Disney's Dubious Path to 9/11

[Gn2Dlnd]

The Disney Company has used revisionist history in the past when telling it's own official story. The Disney Company is now using revisionist history in broadcasting a two night miniseries called, The Path to 9/11 (http://blogs.abc.com/thepathto911/) which is "based on the report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm) (also known as the 9/11 Commission (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=9/11_Commission))." Apparently the blame for 9/11 is laid squarely at the feet of the Clinton administration. Please read this article (http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/04/hijacking-911/) before posting, if your first impulse is to attack me, liberals in general, cut-and-runners, etc.

I'm in no mood.

Conservative media hosts were given pre-broadcast screeners while liberal hosts were not. Former Bush counterterrorism official, Roger Cressey said, on Scarborough Country (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scarborough-ABC-911-movie.mov) (!) "Joe - what’s amazing about this based on what I seen so far is how much they got wrong." The screenwriterwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, a year ago called Michael Moore an "out of control socialist weasel." Probably no agenda there.

At a National Press Club screening last month, Richard Ben-Veniste - one of the 10 members of the independent Sept. 11 commission took issue (http://public.cq.com/public/20060905_homeland.html) with many of the "facts" presented in the film. Jesus General (http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/) has a great letter to Bob Iger. Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/) posts a great piece on this. Check out Truthdig's (http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060905_bloggers_rage_over_abc_disney_9_11_docudr ama/) commentary here, while Democratic House members have drafted their own letter to Bob Iger (http://www.housedemocrats.gov/news/librarydetail.cfm?library_content_id=876).

Apparently (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/abc-distribution/) Disney/Apple is making this available as a free download on iTunes, and distributing 100,000 copies to schoolrooms with with online study guides. Propaganda is alive and well. To quote this blog, (http://openlettertoabc.blogspot.com/) "September 11 is a national tragedy, it should not be a subject for dishonest political propaganda." Please, if you feel as strongly about this as I do, I urge you to contact ABC (http://abc.go.com/site/contactus.html) or

Disney-Abc Television Group,
3800 W Alameda Ave # B,
Burbank, CA 91521-9722
(818) 569-7500,

and Disney at

Robert Iger, CEO
THE DISNEY COMPANY
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-9722
Phone: 818-560-1000
Fax: 818-560-1930.

[Tramspotter]

Please read this article (http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/04/hijacking-911/) before posting, if your first impulse is to attack me, liberals in general, cut-and-runners, etc.

I'm in no mood.


Ok I followed the link...

and right away saw a dubious Picture (http://www.snopes.com/photos/bushbook.asp)

Can I stop now?
or do I need to click more links to embark on the path to full moon bat conversion?

[Gn2Dlnd]

Ha! Thanks for the Snopes link.

Boy, I'm glad you cleared up the last couple hours of research for me. That docudrammer shor does look good all sudden-like.

Bear in mind, it gives me no pleasure to find the Disney Company complicit in the gummints propaganda machine. If one faked picture is all it took to cause you to dismiss the entire issue, then the old canard is true, we truly do get the government we deserve.

[Alex]

In the (approximate) words of others on this message board earlier this year:

It is just a movie. Who cares if it misrepresents history? People who get their history from movies are teh dum and people who get all upset about how history is represented in movies are teh dummer.

Since most of the institutional history of Al Qaeda and build up to 9/11 took place during the Clinton years and only 8 months or so during the Bush years, any look at how American policy "allowed" 9/11 would, I think, have to spend a lot of time on the Clinton years.

Personally, I don't "blame" anybody for 9/11. People wanted to do bad things to us and, gratefully in my opinion, we live in a society where the truly determined will find it easy to do them. Looking back there are doubtless thousands of junctures at which an official could have done something or seen something or caused a butterfly to flap its wings causing the hurricane that grounded all the planes on the East Coast on that day.

I don't lay al Qaeda at the feet of either administration and both are stupidly eager to pretend that nothing they did had anything to do with it and therefore it is all the other administration's fault.

So, I'm going to stick to the blame I assigned a couple months ago in a similar discussion. I blame the Russians and when I make my version of "The Path to 9/11" it will be set entirely in the Jewish ghettos around Moscow, Kiev, and St. Petersburg in the last 50 years of the 19th century.

Pick who you want to blame and blame them. It doesn't really change anything about what happened.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Wow, a "moon bat" and "teh dummer" in the space of two posts. Anyone care to make it a trifecta?

Unfortunately, Alex, those who watch this film will now be able to say to their friends, "That a-hole Clinton called off an attack on Bin Laden when the marines were right outside his front door!" I know without a shred of doubt that I'll be having this conversation in the near future. Probably with people in my own family. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, they saw it on teevee. Does it matter that the Clinton administration was roundly ignored by the Bush White House on this topic? No. Because in a movie on tv it said something different.

I'm sure the last 50 years of history have had something to do with everything that followed. Your point is that it doesn't matter. My point is that it does. We have a responsibility to teach the truth to schoolchildren. What happened to the lessons learned back in 5th grade when we watched the Watergate hearings on tvs rolled into classrooms from the AV department?

Have we given up on all critical thinking because it "doesn't change anything"? I don't think so. It's just that the really loud percentage of Americans who have done so, make it seem like the rest of us have.

[Alex]

I didn't say it was my view that people who get upset about representations of history in movies is "teh dummer" just that this was pretty much the consensus view here earlier this summer (when I was the one arguing against it).

I make no point that it doesn't matter. Everything matters from a historical point of view. An ABC docudrama that will be watched by 12 million people (and discounted out of hand by half of them) doesn't matter a whole lot but of course it matters. And the historical errors should be corrected.

My point isn't that history isn't important but rather that "blame" is not a historical concept. "Blame" is a personal subjective concept. "Blame" whoever the hell you want because even if everybody agrees 100% on what physically transpired each individual will be able to assign "blame" differently and support it to their own satisfaction with the facts on hand.

[wendybeth]

I'm in the midst of a conversation about the Clinton administration and terrorism at another site right now, and am in no mood to rehash it all over again. That said, has anyone actually read the commission report? They make it very clear that the Clinton administration took terrorism extremely seriously and were repeatedly hamstrung by a Congress and Senate more concerned about domestic 'affairs' (and blue dresses) than terrorism. Clinton was a hell of a lot more proactive than given credit for, and it really pisses me off when people lay the blame at his door rather than do the research and stop trying to rewrite what actually happened. I doubt anyone in those towers or on those airplanes on 9/11 were too concerned with whatever political party their fellow victims were affiliated with- on that day they were all just human beings trying to survive.

[scaeagles]

Whenever there is a movie with subject matter that I am disinterested in or makes me mad, I don't see it.

Interestingly, many here argued that seeing Fahrenheit 911 was incredibly important. Many here would argue that seeing An Inconvenient Truth is vital, or that Bowling for Columbine was imbedded sloely in the truth. So much in any movie like this takes the bits and pieces of info it wishes to - often based on fact, sometimes not, sometimes taken ridiculously out of context - and spin them into a viewpoint that simply cannot be ignored.

My goal is not to debate any other movie (or even this movie) and facts or lack thereof in them. Simply to point out that this happens all the time, and it isn't limited to movies, but is often blatantly in the group that calls themselves the news media.. I feel your pain, Gn2Dlnd, because many others have angered me in a similar fashion.

Ironically, while I support any and all letter campaigns as the right of the consumer, efforts such as this are oft described as an attempt at censorship. I disagree with that sentiment.

Revisionist history is in the eye of the beholder.

