NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/07/911.film.clinton.offic.ap/index.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- A miniseries about the events leading to the September 11 attacks is "terribly wrong" and ABC should correct it or not air it, former Clinton administration officials demanded in letters to the head of ABC's parent company.

But in a statement released Thursday afternoon in apparent response to the growing uproar, ABC said, "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band all wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of The Walt Disney Co., to express concern over "The Path to 9/11." (Read the letter from Sandy Berger -- .pdf file, requires Adobe Acrobat)

The two-part miniseries, scheduled to be broadcast on Sunday and Monday, is drawn from interviews and documents including the report of the September 11 commission. ABC has described it as a "dramatization" as opposed to a documentary. (Watch a 9/11 Commission member list inaccuracies in a proposed scene -- 3:25)

"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it." (Watch what has the former officials angry -- 2:45)

The letter writers said that the miniseries contained factual errors, and that their requests to see it had gone unanswered.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known," Lindsey and Band wrote in their letter.

The letter writers pointed out examples of scenes they had been told were in the miniseries, but which they said never happened. Albright objected to a scene that she was told showed her insisting on warning the Pakistani government before an airstrike on Afghanistan, and that she was the one who made the warning.

"The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory," she said. (Read Albright's letter -- .pdf file, requires Adobe Acrobat)

Berger objected to a scene that he was told showed him refusing to authorize an attack on Osama bin Laden despite the request from CIA officials. "The fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license," he wrote.

Lindsey and Band objected to advertisements for the miniseries, which they said suggested that Clinton wasn't paying enough attention to the threat of terrorism.

"While ABC is promoting 'The Path to 9/11' as a dramatization of historical fact, in truth it is a fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans," they said. "Given your stated obligation to 'get it right,' we urge you to do so by not airing this drama until the egregious factual errors are corrected, an endeavor we could easily assist you with given the opportunity to view the film."

Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada commented on the controversy at a morning news conference.

"I haven't seen it, but from everything I've heard it's not down the middle. It's not fair at all. And to have a film that seems to be biased and take one side put on by a network seems to be the wrong thing to do," said Schumer. "You can't take a film that's supposed to report on something that's so real and so close and make it into fiction. That's beneath ABC's dignity."

"They started off this as being a documentary," added Reid. "They changed it to a docudrama and now it's a work of fiction and that's what it is. And, yes, they should pull it."

The five-hour miniseries is set to run without commercial interruption. Director David Cunningham said it was a massive undertaking, with close to 250 speaking parts, more than 300 sets, and a budget of $40 million. Cunningham has said he shot 550 hours of film. Among the actors in it are Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton and Donnie Wahlberg.

Let's face it, the Clinton Administration did drop the ball when it came to Terrorism. Bush Jr. didn't stop 9/11 from happening. However at least since 9/11 the United States haven't had a terrorist attack happen on it's own soil.

The difference is that Bush put his political fortunes on the line to do what he considered to be the right thing. That was to prosecute terrorists, namely Islamists, where they live. That has, by and large, prevented further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

Clinton, on the other hand, wanted to treat the whole matter as a law enforcement problem. What did he do after the first WTC bombing 1993? Turned it over to LEOs. How about after the Cole was bombed? Again, it was just law enforcement to him.

Kinda makes one wonder what Sandy Berger stuffed into his pants at the National Archives, doesn't it?

However at least since 9/11 the United States haven't had a terrorist attack happen on it's own soil.
Yeah!

I remember daily terrorist attacks on American soil time before 9/11, it was horrible
:p

Yeah!

I remember daily terrorist attacks on American soil time before 9/11, it was horrible
:p

1993 WTC, I guess you forgot about that one.

I mean, did Sandy Berger want to kill Osama, or did he not give a crap, as the upcoming "entertainment" movie from Disney implies?

Sandy's letter to complain about the movie:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/09/07/berger.iger.pdf

"There is nothing in the 9/11 Commission Report (the purported basis of your film) to support this portrayal and the fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license. In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or US military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al Qaeda."

Really? Never fail to support or authorize an operation against Bin Laden OR al Qaeda?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

On May 29, “Jeff ” informed “Mike” that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern Division.The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation.“Mike” cabled the field that he had been directed to “stand down on the operation for the time being.”He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties—“collateral damage”—was too high.They were concerned about the tribals’ safety, and had worried that “the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation—and probably recriminations—in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive.”29
Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed.He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.

Well, sounds like Tenet probably made the decision, but Berger, who knew, didn't seem to care. And Pavitt thought the idea to not attack was from Berger.

"The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998"

So, there WAS an agreement between al Qaeda and the government of Iraq, and Berger was informed of this.

And this:
"On December 4, as news came in about the discoveries in Jordan, National
Security Council (NSC) Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke
wrote Berger,“If George’s [Tenet’s] story about a planned series of UBL attacks
at the Millennium is true, we will need to make some decisions NOW.” He
told us he held several conversations with President Clinton during the crisis.
He suggested threatening reprisals against the Taliban in Afghanistan in the
event of any attacks on U.S. interests, anywhere, by Bin Ladin. He further
proposed to Berger that a strike be made during the last week of 1999 against
al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan—a proposal not adopted.11"

Wow. So Berger got more proposals to strike at al Qaeda.

Wonder what he thought we should do about that:

"11. NSC note, Clarke to Berger, Dec. 4, 1999; Richard Clarke interview (Jan. 12, 2004). In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote “no.”"

I guess he DID refuse to support attacks on al Qaeda.

