Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Media Issues
 ABC's Path To 9/11
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  06:59:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
God, how I love Google!

The Huffington Post has an excellent article on it, complete with references:
quote:
Less than 72 hours before ABC's "The Path to 9/11" is scheduled to air, the network is suddenly under siege. On Tuesday, ABC was forced to concede that "The Path to 9/11" is "a dramatization, not a documentary." The film deceptively invents scenes to depict former President Bill Clinton's handling of the Al Qaeda threat.

Now, ABC claims to be is editing those false sequences to satisfy critics so the show can go on -- even if it still remains a gross distortion of history. And as it does so, ABC advances the illusion that the deceptive nature of "The Path to 9/11" is an honest mistake committed by a hardworking but admittedly fumbling team of well-intentioned Hollywood professionals who wanted nothing less than to entertain America. But this is another Big Lie.

In fact, "The Path to 9/11" is produced and promoted by a well-honed propaganda operation consisting of a network of little-known right-wingers working from within Hollywood to counter its supposedly liberal bias. This is the network within the ABC network. Its godfather is far right activist David Horowitz, who has worked for more than a decade to establish a right-wing presence in Hollywood and to discredit mainstream film and TV production. On this project, he is working with a secretive evangelical religious right group founded by The Path to 9/11's director David Cunningham that proclaims its goal to "transform Hollywood" in line with its messianic vision.

Before The Path to 9/11 entered the production stage, Disney/ABC contracted David Cunningham as the film's director. Cunningham is no ordinary Hollywood journeyman. He is in fact the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission (YWAM). The young Cunningham helped found an auxiliary of his father's group called The Film Institute (TFI), which, according to its mission statement, is "dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Televisionindustry." As part of TFI's long-term strategy, Cunningham helped place interns from Youth With A Mission's in film industry jobs "so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out," according to a YWAM report.

Last June, Cunningham's TFI announced it was producing its first film, mysteriously titled "Untitled History Project." "TFI's first project is a doozy," a newsletter to YWAM members read. "Simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet. Talk about great expectations!" (A web edition of the newsletter was mysteriously deleted yesterday but has been cached on Google at the link above).

And:
quote:
Early on, Cunningham had recruited a young Iranian-American screenwriter named Cyrus Nowrasteh to write the script of his secretive "Untitled" film. Not only is Nowrasteh an outspoken conservative, he is also a fervent member of the emerging network of right-wing people burrowing into the film industry with ulterior sectarian political and religious agendas, like Cunningham.

Nowrasteh's conservatism was on display when he appeared as a featured speaker at the Liberty Film Festival (LFF), an annual event founded in 2004 to premier and promote conservative-themed films supposedly too "politically incorrect" to gain acceptance at mainstream film festivals. This June, while The Path to 9/11 was being filmed, LFF founders Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo -- both friends of Nowrasteh -- announced they were "partnering" with right-wing activist David Horowitz. Indeed, the 2006 LFF is listed as "A Program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center."

I really don't know if these scoundrels were/are on the Republican payroll or not, but it wouldn't supprise me.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Luke T.
Skeptic Friend

140 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  07:01:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Luke T. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

Despite the effect on my blood pressure, I sat through this propaganda.

The movie was worse than I thought, and not because they were more misleading about Clinton, I already knew they were going to do that. The most disturbing thing in the movie was scene after scene where the script falsely claimed this or that Constitutional law or human right prevented us from taking care of the terrorists. This was not just right wing propaganda it was fascist propaganda.



Then the 9/11 Report must be fascist propaganda.

In last night's broadcast in the part I saw, they covered Moussaoui's part in the plan. They spent some time on the attempt to get a FISA warrant to look at Mousaoui's laptop. The warrant was denied. (ETA: Correction, the decision to even apply for a warrant was denied.)

All of that is straight out of the report. Start on 290 of the pdf I linked of the Report. It is actually page 273 of the Report. There is a large section devoted to that whole situation. Reading the report, the movie was very accurate in what happened there.

Now here's the thing. I have been an outspoken critic of the Patriot Act from the beginning on JREF. Check my posts and you will see.

You will also see that I have been a loud critic of the warrantless wiretaps this Administration has been conducting, circumventing FISA. And I have provided a pretty extensive history of FISA and its evolution since the Clinton years on JREF.

This scene with the FBI not being able to look at Moussaoui's laptop due to not being able to get a FISA warrant would support the President's position of circumventing FISA.

But like I said, it is what it is. That is what actually happened with the laptop.

Yet you say "falsely claimed." And you dare lecture me about media literacy?


You can call that fascist propaganda, or you can call it what actually happened.

Your choice.
Edited by - Luke T. on 09/12/2006 07:14:05
Go to Top of Page

Luke T.
Skeptic Friend

140 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  07:04:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Luke T. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I really don't know if these scoundrels were/are on the Republican payroll or not, but it wouldn't supprise me.