[innerSpaceman]

Eh, it's on ABC. Who'll even see it???



And with no commercials? It's a dog.

[sleepyjeff]

Eh, it's on ABC. Who'll even see it???





Exactly!

:snap:

[BarTopDancer]

Eh, it's on ABC. Who'll even see it???



And with no commercials? It's a dog.

Is it going to pre-empt LOST?

[wendybeth]

Well, it's not gone unnoticed:Clinton admin angered by depiction (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14707869/)

I wonder if they can sue for defamation of character, etc. Might be a good way to set the record straight in the public forum.

Excerpt:
"Albright said she never warned Pakistan. The Sept. 11 commission found that a senior U.S. military official warned Pakistan that missiles crossing its airspace would not be from its archenemy, India.
"The Path to 9/11" uses news footage to suggest that Clinton was distracted by the Republican drive to impeach him. Veteran White House counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke, who also disputes the film's accuracy, is portrayed as telling FBI agent John P. O'Neill: "Republicans went all out for impeachment. I just don't see the president in this climate willing to take chances."O'Neill responds: "So it's okay if somebody kills bin Laden, so long as he didn't give the order. . . . It's pathetic." The Sept. 11 commission found no evidence that the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal played a role in the August 1998 missile strike, but added that the "intense partisanship of the period" was one factor that "likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against bin Laden."

[sleepyjeff]

ty

[Gn2Dlnd]

Whenever there is a movie with subject matter that I am disinterested in or makes me mad, I don't see it.
...
Ironically, while I support any and all letter campaigns as the right of the consumer, efforts such as this are oft described as an attempt at censorship. I disagree with that sentiment.
...
Revisionist history is in the eye of the beholder.

Its not the subject matter I have a problem with, its the misrepresentation of facts.
...
Public outcry is not censorship, its my right and responsibility as a concerned citizen. Censorship is generally practiced by governing bodies, be it ABC's internal censor or the U.S. government, and is not necessarily a bad thing.
...
Revisionist history is not subjective if the accepted truth (the report by 9/11 commission) is rewritten by a hack teevee writer trying to spice up his plot.

[scaeagles]

Just for clarification, I was saying that I disagree that letter writing campaigns are some form of censorship. They are not. I say go for it.

The problem with saying censorship is not necessarily a bad thing, when linking that with the US Government of any government, is that there is too much of a fight over who is going to censor what. Something I may think is fine to censor you may not and vice versa. So what you are doing, by applying pressure to ABC and Disney, is the way to go.

Accepted truth is alos in the eye of the beholder. My accepted truth on various subjects will undoubtedly vary from yours, and experts in any given field will also vary widely in what they consider an accepted truth to be. The accepted truth is that 19 highjackers in airplanes brought down tthe towers. There is a somewhat significant group of people - no mental midgets, though somewhat misguided perhaps - who think it was a government conspiracy. They do not subscribe to the accepted truth.

The truth is out there.....there are just too many who don't want the truth to be found and will distort it by any means. And I don't just mean on this subject.

[Scrooge McSam]

Gn2Dlnd,

Perhaps you'll feel better by taking some action.

Maybe a letter to the Federal Election Commission, asking why ABC is giving a $40 million wet kiss to the republican party 60 days before midterm elections. Made me feel better, I tell you what.

Or perhaps a call or letter to the Federal Communication Commission, the entity that licenses ABC and its affiliates? A few hundred complaints may not make all that much difference once re-licensing time rolls around... but a few hundred thousand? Maybe ;)

If you're still fired up after that, why not call your local ABC affiliate and let them know you will be contacting their advertisers.

These people (Disney) understand money. Talk their language to get their attention.

[innerSpaceman]

Aha, but there are no advertisers for this program.

[Scrooge McSam]

Not THIS program

ALL programs

[sleepyjeff]

Maybe a letter to the Federal Election Commission, asking why ABC is giving a $40 million wet kiss to the republican party 60 days before midterm elections.

Isn't George Mitchell still with Disney?

[DreadPirateRoberts]

Isn't George Mitchell still with Disney?

Yes (http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/bios/george_mitchell.html), he's still Chairman of the Board of Directors

[Frogberto]

The LA times this morning has a story about ABC "altering" this project:

> --------------------
> ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure
> --------------------
>
> By Scott Collins
> Times Staff Writer
>
> September 7 2006
>
> ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is quickly becoming a political cause celebre.
>
> The complete article can be viewed at:
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-wk-channel7sep07,1,7848445.story
>
> Visit latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com

[Gn2Dlnd]

Doesn't look like they're doing much, yet, but it does look they're a bit rattled.

Good.

[scaeagles]

Curious - would it have been good if Michael Moore had given into pressure and modified Fahrenheit 911 because of pressure from the Republicans? Or if the new movie (a British film, if I recall) that depicts the assassination of Bush were yanked because of pressure from government sources?

If ABC is rattled by pressure from their viewers, that's great. If ABC is rattled because of pressure from Nancy Pelosi, that's not great.

I understand you are saying that because you want this modified or pulled. Again, no problem with that. I just can't help but think that the reaction would be different if it were pressure coming from officials in the government on the other side of the political spectrum regarding a movie or some such thing that you did not find to be dishonest or that fit in with what you believed.

I am saying this over and over again because I don't want to be misunderstood. I think the consumer raising their voices about what they don't like is wonderful. I do it all the time.

A quote from NY Times critic Alessandra Stanley:
"Dramatic license was certainly taken, but blame is spread pretty evenly across the board. It's not the inaccuracies of 'The Path to 9/11' that make ABC's miniseries so upsetting. It's the situation on the ground in Afghanistan now."

[Moonliner]

If ABC is rattled by pressure from their viewers, that's great. If ABC is rattled because of pressure from Nancy Pelosi, that's not great.



"It's gray Jack. The world is gray".

If the ABC special is as inaccurate and bias as people are saying, then what does it matter who was involved in getting it changed? It's still the right thing to do. People with political connections are still free to espouse their opinions. Did anyone call in the FCC? Were they forced to change the show under a subpoena? No? Then I say it's gray.

[Sub la Goon]

The thing about Michael Moore is - his movies don't debut on network TV over 2 nights with study guides for teachers on how to use the "information" provided in the film for educational purposes.

Moore's agenda is right out there in plain sight and doesn't have the reek of state-sponsored propaganda.

This movie is a ploy to get people down on Democrats before a mid-term election by painting the previous administration as do-nothings (an opinion not backed up by the actual 9-11 commission).

It's a shame that they have to do so by exploting our nations worst tragedy.

I would say that impressionable Americans might be swayed by this tactic, but I doubt that many are still "on the fence" about the current Administration. I think that we are all either disappointed & embittered by our government's actions over the past 6 years or are "drinking the Kool-Aid". God knows we already have a 24 hour propaganda "News" channel brought to you by the good folks at FOX to keep us hyp-mo-tized. Why would a 4 hour Crock-U-Drama make any difference?

[scaeagles]

Moonliner, while I can respect that, are you suggesting that should Republican leaders have put intense pressure on anyone involved with Fahrenheit 911 to pull it that you would be OK with it?

Opinions by political leaders are certainly fine. Do you suppose it might influence their policy? I ask that only because whenever a poitical leader has strong religious convictions, often times just having them is said to influence their decision making.

Maybe you would be fine with that. Without talking about bias or facts, I would suggest, however, that if republican leadership in government had been so vocally adament about their opposition to Fahrenheit 911 they would be accused of attempts at censorship, using their political influence to have the movie eliminated from various venues, and/or attempting to hide something.