Wow. I guess we know now why Sandy was in the National Archives, stuffing potentially incriminating documents into his pants and forgetting where he left them later.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/07/911.film.clinton.offic.ap/index.html



Let's face it, the Clinton Administration did drop the ball when it came to Terrorism. Bush Jr. didn't stop 9/11 from happening. However at least since 9/11 the United States haven't had a terrorist attack happen on it's own soil.

It's one thing to make reasonable arguments about the way Clinton handled terrorism. It's another to completely make shit up and package it as though it were real. That's what ABC's doing in this "docudrama." There's a scene that has CIA people calling Sandy Berger saying they had Bin Laden in their sights and Berger telling them not to take the shot, for fuck's sake.

And by the way, didn't the anthrax attacks count as a terrorist act on US soil since 9/11? Still haven't solved that one, have we?

It's one thing to make reasonable arguments about the way Clinton handled terrorism. It's another to completely make shit up and package it as though it were real. That's what ABC's doing in this "docudrama." There's a scene that has CIA people calling Sandy Berger saying they had Bin Laden in their sights and Berger telling them not to take the shot, for fuck's sake.

And by the way, didn't the anthrax attacks count as a terrorist act on US soil since 9/11? Still haven't solved that one, have we?

What it all comes down to is that this is entertainment. Just like the movie about Reagan, just like the movie about Columbine. The producers make the movie to make money. It's up to the market to decide what sorts of sponsorship it deserves. Take it with the pile of salt it deserves and don't worry. No one will have any idea how effective Bush was or how ineffective Clinton was in another few years because we won't remember and public schools can't teach it to our kids.

What it all comes down to is that this is entertainment. Just like the movie about Reagan, just like the movie about Columbine. The producers make the movie to make money. It's up to the market to decide what sorts of sponsorship it deserves. Take it with the pile of salt it deserves and don't worry. No one will have any idea how effective Bush was or how ineffective Clinton was in another few years because we won't remember and public schools can't teach it to our kids.

There's more to it than that. No matter what protestations ABC is making now that they've been bitchslapped by the left, the fact is that they packaged this as an accurate retelling of the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks, but they put in stuff that they knew was inaccurate. You can't package it as fact--and what else are they doing with the "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" tag--and then hide behind the "it's fiction" excuse. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and it's important now because of the elections coming up in November.

There's more to it than that. No matter what protestations ABC is making now that they've been bitchslapped by the left, the fact is that they packaged this as an accurate retelling of the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks, but they put in stuff that they knew was inaccurate. You can't package it as fact--and what else are they doing with the "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" tag--and then hide behind the "it's fiction" excuse. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and it's important now because of the elections coming up in November.

I guess you'll skip over my previous post where I show Sandy saying that he never opposed attacking al-Qaeda, and in my same post a link to the 9/11 Commission Report showing he said "no" to an attack on al-Qaeda.

Pretty clear, there. Maybe not the same as how they dramatized it in the movie, but essentially Berger stopping action against al-Qaeda.

No one will have any idea how effective Bush was or how ineffective Clinton was in another few years because we won't remember and public schools can't teach it to our kids.
But in the meantime we have a bunch of baloney made up to be truth that paints the Dems in an extremely poor light and basically incompetent with regards to terrorist-prevention, "coincidently" just before a hotly contested and important election season that has GOP beating their war drum harder than ever and accusing anyone and everyone that doesn't follow sheep-like along with them as being soft on terror and akin to Hitler-appeasers.


A $40 million, 5 hour long ad for the republican party election campaign.
They must be creaming themselves.

I guess you'll skip over my previous post where I show Sandy saying that he never opposed attacking al-Qaeda, and in my same post a link to the 9/11 Commission Report showing he said "no" to an attack on al-Qaeda.

Pretty clear, there. Maybe not the same as how they dramatized it in the movie, but essentially Berger stopping action against al-Qaeda.

The two are not remotely the same, and the fact that you try to connect them shows how fundamentally dishonest you are.

The two are not remotely the same, and the fact that you try to connect them shows how fundamentally dishonest you are.

I'm saying that they're not the same at a specific factual event level.

But philosophically, they are identical, and you know it.

Maybe we would know more, but Sandy lost most of the papers he put in his pants.

A $40 million, 5 hour long ad for the republican party election campaign.
They must be creaming themselves.
It's worth every penny to them--tax breaks and media ownership rules under Republicans are worth a hundred times that in the long run.

A couple Terrorist attacks happened after 11/9 on US soil, even though not of the same proportions.

The two are not remotely the same, and the fact that you try to connect them shows how fundamentally dishonest you are.
It also shows the typical thinking patterns that will occur amongst the average GOP-leaning voter.

This is probably the best thing that could ever happen to GOP right now. Maybe even better than Osama being captured/killed.

The two are not remotely the same, and the fact that you try to connect them shows how fundamentally dishonest you are.

Not to mention I caught Sandy in an outright lie. He said in his protest to Disney that he NEVER opposed any attacks on al-Qaeda.

And in the 9/11 Commission Report, he did. Most certainly.

So Sandy lied.

I'm saying that they're not the same at a specific factual event level.

But philosophically, they are identical, and you know it.

Maybe we would know more, but Sandy lost most of the papers he put in his pants.

No they aren't. Suggesting that you hold off on an attack of questionable value and based on a single intel source is a far cry from telling agents in the field not to take a shot at Bin Laden when they have him in their sights. Fundamentally dishonest.

And enough with the Berger comments--the Archives have said more than once that nothing is missing.

No they aren't. Suggesting that you hold off on an attack of questionable value and based on a single intel source is a far cry from telling agents in the field not to take a shot at Bin Laden when they have him in their sights. Fundamentally dishonest.