Dude is claiming they are on the Administration's payroll.

I await the evidence.
Go to Top of Page

Luke T.
Skeptic Friend

140 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  07:30:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Luke T. a Private Message
Page 226 of the pdf of the Report, speaking about the transition period in 2001 when Ashcroft took over as Attorney General:

quote:
In May, the Justice Department began shaping plans for building a budget for fiscal year 2003, the process that would usually culminate in an adminstration proposal at the beginning of 2002. On May 9, the attorney general testified at a congressional hearing concerning federal efforts to combat terrorism. He said that "one of the nation's most fundamental responsibilities is to protect its citizens...from terrorist attacks." The budget guidance issued the next day, however, highlighted gun crimes, narcotics trafficking, and civil rights as priorities. Watson told us he almost fell out of his chair when he saw this memo, because it did not mention counterterrorism.


Edited by - Luke T. on 09/12/2006 07:31:11
Go to Top of Page

Luke T.
Skeptic Friend

140 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  07:48:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Luke T. a Private Message
If you want my subjective opinion about 9/11, here it is.

I was in the military for 20 years. 1980 to 2000. After the collapse of the USSR, there was a lot of talk about the "peace dividend" that would result. And sure enough, I saw firsthand how the military and intelligence services were stripped down to bare bones under the Clinton Administration and a Republican led Congress, with the full support of their Democratic counterparts.

But more than just my own firsthand recollections, I have also in the past posted links on JREF of the poor readiness condition of the military in 1997.

One of the links I posted was this: http://www.newhampshire.com/articles/showularticle.cfm?id=36633

quote:
Bradley's concern about the reduction in forces between 1990 and 2004 is reflected in the numbers on a chart in his files, “Changes in U.S. Military Force Structure (1990-2004).” Reductions during that period include:


Active Army Divisions, reduced from 18 to 10.

Reserve Component Brigades, down from 57 to 36.

Navy Battle Force Ships, reduced from 546 to 295.

Aircraft Carriers (Active and Reserve), from 15 down to 12.

Air Force Fighter Wings (Active and Reserve), reduced from 36 to 30.


Another link: http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/views/op-ed/ohanlon/19980327.HTM

quote:
Arguing that strains on the military are becoming excessive, some policymakers have recently cried for relief.

...

The Air Force is losing pilots at an unsustainably rapid rate, and as a result expects to be about 700 individuals short of desired levels next year. Reenlistment rates for first-term troops are at their lowest in fifteen years. According to at least two major surveys, the fraction of military personnel envisioning a long-term career in the armed forces has declined some 10 percent this decade. As a House National Security Committee report described last year, some types of equipment are in less than ideal condition. For example, many aircraft mission-capable rates are now at an eight-year low. And as a Senate Budget Committee majority report recently pointed out, a number of units suffer serious shortfalls in personnel that have handicapped them in training exercises.


That's 1997, under Clinton. Not today.

The link doesn't work any more, so that quote is from when it was functional and I quoted it on JREF:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=777941#post777941

As for the situation with our intelligence services overseas prior to 9/11, we have this:http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200107/gerecht

quote:
...having worked for the CIA for nearly nine years on Middle Eastern matters (I left the Directorate of Operations because of frustration with the Agency's many problems), I would argue that America's counterterrorism program in the Middle East and its environs is a myth.


quote:
George Tenet, who became the director of the CIA in 1997, has repeatedly described America's counterterrorist program as "robust" and in most cases successful at keeping bin Ladin's terrorists "off-balance" and anxious about their own security. The Clinton Administration's senior director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council, Richard Clarke, who has continued as the counterterrorist czar in the Bush Administration, is sure that bin Ladin and his men stay awake at night "around the campfire" in Afghanistan, "worried stiff about who we're going to get next."

If we are going to defeat Usama bin Ladin, we need to openly side with Ahmad Shah Mas'ud, who still has a decent chance of fracturing the tribal coalition behind Taliban power. That, more effectively than any clandestine counterterrorist program in the Middle East, might eventually force al-Qa'ida's leader to flee Afghanistan, where U.S. and allied intelligence and military forces cannot reach him.

Until then, I don't think Usama bin Ladin and his allies will be losing much sleep around the campfire.


That was written just before 9/11!

So there's the result of the "peace dividend."

Thus, while we wanted to stop Bin Laden, it was believed that we did not have the resources to do so effectively at the time. We were also concerned about "collateral damage", civil rights, and offending someone by giving the impression we were trying to assassinate Bin Laden.