[scaeagles]

Moore's agenda is right out there in plain sight and doesn't have the reek of state-sponsored propaganda.


So if some unpaid republican political operative sponsored this you would be OK with it? It's just because it's going on ABC? What's the difference between the guy who's producing it and Michael Moore?

I will, however, agree that that the angle of getting schools into it is wrong.

[Moonliner]

Moonliner, while I can respect that, are you suggesting that should Republican leaders have put intense pressure on anyone involved with Fahrenheit 911 to pull it that you would be OK with it?

Opinions by political leaders are certainly fine. Do you suppose it might influence their policy? I ask that only because whenever a poitical leader has strong religious convictions, often times just having them is said to influence their decision making.

Maybe you would be fine with that. Without talking about bias or facts, I would suggest, however, that if republican leadership in government had been so vocally adament about their opposition to Fahrenheit 911 they would be accused of attempts at censorship, using their political influence to have the movie eliminated from various venues, and/or attempting to hide something.

It's gray. If the ABC film was about Monica and the Democratic power brokers leaned on broadcasters that would be one thing but since the subject matter is 9/11 I feel differently. This is a subject that calls for the highest respect and historical accuracy. So in this case I say, yes bring all the pressure you can. In other cases? I say keep your dirty fingers off artistic integrity. It's gray.

[scaeagles]

Well, you're honest Moonliner. You are willing to accept government influence and pressure on broadcast companies when you think the subject matter calls for it. Who defines what the subject matter is that the government should be allowed to censor?

[Moonliner]

Well, you're honest Moonliner. You are willing to accept government influence and pressure on broadcast companies when you think the subject matter calls for it. Who defines what the subject matter is that the government should be allowed to censor?

I still don't see what has happened in this case (unless I'm missing something) that counts as government influence. There was a lot of the same type of "influence" used against fahrenheit 911 and it was ignored. Can you be more specific about what happened in this case that you feel constitutes undue influence? Was the FCC involved? Did the FBI raid ABC? What am I missing? All I see is ABC being guilted into doing the right thing.

[mousepod]

Here's where I see the difference between this movie and Michael Moore's flicks: Moore's movies debuted in theaters - this movie debuts on broadcast television. Broadcast television is still theoretically the domain of the people - that's why the FCC can do stupid things like fine broadcasters for saying "dirty" things.

I have three basic problems with the current situation:
- It's on broadcast television.
- It's being presented by "ABC News" - implying that the "docu" part of docudrama is more legit than it apparently is.
- The timing is incredibly suspect.

Scaeagles, how did you feel about the Reagan movie that was pulled from broadcast on CBS due to conservative pressure?

[Scrooge McSam]

A quote from NY Times critic Alessandra Stanley:
"Dramatic license was certainly taken, but blame is spread pretty evenly across the board. It's not the inaccuracies of 'The Path to 9/11' that make ABC's miniseries so upsetting. It's the situation on the ground in Afghanistan now."

No... it's the lies.

I notice your Ms. Stanley has this to say about the lead up to 9/11...

The Sept. 11 commission concluded that the sex scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat.

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to direct me to the page number in the 9/11 commission report that makes this charge. We've all read the 9/11 commission report, haven't we?

We're watching myths being created before our eyes, folks. If the media and politicians and actors can change the truth of the 9/11 story in 5 years, imagine what's happened to the widely accepted "Word of God" in 2,000 years.

Tie THAT into your other thread.

But I am encouraged, especially by the letter from Senate Democratic leadership yesterday...

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest.

<snip>

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged.

Trustee of the public airwaves... trust of the American people and the United States Congress... I like! Threaten that broadcast license!!

M-I-C... See ya later, ABC!

Now, do I expect ABC to lose their license, even if they air this trash? No.

But, I hope they realize the error of their ways and pull this program before air date. If not, zapping all their channels on my Tivo won't be all that hard; certainly not as hard as cancelling my upcoming WDW trip.

[Moonliner]

Scaeagles, how did you feel about the Reagan movie that was pulled from broadcast on CBS due to conservative pressure?


Most posters here are quite intelligent (though I would also claim many are misguided ). Sorry to say, but i don't think the general population is. The problem with making up stories about real people that actually existed is that the less than brilliant will think it is true. I would be willing to bet that all 25% mentioned in the poll would believe that Reagan actually said "they that live in sin shall die in sin" or whatever the exact movie quote is, as well as the other offensive and unfactual references and comments are in the miniseries.

Protests happen all the time. Rush Limbaugh was the spokesman for Florida OJ for a bit, but NOW protested so vocally, even though they were small in numbers, and applied pressure to have him removed.

Let's say a miniseries is created about Clinton. In that miniseries he is portrayed as not having a relationship with Monica L, but applying the power of his office to pressure her into doing what she doesn't want to do or maybe actually raping her. Though I am not a Clinton fan by ANY means, I would find that offensive because it is simply historical revisionism, not artistic license, and should not be broadcast, for the same reason that a story about that shouldn't be printed in a local newspaper.

Artistic license does not entitle the artist in question to make up stories about the subject because they could imagine it happening.

Personally, I think CBS pulled it because of liability issues. I believe Showtime will not run it for the same reason. The Reagan family and his loyal former staff and cabinet members would surely not allow this slander to go unchallanged. I may not understand all of the legal issues involved in slander, but as I understand it, if you print something about someone you know is not true you are liable for damages. I don't think the National Enquirer knows certain stories they have been sued for are not true, but they haved been sued successfully when they have had no evidence to back up their stories.

CBS felt the public pressure, too, sure. But that is OK. You can say what you want to in this country, but must be prepared to pay the price. CBS apparently did not want to pay it. It is not censorship

Note: I added the bolding. Link (http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showpost.php?p=307181&postcount=56)

[wendybeth]

:snap::snap:Moonliner!!!!!!:snap::snap:
(Sorry, Scaeagles- we love ya, but even you have to admit this is good).

[Scrooge McSam]

IOKIYAR

[Alex]

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to direct me to the page number in the 9/11 commission report that makes this charge. We've all read the 9/11 commission report, haven't we?

Page 135 of the PDF version of the report lists four factors that the report says likely had a cumulative downward pressure on the willingness to use violence against bin Laden. The four factors are:

1) The apparent failure of the missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan to accomplish anything of significance.
2) The "wag the dog" stories in the press and the Republicans. This is the idea that aggressive acts by Clinton were to distract the nation from his Lewinsky problems. The report does not say that they were intended to distract just that the idea that they were caused problems for the Clinton administration.
3) Intense partisanship (that is, any action, regardless of merit, resulted in bickering)
4) The apparent evidence that the strike in Sudan had been on a non-threatening site.

I don't know how exactly it is presented in the movie. The report also notes that Tenet and Berger testified that they didn't feel contrained by these things. But the report does explicitly contradict that claim.

It does not lay out any kind of relative importance of any of those factors, just says that they probably were factors.

To the extent that the pages following this lay "blame" with Clinton it seems to be for an environment of communication that created confusion between various agencies as to what actions were allowed in regard to bin Laden. The Clinton White House apparently felt that they had authorized pretty much carte blanche to kill bin Laden but the CIA felt they were only authorized to kill bin Laden under very limited circumstances and that Clinton and Berger used different and ambiguous language in issuing instructions to different people.

Again, I don't really blame anybody for 9/11. Hindsight will find many, many points where the future could have been changed by different action. That doesn't mean they were options that could reasonably have been taken at the time.

