vote in a major election.
The miniseries, which was put together by right-wing conservative writers, relies on the old GOP playbook of using terrorism to scare Americans. "The Path to 9/11" mocks the truth and dishonors the memory of 9/11 victims to serve a cheap, callous political agenda. It irresponsibly misrepresents the facts and completely distorts the truth.
And:
quote:
This story is breaking quickly. The bias of the "docudrama" only became known when ABC began circulating previews recently. Less than two weeks ago, 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste confronted a lead writer of "The Path to 9/11" after watching the first half of the miniseries at a screening, but most of what we know amounts to bits and pieces because ABC chose to screen the miniseries to conservative bloggers and right-wing media outlets exclusively. Almost none of the Democrats portrayed in the film have even been asked for their thoughts.
But we still know enough, thanks to news accounts and crack research, to fact check "The Path to 9/11" as a biased, irresponsible mess. Here's what you need to know:
Richard Clarke -- the counterterrorism czar for the Clinton administration, now himself a consultant to ABC News -- describes a key scene in "The Path to 9/11" as "180 degrees from what happened." In the scene, a CIA field agent places a phone call to get the go ahead to kill Osama Bin Laden, then in his sights, only to have a senior Clinton administration official refuse and hang up the phone. Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor, called the same scene "a total fabrication. It did not happen." And Roger Cressey, a top Bush and Clinton counterterrorism official, said it was "something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It's factually wrong. And that's shameful."
Another scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder -- contrary to "The Path to 9/11" -- rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times.
The former National Security Council head of counterterrorism says that President Clinton "approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda," and the 9/11 report says the CIA had full authority from President Clinton to strike Bin Laden. Yet chief "Path to 9/11" scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh, a friend of Rush Limbaugh, says the miniseries shows how President Clinton had "frequent opportunities in the '90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so."
ABC asked only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, Sr., to advise the makers of "The Path to 9/11". The producers optioned two books, one written by a Bush administration political appointee, as the basis of the screenplay -- yet bill the miniseries as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report."
This is a picture of bias -- a conservative attempt to rewrite the history of September 11 to blame Democrats, just in time for the election.
If the contents of that email are factually accurate.... I don't even know where to begin.
Anyone else get that email?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 00:28:27 [Permalink]
|
I can't wait to read GK Paul's review of the show.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 00:31:24 [Permalink]
|
I am totally disgusted with our real version of "1984". Who owns these airwaves? Who is it that can produce a movie faking GW's prowess while demeaning the Democrats a month before a key election. Write those letters folks. This really really sucks big time.
It is a political campaign ad. They discussed a few particulars on Franken today. The movie has a fake version of Clinton saying no to some CIA guys who were looking right at Bin Ladin trying to call in an airstrike, and I think they said the movie blames it on the BJ distracting Clinton. The real event, which is well documented, is there were no CIA people directly visualizing Bin Laden, they weren't sure he was there and they knew innocent people were there. Also Clinton sent cruise missiles to try to get Bin Laden on another occasion in spite of the Republicans relentlessly going after everything Clinton did. In that case Republicans cried, "Wag the Dog" when Clinton sent the cruise missiles.
I read Clark's book when he wrote it. The incident was in the book. The movie version not only is a lie, the producers admit it is a lie. But you know darn well it will do its damage anyway. It is calculated to make the Democrats look weak on security and Bush look strong.
Then the movie has Conde Rice reading the infamous memo, Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US, only in the movie version Bush and company actually pay close attention to the memo and take some kind of action. As if...
I have to use filthy's language, it is called for. This is one fucked up dirty campaign trick about to be pulled here. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 00:51:31 [Permalink]
|
I just sent the following to ABC, (they have a limit on size):
Your 9/11 movie is set to harm this country further. Doesn't anyone @ABC care kids are dying for you?
Bush took the country to war on a lie, miscalculated Iraq in the worst way, AlQaeda was beaten in Afghanistan, even the Arab world was against them until Bush's Iraq war renewed AlQaeda's strength.
Republicans interfered w/everything Clinton did & cried Wag the Dog when he sent cruise missiles to hit BinLaden. Bush ignored his responsibility to this country. Yet you would air this lie. Shame!!
I strongly encourage you to do the same.
|
|
|
|
Luke T.
Skeptic Friend
140 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 06:49:49 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal posted about this on JREF. That's why I am here right now.
Seems to be a lot of emotion rather than fact checking in this topic.
Dude, how exactly do you know your email message was from the Democratic Party?
Because there is at least one bogus claim in it.
"Another scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder -- contrary to "The Path to 9/11" -- rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times."
It will be interesting to see if the show actually puts the blame on the Washington POst about Bin Laden's satellite phone calls.