Not any more dishonest than anything Michael Moore put out as entertainment.

And this is put out as entertainment, not a factual documentary.

So if you have a problem with this film, we need to recall all those Michael Moore films, DVDs and all.

the shrieking is so much louder in this instance, than say for the movie being made where President Bush is asassinated.

Didnt someone say "its just a movie" ? That only applies when suitable to the shriekers.

It's worth every penny to them--tax breaks and media ownership rules under Republicans are worth a hundred times that in the long run.

Your realize the the vast majority of media ownership rules were deregulated by Clinton, right? And that under Bush, the FCC has become more rediculously stringent than ever? Just a thought.

the shrieking is so much louder in this instance, than say for the movie being made where President Bush is asassinated.

Didnt someone say "its just a movie" ? That only applies when suitable to the shriekers.

As long as the movie has a disclaimer that this is entertainment, and not a factual documentary, it should be aired unchanged.

Same as any Michael Moore film.

Not any more dishonest than anything Michael Moore put out as entertainment.

And this is put out as entertainment, not a factual documentary.

So if you have a problem with this film, we need to recall all those Michael Moore films, DVDs and all.

It's not put out as entertainment. In fact, it wasn't until the recent outcry that there was any mention of the fictionalization of this story anywhere.

But keep up the excuses. It's all you've got.

And enough with the Berger comments--the Archives have said more than once that nothing is missing.

They conclusively proved Sandy WAS just happy to see someone ?

Or he was just stealing post-its, or some other trivial, "nothing to see here" paperwork?

Kinda makes one wonder what Sandy Berger stuffed into his pants at the National Archives, doesn't it?

Teh Pr0n?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

It's not put out as entertainment. In fact, it wasn't until the recent outcry that there was any mention of the fictionalization of this story anywhere.

But keep up the excuses. It's all you've got.

If ABC and Disney are saying they used "dramatic license" it's not based on fact.

Moore hasn't given much more of an explanation for the factual distortions in his movies - he's said it's entertainment, not a documentary.

Same same.

You don't have anything to complain about unless you want to stifle every Michael Moore movie ever made.

Your realize the the vast majority of media ownership rules were deregulated by Clinton, right? And that under Bush, the FCC has become more rediculously stringent than ever? Just a thought.The most recent media ownership changes--the ones that were beaten back by citizen action--were attempted under Bush. Those were the ones that would have allowed even greater consolidation of the media.

I'm no fan of Clinton's actions on media consolidation, but Bush's FCC has indeed tried to make the problem worse, rather than better. Just look at the proposals supported by Michael Powell, FCC Chairman, for proof of that.

There's more to it than that. No matter what protestations ABC is making now that they've been bitchslapped by the left, the fact is that they packaged this as an accurate retelling of the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks, but they put in stuff that they knew was inaccurate. You can't package it as fact--and what else are they doing with the "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" tag--and then hide behind the "it's fiction" excuse. It's bullshit, plain and simple, and it's important now because of the elections coming up in November.
Anyone that thinks this will sway popular opinion is paranoid beyond all belief. People don't believe news shows, let alone mini-series. This is really nonsense.

Besides, the Republicans have to do a lot more before November to regain the trust and confidence of the voters than just ride the coattails of a movie.

Anyone that thinks this will sway popular opinion is paranoid beyond all belief. People don't believe news shows, let alone mini-series. This is really nonsense.

Besides, the Republicans have to do a lot more before November to regain the trust and confidence of the voters than just ride the coattails of a movie.

No, no, no.

Because Nazz thinks that it's a corporate conspiracy to trash the Democrats, and that if people don't elect Democrats in a landslide, it will be because of this movie.

Obviously, popular movies with factual errors (however deliberate) like Moore's movies had no effect on elections. So why would this one?

Anyone that thinks this will sway popular opinion is paranoid beyond all belief. People don't believe news shows, let alone mini-series. This is really nonsense.

Besides, the Republicans have to do a lot more before November to regain the trust and confidence of the voters than just ride the coattails of a movie.

I hope you're right, but frankly, I don't have a lot of faith in a populace of which 50% believe that Hussein had WMD this late in the game. And that number grew from last year, when it was closer to a third. And a large part of the blame for that comes from groups like ABC who set themselves up as information providers and then don't provide information.

But in the meantime we have a bunch of baloney made up to be truth that paints the Dems in an extremely poor light and basically incompetent with regards to terrorist-prevention, "coincidently" just before a hotly contested and important election season that has GOP beating their war drum harder than ever and accusing anyone and everyone that doesn't follow sheep-like along with them as being soft on terror and akin to Hitler-appeasers.


A $40 million, 5 hour long ad for the republican party election campaign.
They must be creaming themselves.

This is silly. The GOP is fighting to get voters to go vote because their traditional base is so disillusioned with the party. A mini-series isn't what's going to do the trick. Voters don't want more window-dressing, they want conservative policy.

This is silly. The GOP is fighting to get voters to go vote because their traditional base is so disillusioned with the party. A mini-series isn't what's going to do the trick. Voters don't want more window-dressing, they want conservative policy.

But conservative policy--at least, the people claiming to make conservative policy--is what we've had in Congress for the last 12 years, and in the White House for the last 5. Are you sure voters want more conservative policy?

But conservative policy--at least, the people claiming to make conservative policy--is what we've had in Congress for the last 12 years, and in the White House for the last 5. Are you sure voters want more conservative policy?

They must, if they keep voting for these guys.