Without watching the ABC show myself I'm not ready to outright condemn it. But I'll probably never see it either (I'm not even home this weekend and it isn't going to find its way to my Netflix queue). In general, though, I am disapproving of the "docu-drama" genre because they all generally have significant historical flaws and usually are a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can claim historical fidelity in spirit while saying any specific distortions were made for artistic, time compression, or various other factors allowed in fiction.

As for the idea that this is an effort by ABC to boost Bush or the Republicans for the upcoming elections, who are the people in on this? Pretty much the entire top leadership of The Walt Disney company and ABC are Democrats (at least to the degree that such things can be determined by campaign contributions). Iger, for example, so far this year has given $15,200 directly to Democrats and $2,500 to Republicans (and $5,200 to individual D candidates and none to individual R candidates).

[Scrooge McSam]

... likely had a cumulative downward pressure on the willingness to use violence against bin Laden. The four factors are:

1) The apparent failure of the missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan to accomplish anything of significance.
2) The "wag the dog" stories in the press and the Republicans. This is the idea that aggressive acts by Clinton were to distract the nation from his Lewinsky problems. The report does not say that they were intended to distract just that the idea that they were caused problems for the Clinton administration.
3) Intense partisanship (that is, any action, regardless of merit, resulted in bickering)
4) The apparent evidence that the strike in Sudan had been on a non-threatening site.

I don't know how exactly it is presented in the movie. The report also notes that Tenet and Berger testified that they didn't feel contrained by these things. But the report does explicitly contradict that claim.

No sir... it does not.

In the paragraph directly above the one you cite...

Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton's problems. He told them to ignore them. Berger recalled the President saying to him "that they are going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing." All his aides testified to us that they based their advice solely on national security considerations. We have found no reason to question their statements.

The passage you cite specifically mentions "willingness to use violence".

[Alex]

And it says those thing affected their willingness to use violence.

Like I said, I don't know how the ABC show presents it so I don't know how at odds it is with what the report says:

The report says the Clinton people say they weren't constrained by Clinton but that a non-explicit cumulative effect likely was there.

The report says there is no reason to believe that they were ever explicitly constrained because of these things.

You can disagree with the conclusion but it is still there in the report. So, just to put it together:

Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton's problems. He told them to ignore them. Berger recalled the President saying to him "that they are going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing." All his aides testified to us that they based their advice solely on national security considerations. We have found no reason to question their statements.

The failure of the strikes, the "wag the dog" slur, the intense partisanship of the period, and the nature of the al Shifa evidence likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against Bin Laden. Berger told us that he did not feel any sense of constraint."

You asked for a page cite for the quote you offered. That is what I was giving. I do not think it supports what exactly is said in the quote but it does appear to be the source for that statement and does support the idea that the 9/11 commission believes the Lewinsky affair had some impact on how the Clinton administration was willing to act.

Again, I don't know how the show actually represents this.

Hell, it makes perfect sense to me. Clinton was in an environment where every form of aggressive policy action on his part was used as a bludgeon against him. It is only reasonable, especially for a poll-driven political organization like the Clinton White House that this would cause some trepidation but additional such actions.

Of course, if I were to blame someone as a result of this it wouldn't be to blame Clinton (asking a politician to not be political is stupid) but rather on the Republicans for being stupid and creating such a vitriolic atmosphere.

I personally believe that if Clinton had killed Bin Laden in 1997 it would today be used as an exmaple of misuse of American military power. Only in the hindsight of 9/11 are we willing to have endorsed any violent means necessary to have killed the man.

[sleepyjeff]

.

Hell, it makes perfect sense to me. Clinton was in an environment where every form of aggressive policy action on his part was used as a bludgeon against him. It is only reasonable, especially for a poll-driven political organization like the Clinton White House that this would cause some trepidation but additional such actions.



If only we had a President who just did his job and followed his beliefs no matter what the polls said....;)

[Alex]

I don't think ignoring polls is necessarily better (we tend to want politicians to be poll driven when we disagree with them and to be staunch supporters of their own opinion when we agree with them). Nor do I think that Bush is one who ignores the polls, there are just institutional factors that pretty much force the president to continue misdirected policies even once they become obvious failures.

[sleepyjeff]

I can't dispute that.

[Gn2Dlnd]

As for the idea that this is an effort by ABC to boost Bush or the Republicans for the upcoming elections, who are the people in on this? Pretty much the entire top leadership of The Walt Disney company and ABC are Democrats (at least to the degree that such things can be determined by campaign contributions). Iger, for example, so far this year has given $15,200 directly to Democrats and $2,500 to Republicans (and $5,200 to individual D candidates and none to individual R candidates).

The first answer that came to my mind was the writer and director. The writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, in an interview with FrontPage Magazine (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23865) struts his stuff, "The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. COLE in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing."
Her'es the actual passage from the 9/11 report, After the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, evidence accumulated that it had been launched by al Qaeda operatives, but without confirmation that Bin Ladin had given the order. The Taliban had earlier been warned that it would be held responsible for another Bin Ladin attack on the United States. The CIA described its findings as a "preliminary judgment"; President Clinton and his chief advisers told us they were waiting for a conclusion before deciding whether to take military action. The military alternatives remained unappealing to them.

The transition to the new Bush administration in late 2000 and early 2001 took place with the Cole issue still pending. President George W. Bush and his chief advisers accepted that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Cole, but did not like the options available for a response.



The director, David Cunningham, was gushingly profiled in Charisma Magazine (http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=11556), This man knows what he wants. “My life's mission is to challenge and shape culture through film,” says Cunningham-son of Youth With a Mission founder Loren Cunningham. He grabbed Stephen Spielberg's attention after releasing To End All Wars, a $14 million War World II movie that got limited box office exposure but critical praise. The film was violent enough to earn an R rating, yet it was laced with a Christian message of forgiveness. Insiders expect Cunningham to eventually direct a film that will take evangelical faith into mainstream theaters. We are ready to buy some tickets.

The second answer occured to me in the form of a question. If Disney is populated by such staunch Democrats, then why would they hire these guys? I quote from Digby (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115741601128096 709): Disney/ABC cancelled the reality show featuring a gay couple, "Welcome To The Neighborhood," ten days before it was to air when James Dobson and the religious right threatened to withdraw their support for the conservative classic "Narnia."

Disney refused to allow its subsidiary Miramax, which specialized in controversial fare, to distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11" allegedly because they felt it was too political.

They made a deal with Mel Gibson, beloved on the religious right for his film "The Passion," to produce a film about the Holocaust even though they knew at the time he held extremely controversial views about the Holocaust and Judaism. They only cancelled the project when he was caught by the police drunkenly saying "all the wars in the world are caused by the Jews."

Now they have produced a blatantly rightwing work of fiction which they are saying is based on the official 9/11 Commission report and they are giving it away without any advertising. They sent out hundreds of screening copies but failed to send any to the Clinton administration officials who are trashed in the film or to liberal columnists and bloggers.

There's a pattern here folks and it isn't a pattern that shows ABC knuckling under to liberals. There is a huge amount of money at stake in all these decisions, but for some reason Disney seems to be more than willing to throw it away when it benefits the right wing: already produced films and TV shows are either cancelled or allowed to be distributed by others, while hugely expensive, controversial rightwing mini-series' are broadcast with no advertising and allowed to be downloaded for free by I-tunes.

Isn't that something that Disney shareholders should be just a little bit concerned about? If ABC is protecting its "Narnia" franchise, at some point you have to look at whether the price they are paying is too high. If they have thrown this kind of money away to appease the GOP for business reasons then their shareholders have just been taken to the cleaners.