Read this article from the Washington Post, dated December 22, 2005: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122101994.html
In it, you will find that the Bush Administration blamed the Washington TIMES for the leak. So much for an "old right-wing myth". Looks like the email is perpetrating a myth about a myth to me.
Not only that, you will find that the claim that the Washington Time was responsible for the leak is also a myth. Myths on top of myths on top of myths. The Taliban, Time magazine, CNN, the L.A. Times, and Bin Laden himself all spoke about Bin Laden's satellite phone being monitored by the U.S. before the Washington Times did. In some cases, YEARS before the Washington Times.
So I would really like to know where you actually got that email from.
Thanks.
|
| Edited by - Luke T. on 09/07/2006 06:57:15 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 06:56:51 [Permalink]
|
Well, the problems with this "docudrama" have been circulating for a few days now. According to TPM, ABC will be airing a disclaimer: quote:
The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report and other published materials, and from personal interviews. The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression.
In other words, "some of this is made up." Unfortunately, they don't say which parts so we're left to wonder.
Enough has been said from actual people depicted in the show, however, to be sure that the anti-Clintion aspect of the show involves a number of completely fabricated stories.
BSK makes a good point-- ABC is a channel that broadcasts over public airwaves. Don't they have an obligation to produce honest programming when dealing with actual events. It seems a bit unfair of them to put out clearly partisan material-- indeed, fabricated material passed off as somehow reflecting reality-- like this.
I, too, wrote ABC about this. However, since my contribution to ABC's coffers is miniscule, I don't think they'll much listen. Such is life in the American Plutocracy. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 11:17:24 [Permalink]
|
The scene of the CIA calling in the strike on Osama was discussed in detail on Franken's show with a reviewer who had the specifics of both the scene and the evidence from the 9/11 commission record. I read Clark's account of Clinton's behind the scenes campaign against Bin Laden and terrorist activities and was surprised at how much Clinton had done without making it widely known. The actual event the movie scene was based on is in Clark's book. And I read it long before the 9/11 commission which supported Clark's version in their report.
This was on MSNBC this am with "Was Clinton Responsible for 9/11" across the bottom of the screen. While they did give more time to the Democratic sided speaker, there was the prerequisite rebuttal. The rebuttal was there were only 3 supposed scenes containing the controversy, to which was then replied, "that we know of because neither of us has seen the movie." That supports the e-mail's statement about the closed screening of the movie.
And the disclaimer posted on the ABC website about the movie's accuracy admits the distortions are there.
What besides your quibble over which source leaked the phone monitoring story are you claiming is false, Luke? BTW, welcome to TSFN. Because the main issue with the film, the timing, the unethical use of a partisan screen version of a movie just before an election remain critical and valid points. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 09/07/2006 11:19:22 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 12:18:02 [Permalink]
|
Let's just take a look at the claim this movie isn't biased.
This ABC movie description proclaims the movie is based on real events ad nauseum.
Gee, I wonder why they then had to put the following on the movie blog page:
"Even Further Clarification
It seems that people keep referring to this movie as a "documentary". A documentary is a journalistic format that gives facts and information through interviews and news footage. This is a movie or more specifically a docudrama. Meaning, it is a narrative movie based on facts and dramatized with actors."
The complaint is the movie isn't factual. Cunningham tells us it isn't the same as a documentary. But conveniently leaves out the movie indeed isn't factual.
"The team of filmmakers, actors and executives responsible for this movie have a wide range of political perspectives. I would say that most of those perspectives (which is the vast majority in Hollywood) would be considered "liberal" or "left". Some of the very people who are being villified by the left as having a 'right wing agenda' are the very people who are traditionally castigated by the right as being 'liberal dupes' in other projects they have presented. To make a movie of this size and budget requires many people to sign off on it. One person's "agenda" (if anyone should have one) is not enough to influence a movie to one's individual politics when a far broader creative and political consensus is an inherent part of the process. And the consensus that emerged over and over during development, production and post production is that we tried, as best we can, based on 9/11 Commission Report and numerous other sources and advisors, to present an accurate and honest account of the events leading to 9/11.
The redundant statement about Clinton and the emphasis to protect his legacy instead of trying to learn from the failures of BOTH administrations smells of "agenda". You may feel we "bash" Clinton and/or you may feel we "bash" Bush but the facts are that the eight years from the first WTC bombing to the day of 9/11 involved two administrations with plenty of culpability all around. Something needs to explain how that happened.
Watch the movie! Then let's talk. If you haven't seen the movie with your very own eyes - don't castigate the movie out of ignorance.
-David Cunningham"
Critics not satisfied, Cunningham added:
"Clarification
1) This is not a documentary. It is a movie told in two parts with 247 different actors led by Harvey Keitel playing FBI Counterterrorism agent John O'Neil.