But conservative policy--at least, the people claiming to make conservative policy--is what we've had in Congress for the last 12 years, and in the White House for the last 5. Are you sure voters want more conservative policy?

can't tell the difference between the conservatism of Newt Gingrich and the neocons in the White House now, can you?

We can.

I hope you're right, but frankly, I don't have a lot of faith in a populace of which 50% believe that Hussein had WMD this late in the game. And that number grew from last year, when it was closer to a third. And a large part of the blame for that comes from groups like ABC who set themselves up as information providers and then don't provide information.
I'm always right. So far as I know, anyway. Seriously, though, the GOP doesn't need to bolster it's support for its policies for national security. That's a slam dunk because the Democrats have no policy. But they have screwed up their chance as majority party so badly that the conservative voters will just stay home. The GOP needs another "Contract with America", meaning some solid conservative policy victories, before it has a chance to win in November and November + 2 years.

And I to call ABC "A Bunch of Clintonistas", I guess I should re-evaluate my perception of that network. I'll call them "A Bunch of Cads" from now on.

can't tell the difference between the conservatism of Newt Gingrich and the neocons in the White House now, can you?

We can.

Sure I can. But your voters apparently can't, since they kept the neocons in power. Much as you might like to, you can't just redefine conservatism to mean "whatever makes us look better." You were cool with them when they called themselves conservative before--you're stuck with them now. They're your guys.

But conservative policy--at least, the people claiming to make conservative policy--is what we've had in Congress for the last 12 years, and in the White House for the last 5. Are you sure voters want more conservative policy?
That's the thing. It isn't conservative policy. It's Republican politics. Bush isn't a conservative. Hell, his first big act was to jump in the sack with Teddy Kennedy and push through an awful education bill. He signed the McCain-Feingold mess. He signed the prescription drug bill to appease seniors. The only two things he has done right are to purse tax cuts and to aggressively fight Islamists.

I'm always right. So far as I know, anyway. Seriously, though, the GOP doesn't need to bolster it's support for its policies for national security. That's a slam dunk because the Democrats have no policy. But they have screwed up their chance as majority party so badly that the conservative voters will just stay home. The GOP needs another "Contract with America", meaning some solid conservative policy victories, before it has a chance to win in November and November + 2 years.

I think a Dem House and GOP senate for the next two years will be a good thing. With a GOP Senate you can keep confirming conservative judges to the courts, and with a Dem House you can show to the nation just how looney and un-productive Democrats in control of anything are. This should help Republicans in 2008.

Sure I can. But your voters apparently can't, since they kept the neocons in power. Much as you might like to, you can't just redefine conservatism to mean "whatever makes us look better." You were cool with them when they called themselves conservative before--you're stuck with them now. They're your guys.

I don't have to redefine my conservatism. I've been a minimalist towards federal government ever since I got my first paycheck. And I've voted that way, too. Newt is as close as anyone to my brand of conservatism, but he gets the social issues mixed up.

That being said, you're not free to redefine what I consider conservative because it suits you. These bozos that are in office are just that -- clowns all of them. None of them deserve my vote and they won't get it. I'm not afraid of Democrats getting a majority for a few years because it's going to make it very clear that we don't need their brand of politics, either.

If ABC and Disney are saying they used "dramatic license" it's not based on fact.

Moore hasn't given much more of an explanation for the factual distortions in his movies - he's said it's entertainment, not a documentary.

Same same.

You don't have anything to complain about unless you want to stifle every Michael Moore movie ever made.until this article, the only things I saw about this miniseries was that it was basied on Facts that lead to 9/11... nothing about it being a "drama"

so basically they say "Watch This" "see the chain of events that lead to the day that changed America" "psst this is a docudrama" "a riviting minisereies baised on true events." "see where we failed"....

and because they didn't state anything (outside this article) about it being a work of Fiction, you can guess the amount of spin on it will make a centrifuge dizzy.

so yes, in my opinion, it's the same as any of Micheal Moore's "Documentaries" where he's saying "this is true stuff" while he is still holding the editing scissors and glue in his hands.

I don't have to redefine my conservatism. I've been a minimalist towards federal government ever since I got my first paycheck. And I've voted that way, too. Newt is as close as anyone to my brand of conservatism, but he gets the social issues mixed up.

That being said, you're not free to redefine what I consider conservative because it suits you. These bozos that are in office are just that -- clowns all of them. None of them deserve my vote and they won't get it. I'm not afraid of Democrats getting a majority for a few years because it's going to make it very clear that we don't need their brand of politics, either.

Seconded.

http://www.ferns.org/images/Democratic%20Seal.jpg
This is for Clinton, his cronies (like Sandy Burglar), and some people who are whining about this movie yet had no problem with Michael Moore.

http://www.ferns.org/images/Democratic%20Seal.jpg
This is for Clinton, his cronies (like Sandy Burglar), and some people who are whining about this movie yet had no problem with Michael Moore.

Isn't that the truth. They did not complain even though Moore twisted facts, cut and spliced speeches together and totally made a mockery of the entire film industry (they don't even need help for that one) and they hailed his "documentaries" as facts when in fact, they were not.

Those films made no difference in 2004 and this film will have no effect in 2006.

Everyone needs to learn the difference between infotainment and actual facts in evidence.

http://www.ferns.org/images/Democratic%20Seal.jpg
This is for Clinton, his cronies (like Sandy Burglar), and some people who are whining about this movie yet had no problem with Michael Moore.

That's a keeper. It's going on my office door this afternoon. Thanks.

This is for Clinton, his cronies (like Sandy Burglar), and some people who are whining about this movie yet had no problem with Michael Moore.