So, Disney, that most Republican of companies, is actually run by Democrats who want to protect the bottom line, even if it means contradicting their own values. Politics, meet politics, you'll be sharing a bed.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Just got off the phone with my ex-roomie who works in scheduling at ABC. As you can imagine, her life is a bit hectic right about now. Yes, I got the "It's a movie, not history" line, but, when I mentioned the 100,000 copies being sent to schools, she said, "Yeah, well, we're trying to figure that one out."

Here's the fun wrinkle, President Bush is scheduling a speech on Monday night in the middle of the show's broadcast!

Rolling over for ass-holes who hate you makes them even more likely to disregard you.

Mebbe Disney should buy Fox if they really want to be all snuggly with the Prez.

[Scrooge McSam]

Gn2dlnd,

Did you see the report (from the Select Committee on Intelligence) on Pre-War Iraq Intelligence (http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf) was released today.

Maybe Mr. Bush wants to talk about that on Monday night.

[sleepyjeff]

I find it laughable that a company which is chaired by George Mitchell(D)(former Senate Majority Leader) is being accused of "getting snuggly with the Prez."

[Gn2Dlnd]

I find it laughable that a company which is chaired by George Mitchell(D)(former Senate Majority Leader) is being accused of "getting snuggly with the Prez."

I find it laughable too.

'Course, its not what I said.

[sleepyjeff]

My mistake---"want to be all snuggly with the Prez"

[Scrooge McSam]

Does the term "broadcast flag mandate" mean anything to you, sleepyjeff?

[Gn2Dlnd]

In post #42 I posit a theory explaining why Disney, a company with Democrats and Democratic supporters at the wheel would want to kowtow to Republicans. In post #43 I remark on the folly of such behavior and make a snide comment using tiny type and words like "mebbe," "snuggly," and "prez." I nudged my statement further into the world of the unlikely by using the word "if." Its also my feeling the Disney has no interest in buying Fox. But if they did, well...get it? Get it? Guess not.

"Politics makes strange bedfellows" is the expression with which you're probably more familiar.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Gn2dlnd,

Did you see the report (from the Select Committee on Intelligence) on Pre-War Iraq Intelligence (http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf) was released today.

Maybe Mr. Bush wants to talk about that on Monday night.

Pretty damning stuff (psst, skip to the "conclusions" pages), but good for a different thread. Right now, I'm more interested in seeing Disney pull this agenda pushing propaganda piece from the airwaves. In the blog Time to Take Away Disney's Political Candy (http://matt_stoller.mydd.com/) Matt Stoller fills in some of the holes and talks about the broadcast flag, copyright extension, and media consolidation, all topics near and dear to the Disney Company. And, sleepyjeff, reasons why Disney might want to "snuggle" with Republicans.

[sleepyjeff]

Yeah, ok, whatever...I am still laughing:)

[scaeagles]

Moonliner - good find. I will not disredard my own words. But you'll note that I was supportive of the public pressure and refused to call it censorship. However, many here were accusing public outcry to be censorship in that case. Throughout this debate here I have said nothing except that public pressure is the right way to go. I have said that the government should not be involved.

CBS bowed to the public outcry. I will not be upset in the least if ABC bows out because airing it is deemed bad for business. I will be if they bow out because powerful dems want then to.

WB, no need to apologize. I will always own up to what I've said in the past and not discount it.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Well, tonight's the night I may have to decide to stop throwing money at the Disney Co. Everybody got their copies of the 9/11 Commission Report all printed out? I sure hope they do the right thing and pull this turkey, its not as if they'd lose 40 million dollars since they didn't sell advertising.


Depending on what shows up on my Tivo -

Get ready this week for an exciting new thread about how I used to respect Disney! Share your stories! Be part of the magic!

[Gn2Dlnd]

Hmm, just found out that while there are no commercials for night one, there are for night two. Perhaps we shall make a list of said advertisers.

[sleepyjeff]

What if one of the commercials is for Disneyland?

[Kevy Baby]

What if one of the commercials is for Disneyland?I'll still be going

[scaeagles]

I'm not planning on watching it. I have very strong opinions about what led up to 9/11, but I won't bother to go into them here because that isn't the point.

Gn2Dlnd, I respect completely any decision people make on a personal level to use their wallet in protest. I've done so about many things.

I do wonder, though....what is it about the 9/11 commission that makes that the accepted final authority? Does no one here think politics came into play in the final version?

[wendybeth]

I think the fact that this is touted to be a dramatization (wtf?) of the events as laid out in the commission report is where they really step in deep crap, Scaeagles. Now, I will not disagree with you as to the political apsects of the report, which is to be expected given that it's authors are politicians, but to take dramatic license and then piggyback it onto a report that is supposed to be the definitive examnination of the events of 9/11 is bull****. I am really saddened that they have gone to such depths in their desperate attempts to lay this on the liberals and yet again use 9/11 as an election event. Sickening. I suspect the research into this whole mess is going to make better reading the actual commission report, which isn't a difficult thing to accomplish.

[scaeagles]

II am really saddened that they have gone to such depths in their desperate attempts to lay this on the liberals and yet again use 9/11 as an election event.

Who is "they"? Disney? ABC? Republicans in general?

Both sides have endlessly played politics with it. No matter what one side does, the other will criticize it. Take tomorrow. No matter what Bush does, the criticism will be immense. If he makes some sort of speech, he's politicizing it. If he goes about his business, he doesn't care. It's the same as with Katrina. He flies over in Air Force One, and the criticism is that he can't really take the time to go see the damage up close, and a fly over can't do it, so he obviously doesn't care. There is no action or lack of action that can be devoid of a spin to make it seem negative or positive, depnding on the desired outcome of the spin master.

There have been desperate attempts to lay it at the feet of Bush, not just attempts to lay it at the feet of liberals, WB. It has gone both ways, no doubt.

[wendybeth]

I expect them to make as accurate a represention of the commission report as possible, if they insist on using the report as their source of information. I also expect them to not take such dramatic license with people's reputations. The dead cannot defend themselves, but the living sure as hell can and I hope the ones who were misrepresented do something about it.

Scaeagles, you and I both know that you would be hitting the roof were this a liberal attempt at historical revisionism- I've seen too many of your posts railing against the so-called liberal media slant to suppose otherwise.

I think that if Bush is smart, he will mark tomorrow as appropriate- a day of remembering the victims of 9/11. Save the posturing and rhetoric for the day after.

[scaeagles]

Scaeagles, you and I both know that you would be hitting the roof were this a liberal attempt at historical revisionism- I've seen too many of your posts railing against the so-called liberal media slant to suppose otherwise.

No doubt. And everyone here would be downplaying it as me freaking out about nothing, or giving their slant on why it wasn't historical revisionism at all.

The one thing I will give you and everyone else is that if they are claiming the 9/11 report is their source then they should stick to it to the letter. I will say that I do not regard that report as much more than a CYA for EVERYONE.

[wendybeth]

The old 'two wrongs don't make it right, but it damn sure makes it even' argument, eh?

I didn't like it much after the OJ verdict, and I like it even less now. I'd be curious to see where you might show me an example of such behavior on my part, Scaeagles. I truly do apologise if I have ever done so. I am one of those really naive people that usually dislike such things, no matter what the source.

[scaeagles]

WB, I really don't see where I've been inconsistent. Honestly. Moonliner quoted my Reagan stuff, but it's no different than what I've been saying here - as a consumer, put all the pressure you want on a broadcast company, but keep the government out of it or else it becomes censorship.