Different world.
Edited by - Luke T. on 09/12/2006 07:54:37
Go to Top of Page

Luke T.
Skeptic Friend

140 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  08:19:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Luke T. a Private Message
I was on my way to work when I heard on the radio about the first plane hitting the WTC. I thought about the aircraft that hit the Empire State Building in the 30s and how this was a terrible tragedy. I recalled fog was to blame for the crash in the 30s and wondered if the same thing was a factor in this crash. Then I started thinking about the state of aviation traffic control today and began to think it would have to be a serious malfunction of equipment or personnel for this to happen.

As I pulled into the parking lot at work, they reported the second aircraft hitting the WTC. I immediately said out loud to myself, "Osama Bin Laden."

I was inside a clean room when I got a call about the towers collapsing. I nearly decided then and there to report back to active duty.

At no time, not then or since, have I blamed Clinton OR Bush for 9/11.

I blame no one but Osama Bin Laden. Period.
Edited by - Luke T. on 09/12/2006 08:21:08
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  08:37:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Luke T.

I was on my way to work when I heard on the radio about the first plane hitting the WTC. I thought about the aircraft that hit the Empire State Building in the 30s and how this was a terrible tragedy. I recalled fog was to blame for the crash in the 30s and wondered if the same thing was a factor in this crash. Then I started thinking about the state of aviation traffic control today and began to think it would have to be a serious malfunction of equipment or personnel for this to happen.

As I pulled into the parking lot at work, they reported the second aircraft hitting the WTC. I immediately said out loud to myself, "Osama Bin Laden."

I was inside a clean room when I got a call about the towers collapsing. I nearly decided then and there to report back to active duty.

At no time, not then or since, have I blamed Clinton OR Bush for 9/11.

I blame no one but Osama Bin Laden. Period.


I have no evidence as to who put up the funding; if I had, I would have presented it. But as far as I am concerned, that is not important. Their history and actions speak for themselves.

(I have read that Richard Mellon Scafe put up some 40 mil, but at this point, that's just scuttlebutt and worhty of little attention.)

20 years in.... I was only in for 10. I too, was a lifer but circumstances dictated otherwise.

I can blame bin Laden for the attack, but the lack of preparedness and the reaction were all on Bush's plate.

Should Clinton been more aggressive toward bin Laden? I dunno. They say that hindsite is 20/20, but I think not always. Clinton had a lot of other problems requiring attention besides Monica.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Luke T.
Skeptic Friend

140 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  08:55:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Luke T. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by filthyI have no evidence as to who put up the funding; if I had, I would have presented it. But as far as I am concerned, that is not important. Their history and actions speak for themselves.

(I have read that Richard Mellon Scafe put up some 40 mil, but at this point, that's just scuttlebutt and worhty of little attention.)


So why mention it, unless to just continue spreading partisan rumors?

quote:
20 years in.... I was only in for 10. I too, was a lifer but circumstances dictated otherwise.


I wish I had gotten out at 10. Be glad you didn't do 20.

quote:
I can blame bin Laden for the attack, but the lack of preparedness and the reaction were all on Bush's plate.


Excuse me? Bush had 9 months. Clinton had seven years, from the time of the first attack on the WTC. Followed by the attacks on our embassies and the USS Cole.

And what about that first attack on the WTC in 1993? That was during Clinton's time. Do you blame him for not preventing that attack? How come I never hear that from anyone who blames Bush for 9/11?

Why the visceral reaction from the left when blame is laid at CLinton's feet for the embassy and Cole attacks?

Who else is to blame?

Bin Laden. Period.


quote:
Should Clinton been more aggressive toward bin Laden? I dunno. They say that hindsite is 20/20, but I think not always. Clinton had a lot of other problems requiring attention besides Monica.


Seven years vs. nine months. How hectic do you think the first nine months of a new Administration are? Especially when the preceding Administration was unfriendly.

Edited by - Luke T. on 09/12/2006 08:58:28
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  09:24:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
Correct me if I am wrong, but the perpertrators of the first WTC attack are currently in prison. And where is bin Laden, hmm? And the anthrax letter-bomber too, comes to that?

Clinton passed on all of the information he had to Bush, who chose to ignore it in favor of other what-the-hell-ever confusions. Let us not try to shovel the entire blame off on Clinton.

Y'see, Bush had his chance; the chance to become the greatest president ever, and he blew it. Had he purseued bin Laden, with the whole world offering all support, he and his organization would today be an unpleasant memory. Instead, he chose to go to Iraq on a basis of speculations at best and outright lies at worst. And the world wide support vanished like rats in the rattlesnake cage. And rightly so.

When I put forth a speculation, I lable it as such. I will put them up as they are of interest to the boards, and there is the distinct possibility/probability that someone else might know something I don't and be able to confirm or refute.

Thus far, you have done neither; merely commented.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Luke T.
Skeptic Friend

140 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  10:46:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Luke T. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
When I put forth a speculation, I lable it as such. I will put them up as they are of interest to the boards, and there is the distinct possibility/probability that someone else might know something I don't and be able to confirm or refute.