So let me get something straight. Are you actually going to claim that conservatives didn't cry like little bitches when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out? Didn't organize protests or try to keep the movie from coming out (and almost succeeded, thanks to folks at Miramax, which is owned by, Surprise!, ABC/Disney)? Didn't put up websites claiming to debunk Moore's film? Are you sure you want to make a claim like that, because you'll eat it, I guarantee you.

The right wing cried like babies who'd gotten their lollipops taken away, and over far less. And hell, if you want to play "who's the biggest pussy," I'll gladly take getting upset over a bullshit movie, considering that your side is the one that pisses itself daily over the "threat" of some guys in the Middle East, with or without nukes. Screaming "islamist" at you guys is like turning on the vacuum cleaner when your dog's got his back turned and he hauls ass under the bed. You can come out anytime you want--it's just the vacuum.

So let me get something straight. Are you actually going to claim that conservatives didn't cry like little bitches when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out? Didn't organize protests or try to keep the movie from coming out (and almost succeeded, thanks to folks at Miramax, which is owned by, Surprise!, ABC/Disney)? Didn't put up websites claiming to debunk Moore's film? Are you sure you want to make a claim like that, because you'll eat it, I guarantee you.

The right wing cried like babies who'd gotten their lollipops taken away, and over far less. And hell, if you want to play "who's the biggest pussy," I'll gladly take getting upset over a bullshit movie, considering that your side is the one that pisses itself daily over the "threat" of some guys in the Middle East, with or without nukes. Screaming "islamist" at you guys is like turning on the vacuum cleaner when your dog's got his back turned and he hauls ass under the bed. You can come out anytime you want--it's just the vacuum.
I'm going to claim those were Republicans. And I thought that the Democratic party was better than that. I figured y'all would just bend over and take it.

I'm going to claim those were Republicans. And I thought that the Democratic party was better than that. I figured y'all would just bend over and take it.

Considering that the Democrats did it several times, and no Michael Moore films were actually cancelled or edited, one would think they like this sort of thing.

I'm going to claim those were Republicans. And I thought that the Democratic party was better than that. I figured y'all would just bend over and take it.We used to, in the name of bipartisanship. Not any more. People like Newt and Grover Norquist decided to make it nasty, and while we didn't fight back at first, we're fighting back now.

That's the thing. It isn't conservative policy. It's Republican politics. Bush isn't a conservative. Hell, his first big act was to jump in the sack with Teddy Kennedy and push through an awful education bill. He signed the McCain-Feingold mess. He signed the prescription drug bill to appease seniors. The only two things he has done right are to purse tax cuts and to aggressively fight Islamists.

And he's barely done well in either of those. He may have cut taxes, but he has more than erased their benefits thanks to wasteful spending and saddling of our economy with more entitlements; interest payments have also eaten away at revenue growth and the overall budgetary picture is much weaker now than it was in 2001. We've got more money, but we're going to have to foot a much bigger bill later thanks to his spending. The Iraq war has weakened our position and we've lost control of parts of both Afghanistan and Iraq; the Taliban is resurgent, fueled by record opium crops and sympathetic Afghani forces in the southern part of the country.

The War on Terror is making progress worldwide, but it has also stalled in Iraq and reversed in Afghanistan. The only area Bush has done well in is domestic security; we are safer and improvements have been made. There's still a lot of work to do, but we have made progress since 2001. Overall, however, I have a negative opinion of this government. It has betrayed the conservative principles that got it elected in 1994 in the first place and led it to success in the 1990's, and is now nothing more than a wasteful mockery of conservatism that is trashing our economic future and eroding our ability to fight terrorism by pursuing a boondoggle in Iraq.

But then again, if the Democrats gain significant power we are going to see their misgovernment in fairly short order; I'd prefer a Republican house and a Democratic president because we need a lot of gridlock to repair the damage done since 2000.

So let me get something straight. Are you actually going to claim that conservatives didn't cry like little bitches when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out? Didn't organize protests or try to keep the movie from coming out (and almost succeeded, thanks to folks at Miramax, which is owned by, Surprise!, ABC/Disney)? Didn't put up websites claiming to debunk Moore's film? Are you sure you want to make a claim like that, because you'll eat it, I guarantee you.

The right did do those things and with good reason after looking into F 9/11. There were many things wrong with that film but that would be for a different debate.

Now we have those on the Left crying like babies because of this miniseries and yet praised F 9/11. The horror that someone makes a mini series about the cause of 9/11.

The right wing cried like babies who'd gotten their lollipops taken away, and over far less.

I do not think that it was over far less but some of the outrage was understandable as the facts got twisted by Mr. Moore. Frankly, he should stick to making comedies. I loved Canadian Bacon.

And hell, if you want to play "who's the biggest pussy," I'll gladly take getting upset over a bullshit movie, considering that your side is the one that pisses itself daily over the "threat" of some guys in the Middle East, with or without nukes.

So we shouldn't be scared of them despite the fact that we can turn any country into a parking lot? We should not care about the balance in the Middle East if certain countries get nuclear bombs?

Screaming "islamist" at you guys is like turning on the vacuum cleaner when your dog's got his back turned and he hauls ass under the bed. You can come out anytime you want--it's just the vacuum.

To bad the Democrats can't seem to understand why they lose on national security issues. Seems like they run away from it as most people trust republicans on national security issues over Democrats. I wonder why that is?

We used to, in the name of bipartisanship. Not any more. People like Newt and Grover Norquist decided to make it nasty, and while we didn't fight back at first, we're fighting back now.