And I just went and reread that whole Reagan thread from 2003 (wow - long time ago now - follow the link to another site), and it was absolutely amazing to hear how some posters were upset at pressure from the public. Granted, WB, you were not involved in the conversation.

[mousepod]

I'm wondering if anyone watched part 1 last night. I recorded it, but opted to watch the Fox animation lineup instead. One thing I found odd - my local ABC HD station didn't show it in widescreen - so I grabbed a widescreen copy from the BBC airing - I wonder if it's the pre-edited version...

[scaeagles]

I was watching Manning vs. Manning on Sunday night football.

[Moonliner]

I was watching Manning vs. Manning on Sunday night football.

You and the rest of the country. The ABC "special" was thoroughly trounced in the ratings. I know I played my part in not watching. I also heard, but I'm hoping someone can confirm, that the one or two advertisers for tonight's installment have pulled out.

[cirquelover]

I've never read the 9-11 commission report but the history channel has a show on today about it. It looks like I should watch it.
No I didn't watch the abc show last night. I'm tired of all the fictionalization on tv of real events.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Yesterday afternoon I decided to not spend a chunk of my life watching this thing that I didn't want to watch in the first place. My reasoning was that newswatchers who I read would, and would post the discrepancies about which I was most interested. My other decision was to use my Tivo to send a message to ABC/Disney. Apparently Tivo usage information is gathered and used for ratings purposes. I used the "thumbs down" function on the show, applied my valuable Tivo recording space on things I like, and went about my day.

Today is a work day for me, I don't have much time to spend on this subject. Tomorrow or the next day I have some thoughts on this mess, and in particular, the "Fahrenheit 9/11" vs. "Path to 9/11" straw man argument.

[Moonliner]

the "Fahrenheit 9/11" vs. "Path to 9/11" straw man argument.

I never did see Fahrenheit 911, can someone bring me up to speed. The Path to 9/11 contains numerous scenes that are not just inaccurate but patently false and made up. Is the same true about Fahrenheit 911? I understood it was unflattering, disrespectful and possibly taken out of context but did the movie make up facts and blatenly revise history?

[wendybeth]

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary. The crap they showed last night is not. F9/11 was released nationwide in theaters, giving people the option to see it or not. 'The Path to 9/11' was produced for ABC to be shown only on ABC and purports to be a 'docudrama', which basically covers all the bases. Not only were they presenting this pile of merde as truth, they also teamed up with Scholastic to release a discussion guide (http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=path+to+abc&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D9 3eaa3e10064bf3c%26clickedItemRank%3D6%26userQuery% 3Dpath%2Bto%2Babc%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252 F%252Fmediamatters.org%252Fitems%252F200609060008% 26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPResultsT%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fmediamatters.org%2Fitems%2 F200609060008) to be used in America's classrooms.

:rolleyes:

[Moonliner]

I'm not sure I follow you on this post.

F9/11 was released nationwide in theaters, giving people the option to see it or not.
How did the fact that "path" was on ABC effect my option to watch it or not? I still choose not to watch it as apparently the overwhelming percentage of Americans did also.


Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary. The crap they showed last night is not.

How is the format (documentary, docudrama, drama, whatever) important? Each film either made up facts or it did not. Did Fahrenheit 9/11 create it's own facts like path did? My understanding is that Mr. Moore went out of his way to embarrass the president and certainly took some things out of context but overall what was shown was factual. Is that right?


Oh and on a side note, I read yesteraday that scholatic has dropped it's support for the show.

[wendybeth]

I believe you are correct in your assessment of F9/11, in general. The differences involved are many and myriad, but I suppose the most glaring problems with the ABC show is that they initially indicated that the show was based on the commission report, all the while knowingly altering events and facts under the guise of 'dramatising' some arguably already very dramatic events. They maligned persons living and dead to support a not-so-very veiled agenda, which (despite the commission's Chair Governor Kean's (Rep) asssertions that they also went after Bush where warranted) pretty much slagged everyone in the Clinton admin. They committed outright falsehoods that were withdrawn only after it became public knowledge and the persons who were defamed threatened action. I could go on and on, but it's really a moot point- thankfully, people saw this for what it was and refused to watch this particular peice of propaganda. (Say that three times fast!)

It was presented on network tv, which does have to adhere to certain standards, and presented with minimal commercial backing which makes one wonder how, where and why the money for this event was obtained. It certainly was not an homage to the truth, and many of the principals involved (such as Harvey Keitel) are not real happy to have been involved with such a duplicitous project.

Comparing this to F 9/11 is apples and rocks. I suppose, since this was basically a paid political advertisement, then the equal time rule should come into play and perhaps Mr. Moore should get his film run as well by ABC.

[Scrooge McSam]

Disclaimer: The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including actual historic photos and other published materials. 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. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIfJphwj_NM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Famericablog%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F)

PS... The final edit of this production is incomplete, so any criticism is premature and irresponsible.

[wendybeth]

So far, the edits are not that substantial and poorly done:Skipping the Path (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/11/abc.miniseries.ap/index.html)

[Alex]

So it seems the world continues to spin on the expected axis.

Everybody formed opinions before they had seen the movie, defended those opinions with the statements of paraphrased support/criticisms of interested parties, some of whom had but most of whom had not seen the movie, decided not to actually watch the movie, and now feel that their initial opinions have been validated by what was shown but not actually experienced.

[NirvanaMan]

I tried to watch it, but got a dubious "recording error" on my DVR when I returned home, In 'n Out burger in hand. I am quite sure that "the Commodore" snuck in and secretly fed cheerios to my DVR to keep it from recording that show and that show alone. Crap!

[wendybeth]

I tried to watch it, but got a dubious "recording error" on my DVR when I returned home, In 'n Out burger in hand. I am quite sure that "the Commodore" snuck in and secretly fed cheerios to my DVR to keep it from recording that show and that show alone. Crap! Are you sure it wasn't 'Thin Krisps'?

[Scrooge McSam]

I watched it. Had to go through some changes to make sure Tivo didn't know it though. I have to be a "some of whom".

[Cadaverous Pallor]

So it seems the world continues to spin on the expected axis.

Everybody formed opinions before they had seen the movie, defended those opinions with the statements of paraphrased support/criticisms of interested parties, some of whom had but most of whom had not seen the movie, decided not to actually watch the movie, and now feel that their initial opinions have been validated by what was shown but not actually experienced.Visible mojo for Alex.

[NirvanaMan]

Are you sure it wasn't 'Thin Krisps'?

Ah yes, I should have known from that delisciously intoxicating fragrence.

[mousepod]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20060911/i/r2976054383.jpg?x=380&y=250&sig=KHAPuFke5g8qY11oy2MuHA--
U.S. President George W. Bush and first lady Laura Bush stand on a carpet commemorating the date of the attacks of September 11, 2001 outside the Ladder Company 10 firehouse opposite the site of the World Trade Center in New York, September 10, 2006. Bush lay a wreath at Ground Zero before visiting a chapel for a memorial service. REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES)

I'm going to watch the unedited version of the miniseries tomorrow - I'll post a review if necessary...

[Kevy Baby]

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary.No its not. It is a dramatization and is filled with as many lies and misleading BS as "Path" is purported to have.

[wendybeth]

Back it up, big boy.;)

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, with all the claims of falsehood that were made about F911, I've never seen much substantiation.

Then again, I'm not sure there's substantiation for any of the falsehood claims about Path to 9/11 either ... I mean beyond people claiming for themselves they've been defamed. Hardly unbiased opinions.