2) This is not a right wing agenda movie. The team of filmmakers, actors and executives that are responsible for this movie have very different political views. There was no emphasis given to one party over another. By the way, we are also being accused of being a left wing movie that bashes Bush.
3) Yes – we do show the PDB report in night two and many other missteps by the Bush administration.
-D. Cunningham (director of The Path to 9/11)
August 30, 2006"
The movie makers were not quite so balanced as you can see below after I post what the writer/producer had to say.
Cyrus Nowrasteh added:
"Further clarafication
This movie is well-supported and well-documented. But everyone should be aware, and we say so upfront in a long legend -- "The following dramatization...has composite and representative characters and incidents, and time compressions have been used for dramatic purposes."
We cover the failures and mistakes of two administrations -- as well as the successes i.e the capture of Ramzi Yousef, thwarting of the Millenium plot (both under the Clinton administration) etc. People need to watch both nights of the miniseries before drawing conclusions.
Also, we have talked to numerous media outlets from the New York Times |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 12:41:56 [Permalink]
|
This story made MSN's front page.
quote:
Clinton spokesperson Jay Carson told MSNBC in a statement, “ABC/Disney acknowledges this show is fiction and in direct contradiction of the 9/11 Commission Report and the facts, and it is despicable that ABC/Disney would insist on airing a fictional version of what is a serious and emotional event for our country.
"No reputable organization should dramatize 9/11 for a profit at the expense of the truth.”
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 12:50:59 [Permalink]
|
| I expect Coulter to use quotes from this movie for her next book. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 14:37:31 [Permalink]
|
| Sounds like an organized boycott of ABC sponsors is in order. I use to think such things were not too effective but I know if you hit them in the pocketbook they take notice. In the past, I've aided in getting some offensive commercials pulled. (I'm still quite painlessly boycotting the sponsors of Fox Entertainment's anti-NASA moon hoax show after all these years.) |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 14:56:41 [Permalink]
|
It's all political, and it all just muddies te waters as to what will be "accepted" as "fact" 20/30/40 years down the road... Though I believe the 9/11 Commission might have come close to the truth, it is based on testimony from characters who might not want the truth to come out.
But hey, it's all entertainment.... Just more one-sided fodder for the masses. I personally like political things like this, because the most honesty in them is usually the potrayal of D.C. "actors" by Hollywood actors, and historical fiction is more fun the what really happens.....
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 15:02:29 [Permalink]
|
Luke T said:
quote:
Dude, how exactly do you know your email message was from the Democratic Party?
Well, gee, I dunno. Maybe because I get emails from them all the time, and this one came from the same email addy and IP as they rest of them come from?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 15:30:36 [Permalink]
|
Re this post from BSG, she quoted one of the people associated with the film as saying "you may feel we "bash" Clinton and/or you may feel we "bash" Bush..."-- has anyone heard anything from the Bush administration or the right in general about Bush-bashing? I'll admit that I'm not quite in tune (so to speak) with the AM blabosphere, and I don't read WorldNet Daily or any such, but I imagine that if there were serious objection from the Bush side, we would have heard of it!
In light of this, I think it's clear that while ABC and the people associated with this film try to make it sound as though everyone gets the blame, in fact the blame is pretty squarely placed on Clinton. Indeed, my understanding is that a key element to Bush and 9/11 is missing: him reading My Pet Goat to kids while planes smash into buildings. If they can bother to dredge up Clinton hugging Lewinsky, wouldn't it make sense to do the My Pet Goat bit?
But as BSG has shown-- and as most of the blogosphere has shown, ABC has more or less admitted that their film is "based on a true story" but, like most Hollywood productions that include such an expression, their story differs radically from reality.
Unfortunately for witless Americans everywhere, millions will watch and think that while Clinton and his staff were fellating/being fellated, or busy worrying about public reaction, Bush and his staff was trying to stop terrorists but were hindered by hapless FBI and CIA red tape.
Another nail in the coffin for real representative government in the US, and another great step forward towards the plutocracy. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2006 : 23:46:33 [Permalink]
|
CBC Television is running a non-fiction documentary by Terrance Mckenna called "The Secret History of 9/11" at 7 PM in all Canadian Time Zones. Here is a an interview with Terrance Mckenna (Real Audio Format). According to him the outgoing Clinton adminstration tried to brief George Bush on the danger posed by Al Queda, but he just didn't get it.
The interview covers the evolution of the plan to use hijacked airliners, the many missed opportunities to attack Bin Laden and the poor leadership and communication that occured on 9/11. Most fighter pilots never received the order to shoot down hijacked planes. The only pilot protecting Wasington DC was a National Gaurd pilot in an unarmed F-16. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