Newt made a movie?

To bad the Democrats can't seem to understand why they lose on national security issues. Seems like they run away from it as most people trust republicans on national security issues over Democrats. I wonder why that is?Check the polls now. The national security issue is split down the middle now. The only Republican advantage left there is the one they claim, which is about as substantial as the WMD in Iraq.

Newt made a movie?

It was about red herrings.

You folks down there really need to start supporting any other political party than those two.

You folks down there really need to start supporting any other political party than those two.

The two parties in question have done an excellent job of sabotaging the electoral system at all levels so that a third party has no chance, even if everyone wanted one.

The two parties in question have done an excellent job of sabotaging the electoral system at all levels so that a third party has no chance, even if everyone wanted one.

On this much we agree. Don't get too used to it. ;)

On this much we agree. Don't get too used to it. ;)

awwwww. :fluffle:

What it all comes down to is that this is entertainment. Just like the movie about Reagan, just like the movie about Columbine. The producers make the movie to make money. It's up to the market to decide what sorts of sponsorship it deserves. Take it with the pile of salt it deserves and don't worry. No one will have any idea how effective Bush was or how ineffective Clinton was in another few years because we won't remember and public schools can't teach it to our kids.There was plenty of outcry on the movie about Reagan - so much so that it was reedited and kicked off to cable.

Check the polls now. The national security issue is split down the middle now. The only Republican advantage left there is the one they claim, which is about as substantial as the WMD in Iraq.

Link please?

There was plenty of outcry on the movie about Reagan - so much so that it was reedited and kicked off to cable.

Perhaps it's possible that CBS didn't have any balls. And it was shown in any case.

No one re-edited or cancelled a Michael Moore movie.

These things are now "par for the course".

Link please?
Why won't you people learn how to search on the internet?

Here's one (http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm#Pew).

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling terrorist threats?" Form 1 (N=731, MoE ± 4)

8/9-13/06
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
50 39 11

Perhaps it's possible that CBS didn't have any balls. And it was shown in any case.

No one re-edited or cancelled a Michael Moore movie.

These things are now "par for the course".
Apples and oranges, for starters. TV and film releases are two massively different animals, as tv relies on ad revenue to survive. More pressure points to hit in terms of protest.

And secondly, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, Miramax did try to kill F9/11 and refused to release it. Public pressure got them to sell it to Lion's Gate, who then distributed it and made tons of money off of it. The only real difference, then, is that the people who tried to keep Moore's film off the screens failed to do so.

Why won't you people learn how to search on the internet?

Here's one (http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm#Pew).

Ok but that was not the question that I asked for a link for. I asked for a link in regards to polling data indicating that the Issue of National Security was split down the middle.

The burden of proof is on The Nazz to provide it.

Ok but that was not the question that I asked for a link for. I asked for a link in regards to polling data indicating that the Issue of National Security was split down the middle.

The burden of proof is on The Nazz to provide it.
But the burden of knowledge is there for anyone to carry. In other words, there is a time and place for nitpicking. This is a better forum to discuss ideas than it is to mindlessly ask for a 'linky'.

But the burden of knowledge is there for anyone to carry. In other words, there is a time and place for nitpicking. This is a better forum to discuss ideas than it is to mindlessly ask for a 'linky'.

Yep, and if you scroll down one more poll, you get a Newsweek poll that puts the Republicans only 5 pints ahead of Dems on handling terrorism. The one after that puts Bush at 47-50 in approval on handling the war on terror and the Democrats up 46-38 (though I suspect that's an outlier, since none of the others give Dems that level of advantage).

I work on the movie. It is, in fact, playing in the room I am in now. It is bullshit.

I work on the movie. It is, in fact, playing in the room I am in now. It is bullshit.

Any truth to the rumor in Variety that ABC may spike it?

Any truth to the rumor in Variety that ABC may spike it?

I don't know. Now Bush wants to speak at the time they want to show it Monday. We have been working furiously over the last two weeks making editing changes, but they haven't reshot anything so there's only so much you can change in post. From having seen it I don't think it should air. It's a completely fictionalized account that tries to portray itself as at least an acurate dramatization. I think when you're talking about an event with as much magnatude as 9/11 that that's very irresponsible.

I don't know. Now Bush wants to speak at the time they want to show it Monday. We have been working furiously over the last two weeks making editing changes, but they haven't reshot anything so there's only so much you can change in post. From having seen it I don't think it should air. It's a completely fictionalized account that tries to portray itself as at least an acurate dramatization. I think when you're talking about an event with as much magnatude as 9/11 that that's very irresponsible.

I can't imagine Bush giving them an out. His administration would want this to be shown as is.

I can't imagine Bush giving them an out. His administration would want this to be shown as is.

It doesn't make him look good, either. Also, this is the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and you have to expect that the president would want to address the nation - however retarded that president may be.

Man it just never gets old....

The movie hasn't even been released yet and people are already calling it a tool of right-wing propaganda, mainly because their darlings in the democratic party are whining about it--mind you, before they've seen it.

THIS is where the entertainment is.

I say, if the people of the Clinton administration are afraid of it, maybe that says something. As I understand it, everybody gets a piece of blame-pie. No free rides... Not Bush (either one) not Reagan, and not Clinton.

But we won't know until it comes out. Until then, all the shrill whining just makes people look guilty of something.

Man it just never gets old....

The movie hasn't even been released yet and people are already calling it a tool of right-wing propaganda, mainly because their darlings in the democratic party are whining about it--mind you, before they've seen it.

THIS is where the entertainment is.