[Alex]

59 Deceipts in (http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf)Farenheit 9/11 (http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf)

Debunking 59 Deceipts in Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/18/173312/462)

Between the two, everybody should be able to find the truth that best fits what is already believed.

[Scrooge McSam]

Then again, I'm not sure there's substantiation for any of the falsehood claims about Path to 9/11 either ... I mean beyond people claiming for themselves they've been defamed. Hardly unbiased opinions.

The only way you can make that claim is to throw the 9/11 Commission report out the window.

Have you read the report?

[scaeagles]

Why do you lend that report such credence, Scrooge? Granted, it is the "official" government report, but you are hardly one to take the "official" government word on anything.

[Scrooge McSam]

...you are hardly one to take the "official" government word on anything.

I'm not sure how you've come away with that impression, but let me clear something up for you.

Since you and I have been talking, we've been under Republican rule. First Congress, then the President and now the Supreme Court. The republican line has been the government line. Healthy skies means permission to put more sludge into the air. Healthy Forests means the right to cut old growth forests. I reject Republican talking points.

The 9/11 commission, besides being manned by members of both parties, is based on interviews with the people involved, whose testimonies have been preserved. One party was not allowed to run over the other. I don't think it's the unvarnished truth, but it's as close as we'll ever get. The fact that Republican operatives have been lying about it, unchallenged by the media, makes me give it even more credibility.

[Nephythys]

I would conjecture-

*had this movie been a Michael Moore type "documentary", which blamed Bush and laid 9/11 at his feet, many would have suggested it as must see viewing.

*That those who told me to ignore certain facts about Gore and pay attention to his bigger message about global warming- do not take their own advice and see the bigger message in this movie.

No- I did not watch it. I have had better things to do than sit my butt down for 5 hours of TV- but I suspect that there is some truth to my conjecture.

Wait- I thought someone said this got "trounced" in ratings-

FLASH: ABC 'PATH TO 9-11' TOP RATED SHOW OF MONDAY NIGHT... 8.3 RATING/12 SHARE FOR ABC MOVIE, BEAT 'CSI: MIAMI' RERUN [6.8/11] AND NBC 9-11 'DATELINE' [3.7/6]... DEVELOPING...

[scaeagles]

So it is a dem vs. republican thing rather than a distrust of government in general. Got it.

I suppose my problem is that you have people being interviewed that want to pull a CYA by a commission with members that want to pull a CYA.

I don't really know what he answer is. The whole special prosecutor stuff was enacted to avoid the government investigating the government, but that is typically worse. Fill in the example that you beleie fits best.

[scaeagles]

I think the ratings reference made earlier was in regard to Sunday night.

[Nephythys]

I think the ratings reference made earlier was in regard to Sunday night.


ah- thanks

[Moonliner]

So it seems the world continues to spin on the expected axis.

Everybody formed opinions before they had seen the movie, defended those opinions with the statements of paraphrased support/criticisms of interested parties, some of whom had but most of whom had not seen the movie, decided not to actually watch the movie, and now feel that their initial opinions have been validated by what was shown but not actually experienced.

So by that logic, a studios best chance for ratings is to create the biggest piece of crap they can come up with. Something that is sure to offend everyone. That way everyone HAS to watch it or be deemed closed minded. Oh wait, I think I just explained network programming in a nutshell.

[Moonliner]

Why do you lend that report such credence, Scrooge? Granted, it is the "official" government report, but you are hardly one to take the "official" government word on anything.

Whey the quotes around "official". Please don't tell me that you are implying that "path" is more historically accurate than the report from the 9/11 commission?

[mousepod]

I would conjecture- (edited to remove conjecture) but I suspect that there is some truth to my conjecture.

You can't second your own motion, Neph.

But I get your point.

I'm going to watch the full unedited version tonight (if I can stomach it).

Like I said last week, my problem with ABC showing the movie had nothing to do with my pro-Clinton or anti-Bush stance. It had to do with a "news organization" (which plays by different rules than "entertainment", especially during election time), using the public airwaves to disseminate fiction dressed up as truth. Period.

It's the government's hypocrisy that irks me. In this case, the FCC, which allows things like this to happen, while consistently overstepping its bounds to censor broadcasters for "obscenities". The FCC was crap under Clinton, and it's been crap under Bush. The pandering to the moral right is nothing new for the past several decades in both the Dems and the GOP.

[Alex]

So by that logic, a studios best chance for ratings is to create the biggest piece of crap they can come up with. Something that is sure to offend everyone. That way everyone HAS to watch it or be deemed closed minded. Oh wait, I think I just explained network programming in a nutshell.

Well no. Because when people make movies that has everybody lining up beforehand to decide what the movie says, what the movie means, and that the movie is the most important/most damaging cultural artifact since Cher then generally people don't feel any need to actually watch it. Why risk having what is already known shown to be wrong?

But it wasn't a comment about ratings but rather a comment about being comfortable with preconceived notions. When Jerry Falwell condemned Brokeback Mountain without actually seeing it his view was rightly disregarded. I feel the same way here.

[Nephythys]

You can't second your own motion, Neph.

But I get your point.

I'm going to watch the full unedited version tonight (if I can stomach it).

Like I said last week, my problem with ABC showing the movie had nothing to do with my pro-Clinton or anti-Bush stance. It had to do with a "news organization" (which plays by different rules than "entertainment", especially during election time), using the public airwaves to disseminate fiction dressed up as truth. Period.

It's the government's hypocrisy that irks me. In this case, the FCC, which allows things like this to happen, while consistently overstepping its bounds to censor broadcasters for "obscenities". The FCC was crap under Clinton, and it's been crap under Bush. The pandering to the moral right is nothing new for the past several decades in both the Dems and the GOP.

From what I hear-

*The Bush administration does not get off the hook on this one.
*The main message is that gov't red tape and beauracracy caused alot of problems- that certain action should have been taken- and wasn't. That is factual.
*That the people you come away hating are the enemy- the terrorists who want to see us dead or converted.

Let us know- I will be interested to hear another opinion.

[wendybeth]

Well no. Because when people make movies that has everybody lining up beforehand to decide what the movie says, what the movie means, and that the movie is the most important/most damaging cultural artifact since Cher then generally people don't feel any need to actually watch it. Why risk having what is already known shown to be wrong?

But it wasn't a comment about ratings but rather a comment about being comfortable with preconceived notions. When Jerry Falwell condemned Brokeback Mountain without actually seeing it his view was rightly disregarded. I feel the same way here.
Whew! I was worried that, by what I perceived to be your logic, I would actually have to bend down and sniff that pile of what looks like dogcrap prior to cleaning it up and throwing it away. I was also worried that I was really going to have to listen to the Dixie Chicks to ascertain that their last album was indeed pop and not country.

I based my decision not to watch this show on three things: I object to the network producing something that claims to be what it is not.

I don't watch infomercials or paid political commercials.

Harvey Keitel gets on my nerves. Used to like him, but he's gone downhill.

Neph, am I correct in assuming you didn't watch it either? I just wonder, as you said "From what I hear.." in your post. Not taking you to task if you didn't- I obviously didn't watch it as well. If you did watch it, where was the Bush admin nailed? Still waiting for an actual example on that one.

Oh, and I agree with Scrooge with regards to the Commision Report. Good post, Scrooge.

[Ghoulish Delight]

*That the people you come away hating are the enemy- the terrorists who want to see us dead or converted.Yes, because nothing makes the world better than finding reasons to hate.

[Nephythys]

Yes, because nothing makes the world better than finding reasons to hate.