Thus far, you have done neither; merely commented.



Thus far, everyone but me has been posting rumors and parroting commentators of the left.

Who has actually compared the ABC program to the 9/11 Report upon which it was supposedly based? No one but me.

I also showed where Dude's email had its own lie in it. And confirmed it orginated with the DNC.

It's easy to lay a rumor or speculation out there. Any idiot can pass one on.

And it is easy to throw a slander out there and say the Administration paid these guys to make this film. It is quite another to prove such a claim.

How about instead of throwing out more rumors or innuendo, try investigating one or two and showing whether or not they are true instead of "so-and-so on TV said so".

ETA: I think you are also missing the fact that quite a lot of the Al Qaeda network has been rolled up by this Administration.

Edited by - Luke T. on 09/12/2006 10:54:39
Go to Top of Page

Luke T.
Skeptic Friend

140 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  11:00:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Luke T. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by filthy


Y'see, Bush had his chance; the chance to become the greatest president ever, and he blew it. Had he purseued bin Laden, with the whole world offering all support, he and his organization would today be an unpleasant memory. Instead, he chose to go to Iraq on a basis of speculations at best and outright lies at worst. And the world wide support vanished like rats in the rattlesnake cage. And rightly so.


And this has to do with the accuracy/veracity of the ABC movie how?

Sounds like your bias is getting in the way of your skepticism.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  11:44:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Luke T.

quote:
Originally posted by filthy


Y'see, Bush had his chance; the chance to become the greatest president ever, and he blew it. Had he purseued bin Laden, with the whole world offering all support, he and his organization would today be an unpleasant memory. Instead, he chose to go to Iraq on a basis of speculations at best and outright lies at worst. And the world wide support vanished like rats in the rattlesnake cage. And rightly so.


And this has to do with the accuracy/veracity of the ABC movie how?

Sounds like your bias is getting in the way of your skepticism.


This is a commentary of my own. Have you not been paying attention for the last 5+ years?

That's another commebnt, by the bye.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4955 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  12:48:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Luke T.

quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

Despite the effect on my blood pressure, I sat through this propaganda.

The movie was worse than I thought, and not because they were more misleading about Clinton, I already knew they were going to do that. The most disturbing thing in the movie was scene after scene where the script falsely claimed this or that Constitutional law or human right prevented us from taking care of the terrorists. This was not just right wing propaganda it was fascist propaganda.



Then the 9/11 Report must be fascist propaganda.

In last night's broadcast in the part I saw, they covered Moussaoui's part in the plan. They spent some time on the attempt to get a FISA warrant to look at Mousaoui's laptop. The warrant was denied. (ETA: Correction, the decision to even apply for a warrant was denied.)

Actually, it wasn't denied. The FBI never asked for it because they didn't think they had enough probable cause. It is unknown if FISA would have gone through with the request. Read the report.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4955 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  12:50:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Luke T.

If you want my subjective opinion about 9/11, here it is.

I was in the military for 20 years. 1980 to 2000. After the collapse of the USSR, there was a lot of talk about the "peace dividend" that would result. And sure enough, I saw firsthand how the military and intelligence services were stripped down to bare bones under the Clinton Administration and a Republican led Congress, with the full support of their Democratic counterparts.

But more than just my own firsthand recollections, I have also in the past posted links on JREF of the poor readiness condition of the military in 1997.
I'm confused. How does military preparedness fit in with stopping terrorists? I can see how cutting budgets for the CIA and other intel organizations would, but would 9/11 have been stopped if we had 10 divisions instead of 8?
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 09/12/2006 :  13:32:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
Here's something that might be of interest. It's pretty much a break-down of the whole thing.
quote:
The ABC television network is using the fifth anniversary of 9/11 as an opportunity to rewrite history. On Sept. 10 and 11, ABC/Disney will broadcast "The Path to 9/11", a six-hour, two-part "docudrama" written and produced by conservative filmmakers who place a lion's share of the blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on alleged failures of the Clinton administration.

This is not the first time that Hollywood has used 9/11 as a pretext to air pro-Bush propaganda in the guise of a docudrama. On the second anniversary of the terrorist attack, the Showtime cable network broadcast "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis," written by conservative Republican Lionel Chetwynd. Dubbed "a reelection campaign movie" by Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales, the film starred actor Timothy Bottoms in the role of George W. Bush, depicting him as a leader of Churchillian stature who takes personal charge in the 9/11 aftermath while brushing off worries about his own safety with declarations such as, "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come on over and get me. I'll be home!" In reality, as opposed to the bizarro world of docudrama, Bush's safety on 9/11 was guaranteed by hustling him off to an undisclosed location, while Cheney went into hiding for months.

Path is a propaganda piece, pure and simple. The current crop of conservatives have shown themselves to be very good at that...



Way to go Mickey! You're in the big leagues now!




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.5 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000