I say, if the people of the Clinton administration are afraid of it, maybe that says something. As I understand it, everybody gets a piece of blame-pie. No free rides... Not Bush (either one) not Reagan, and not Clinton.

But we won't know until it comes out. Until then, all the shrill whining just makes people look guilty of something.

And why haven't Democrats seen it? Because of all the hundreds of screeners that were sent out, none of them went to liberals or Democrats. Zero. Limbaugh got one. An obscure right-wing blogger named Patterico got one. But people actually being depicted didn't, even when they requested them.

Someone's guilty of something all right, but it isn't who you're accusing, and the apology you posted up there is just a regurgitation of ABC's spin.

And why haven't Democrats seen it? Because of all the hundreds of screeners that were sent out, none of them went to liberals or Democrats. Zero. Limbaugh got one. An obscure right-wing blogger named Patterico got one. But people actually being depicted didn't, even when they requested them.
You know for a fact that not one person who received a copy is a Democrat? Really? I find that highly unlikely. Hasn't it occurred to you that Limbaugh got one because he happens to work for an ABC radio affiliate and he, along with most of the radio hosts who also do, either received a copy or were given a partial advance screening?


Someone's guilty of something all right, but it isn't who you're accusing, and the apology you posted up there is just a regurgitation of ABC's spin.
Not sure what accusation I made, but hey, why sacrifice the opportunity for a shout-down by sticking to reality, right? As I scratch my head and wonder what you perceive as an accusation, I can only presume you mean the part where I find it suspect that some people are afraid of how they might be portrayed. Not an accusation, just an observation.

Now, since you yourself maintain that no democrats have seen it (Obviously a component in the vast right-wing conspiracy to denounce a silly ex-President) how can you justify their reaction in any way?

That being silly of course. And I'm not making any apologies (that's strike 2 for yah) just saying it's hard to credibly complain about something you haven't seen.

Do you disagree?

Man it just never gets old....

The movie hasn't even been released yet and people are already calling it a tool of right-wing propaganda, mainly because their darlings in the democratic party are whining about it--mind you, before they've seen it.

THIS is where the entertainment is.

I say, if the people of the Clinton administration are afraid of it, maybe that says something. As I understand it, everybody gets a piece of blame-pie. No free rides... Not Bush (either one) not Reagan, and not Clinton.

But we won't know until it comes out. Until then, all the shrill whining just makes people look guilty of something.

well, I have seen it in many forms and many times. In fact, when I turn my head I'm seeing it right now. The problem with this film is that it uses fictionalized events and attributes them to real people. It, for example, has Albright telling Clark that the reason she warned Pakistan about the missile attack Clinton launched against Bin Laden was because of "regional concerns." If you remember, it is widely suspected that the reason Bin Laden was able to escape that attack was because someone in Pakistan warned him it was coming. Fact is, noty only was that not the reason she told Pakistan, she in fact DID NOT WARN PAKISTAN! The person who warned pakistan, according to the 9/11 report this film claims to have gotten its facts from, was a senior military official at the Pentagon. No one in the Clinton administration had anything to do with that warning. Also, the reason that person warned Pakistan was because of regional concerns, but the film makes those concerns out to be frivilous. The concern, in fact, was that they didn't want Pakistan to nuke India when they saw missiles flying throught their airspace. It's that kind of garbage that I think is irresponsible when you ae endevouring to make a docudrama about the most momentuos political event since WWII.

well, I have seen it in many forms and many times. In fact, when I turn my head I'm seeing it right now. The problem with this film is that it uses fictionalized events and attributes them to real people. It, for example, has Albright telling Clark that the reason she warned Pakistan about the missile attack Clinton launched against Bin Laden was because of "regional concerns." If you remember, it is widely suspected that the reason Bin Laden was able to escape that attack was because someone in Pakistan warned him it was coming. Fact is, noty only was that not the reason she told Pakistan, she in fact DID NOT WARN PAKISTAN! The person who warned pakistan, according to the 9/11 report this film claims to have gotten its facts from, was a senior military official at the Pentagon. No one in the Clinton administration had anything to do with that warning. Also, the reason that person warned Pakistan was because of regional concerns, but the film makes those concerns out to be frivilous. The concern, in fact, was that they didn't want Pakistan to nuke India when they saw missiles flying throught their airspace. It's that kind of garbage that I think is irresponsible when you ae endevouring to make a docudrama about the most momentuos political event since WWII.

...but beside the point, unless Clinton is sitting there with you watching it, and therefore would have seen the movie and know what he's complaining about.

...but beside the point, unless Clinton is sitting there with you watching it, and therefore would have seen the movie and know what he's complaining about.

When Madelin Allbright sent her letter to Igor she specifically mentions that scene so these people may not have seen it, but they know a lot about what's in it. Berger specifically mentions a completely fictional account of a capture attempt in which, in the movie, he is depicted as being on the phone with a CIA operative and a fictional Northern Alliance commander who have Bin Laden in their binoculars and are ready to strike. In the film, he tells them to abort for stupid political reasons and when the CIA operative emotionally objects because he is allowing Bun Laden to escape and betraying the Northern Alliance commander who risked his life and the lives of his men to get them there Berger just hangs up on him. The event never happened, the commander never existed and no operation ever got any CIA operative to within binocular range of Bin Laden - except at Tora Bora when the Bush Administration decided to kick it and let Bin Laden's friends finish the job - which, of course, they didn't.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/07/911.film.clinton.offic.ap/index.html



Let's face it, the Clinton Administration did drop the ball when it came to Terrorism. Bush Jr. didn't stop 9/11 from happening. However at least since 9/11 the United States haven't had a terrorist attack happen on it's own soil.