:rolleyes: I fail to see any reason to twist what I said into that statement- but if it makes you happy to do so...whatever.

[Nephythys]

Neph, am I correct in assuming you didn't watch it either? I just wonder, as you said "From what I hear.." in your post. Not taking you to task if you didn't- I obviously didn't watch it as well. If you did watch it, where was the Bush admin nailed? Still waiting for an actual example on that one.



Yep- like I said several posts above- I have better things going on than watching TV.

I have heard things about how the Bush admin is protrayed- I will find out more and let you know examples.

(though Mousepod will likely beat me to it if the report I heard is true)

[wendybeth]

Fair enough- I really don't watch TV much either, and I am perfectly willing to let Mousepod throw himself on this particular pile.:D

[Ghoulish Delight]

:rolleyes: I fail to see any reason to twist what I said into that statement- but if it makes you happy to do so...whatever.
And I fail to see how I twisted anything you said? If someone tells me that watching something will give me a reason to hate someone, I tend not to watch it.

[Nephythys]

And I fail to see how I twisted anything you said? If someone tells me that watching something will give me a reason to hate someone, I tend not to watch it.


My point, which I suspect you do not need explained but I will do so anyway- is that all the uproar about the movie is useless- because the bad guys in the movie are the terrorists- not Clinton, Albright, Berger or Tenet- maybe they are not flattered by it- but they should not be flattered by their choices and inaction.

So one comes away with the message of who the enemy is- and it's not the Clinton administration.

No- I have not seen it- but yes, I feel you twisted my words.

Maybe you don't like the term hate- but wow, if you don't feel something after watching pictures of the terror attacks in the 90's or 9/11- then something is missing from this picture.

[BarTopDancer]

Hate does nothing but waste energy and spawn violence.

[Ghoulish Delight]

And my point is that the acts speak for themselves and if the point of a dramatized/fictionalized retelling is indeed to engender more hatred, then it's a pointless exercise that I would find distasteful.

Hate has its place...using hate as a lightning rod for political or entertainment purposes never has its place in my book.

[scaeagles]

Whey the quotes around "official". Please don't tell me that you are implying that "path" is more historically accurate than the report from the 9/11 commission?

I used quotes because I think the 9/11 commission report is a politicized report written by politicians and people involved who wanted to cover their butts.

[scaeagles]

It had to do with a "news organization" (which plays by different rules than "entertainment", especially during election time), using the public airwaves to disseminate fiction dressed up as truth. Period.


I guess I'm not sure why you said this. Was this produced by ABC news? I'm not being rhetorical - I don't get it. ABC is an entertainment company and a news company.

[mousepod]

Halfway point. I'll report back tomorrow...

[wendybeth]

How are you feeling? Palms sweaty? Do you feel an inexplicable anger toward hippies and red-diaper-doper babies? Does GW sound intelligent?

[Kevy Baby]

Palms sweaty?No; hairy.

[sleepyjeff]

Another interesting twist in this whole thing:

One of the biggest arguments we have seen in this discussion is the "but the Republicans made cbs pull the Reagan movie". While this may be true one should do a little research before flying in with accusations:

"The ABC movie was just as unfair and fictionalized in many respects as was the CBS depiction of Ronald Reagan. Where was Rush Limbaugh about Ronald Reagan? He wanted that pulled"............................
"The very same people, like Rush Limbaugh, who were very, very happy to see this particular false depiction of President Clinton go on the air, were at the forefront of trying to get the Ronald Reagan, and successfully did get CBS to pull Ronald Reagan. Rush Limbaugh engages in hypocrisy."
Former White House Counsel and Clinton aide Lanny Davis

Rush Limbaugh was in Rehab the entire time the whole Reagan/cbs thing was going on and never once mentioned that it should be pulled from cbs.

Looks like Lanny is engaging in a bit of hypocrisy his own self.

[Gemini Cricket]

For the last two weeks I have been without TV, radio, internet and newspapers. I enjoyed that.
:)

[Sub la Goon]

Rehab - the perfect alibi.

Frankly, I never let facts get in the way of the Truth. I think Steven Colbert came up with that one.

[Moonliner]

For the last two weeks I have been without TV, radio, internet and newspapers. I enjoyed that.
:)

We missed you too. ;)

[Gemini Cricket]

We missed you too. ;)
No, that's not what I meant. :blush: I love the LoT. But haven't been fond of the Daily Grind lately...

[sleepyjeff]

I agree GC. Sometimes trips to Mars(you know, cause when something big happens and people are talking about it and you ask what do they mean; they say "where have you been for the last few days, Mars?") are a good idea; both for the soul and for ones sanity:)

[Nephythys]

I am anxious to hear from Mousepod about his opinions-

Meanwhile- here is a view from the writer himself- Link (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008958)

[sleepyjeff]

Great link Nephy.

I found this part interesting:
In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently, you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission.

[mousepod]

OK... very brief review for those who care:

- The movie was pretty much a mess, particularly the first half. They tried to cram way too much information into a very short time, all the while trying to keep the excitement level up.
- I was very aware of the artificial soundtrack. Heavy metal music during a takedown of the bad guys? Maybe in a Michael Mann movie.
- The acting was fine, but the characters that were based on people I was familiar with were clearly two-dimensional.

But these and other observations pale in comparison to the one most important point. The theme of the movie.

BALLS.

The message of the movie was: it takes BALLS to battle the terrorists.

It reminded me of the famous Lenny Bruce routine about Jewish and Goyish, where he made lists of things "Jewish" and "Goyish", but was really a list of "cool" (Dig: I'm Jewish. Count Basie's Jewish. Ray Charles is Jewish. Eddie Cantor's goyish.)

The Path to 9/11 version goes something like this:
"Dig. John O'Neill had Balls. Markie Mark's brother had Balls. George Tenet might have had Balls, but was used to getting kicked in them. Madeline Albright acted like she had Balls but really was Ball-less. Same goes for Ambassador Bodine, who was really more of a Bitch. In fact, most of the guys and gals on the ground had Balls. Most of the folks who worked in offices inside the beltway were Ball-less. Ramzi Yousef, Mohammed Atta and the rest of the "bad guys" thought they had Balls, but were really just crazy - why else would they do what they do with no provocation? Massoud from the Northern Alliance had Big Balls. Just in case you thought that we think no women have Balls, CIA analyst Patricia Carver did, even though she cried. Remember that cop who opened the laptop without a warrant? She had Balls. Oh yeah... going after terrorists by ignoring people's right to privacy? That has Balls. The right to privacy? No Balls. ABC News reporters have Balls. Clinton? He's a politician who relies on keeping a delicate political balance both nationally and internationally. That concept has no Balls. George W Bush? His last-minute agreement to give the shoot-down order after planes have hit the WTC and the Pentagon? Could be a show of Balls. But wait, the onscreen title card epilogue that gives some of the 9/11 commission's review of Bush's progress shows that he too, has no Balls."

The Path to 9/11 was sloppy, not particularly illuminating, and while the dramatic license may have hurt Albright and Cohen, it really was fairly bleh. If I got anything from the movie, it was that the "bad guys" were doing more and more bad things, and that they were willing to wait for the right moment to have the greatest effect. The fact that they haven't been caught just left me with the feeling that it's not over.

[wendybeth]

Thanks for the report, Mousepod. It had balls.;)

[sleepyjeff]

Good review Mousepod. Not seeing it myself I appreciate your great little review.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Indeed. Thanks for sharing, Mousepod! I appreciate hearing your take.