Clinton stopped several terrorist attacks during his term in office. When his staff was on the way out they told the Bush administration that the biggest problemt hat they were going to inheret was terrorism. They decided that the biggest problem they were going to inheret was Iraq and demoted the "counter-terrorism czar" down from a cabinet level position.

Disney has released this movie to several right-wing pundits, but has not released it to the Clinton officials that are portrayed within it.

The Republican's got CBS to pull their Reagan movie, which was, more or less true. This one is complete fiction. Let's see if this one gets pulled.

Seriously, how can assholes claim that there's a liberal bias in the media?

Like the stretching of truth by Michael Moore ultimately hurt liberals and democrats, this will hurt republicans. Let them air their fantasy. I'll be eating popcorn watching the aftermath bite them on the ass.

Yep, and if you scroll down one more poll, you get a Newsweek poll that puts the Republicans only 5 pints ahead of Dems on handling terrorism. The one after that puts Bush at 47-50 in approval on handling the war on terror and the Democrats up 46-38 (though I suspect that's an outlier, since none of the others give Dems that level of advantage).

I just picked the first one I came to. It's absolute fact what Sam Clemens said about statistics.

Perhaps it's possible that CBS didn't have any balls. And it was shown in any case.

No one re-edited or cancelled a Michael Moore movie.

These things are now "par for the course".

They tried desperatly. In fact, it was the very same company. Disney, which owns Miramax didn't allow Michael Moore to distribute Farenheit 9/11. He was able to find another outlet for it, but only because he owned it.

So Disney did everything in its power to kill an anti-Bush movie that, though biased, is true.

It spent $40 million to create an anti-Clinton movie that is not only biased, but fiction masquerading as "a dramatization of true events."

FYI "dramatization" means manipulating true events to make them more compelling cinema. It doesn't mean replacing actual events with ones that never happened because it would be better cinema if it did happen (e.g. the supposed call where they refuse to allow the capture or assassination of Osama Bil Laden. The call never took place, and the assassination permission was given).

Also. It's running without commercials. Do you know what that means? It's a giant pro-Republican infomercial. It's probably against campaign finance laws. Not that the Republican controlled FCC is going to even open the book on it.

1993 WTC, I guess you forgot about that one.



One indecent does not a trend make

The OP implied that bush post 9/11 was the reason for no more attacks

The person you quoted pointed out in a humorous way that that terrorist attacks were hardly common place before bush became into office. Therefore contradicting the original implication.

I hardly see how your one example contradicts what was said

Isn't that the truth. They did not complain even though Moore twisted facts, cut and spliced speeches together and totally made a mockery of the entire film industry (they don't even need help for that one) and they hailed his "documentaries" as facts when in fact, they were not.

Those films made no difference in 2004 and this film will have no effect in 2006.

Everyone needs to learn the difference between infotainment and actual facts in evidence.

Some of us did not complain about either movie and some complained about both … you just gloss over all that.

When Madelin Allbright sent her letter to Igor she specifically mentions that scene so these people may not have seen it, but they know a lot about what's in it. Berger specifically mentions a completely fictional account of a capture attempt in which, in the movie, he is depicted as being on the phone with a CIA operative and a fictional Northern Alliance commander who have Bin Laden in their binoculars and are ready to strike. In the film, he tells them to abort for stupid political reasons and when the CIA operative emotionally objects because he is allowing Bun Laden to escape and betraying the Northern Alliance commander who risked his life and the lives of his men to get them there Berger just hangs up on him. The event never happened, the commander never existed and no operation ever got any CIA operative to within binocular range of Bin Laden - except at Tora Bora when the Bush Administration decided to kick it and let Bin Laden's friends finish the job - which, of course, they didn't.

So Madelin sends a letter and now that counds as being the same as watching the movie itself. Is that what you want to push here? The rest of your reply is more of the same attempt to distract from the issue.

No matter how detailed your reply is, it doesn't change the fact that politicians and former politicians are shrilly deriding a movie they haven't seen, and know only what thety do based upon second hand and hardly objective information.

See why this is so entertaining? The Senators' letter to ABC is written in language that almost makes it sound as if their objections are based upon the content of the movie, which, of course, they have *no* first-hand knowledge of.

One more question--Has Madeline seen it?

1993 WTC, I guess you forgot about that one.

So three years from now you can start talking.

So Madelin sends a letter and now that counds as being the same as watching the movie itself. Is that what you want to push here? The rest of your reply is more of the same attempt to distract from the issue.

No matter how detailed your reply is, it doesn't change the fact that politicians and former politicians are shrilly deriding a movie they haven't seen, and know only what thety do based upon second hand and hardly objective information.

See why this is so entertaining? The Senators' letter to ABC is written in language that almost makes it sound as if their objections are based upon the content of the movie, which, of course, they have *no* first-hand knowledge of.

One more question--Has Madeline seen it?
Apparently, she has, so I sit corrected. According to the producer, Cryus Nowsrateh, on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, they did a DC screening of teh first night of the series--the Clinton night. And then gave out discs of the second night only for them to take home. That's when Albright and Richard Ben-Veniste both first complained--in the Q&A session afterward, and then later in writing. But they didn't have dvds of the first night to show anyone. The only people who got both nights in advance were right-wingers.

Oh yeah, linky (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=dee50320-ee9f-47d2-8308-4d4aa4af0d6d).

So Madelin sends a letter and now that counds as being the same as watching the movie itself. Is that what you want to push here? The rest of your reply is more of the same attempt to distract from the issue.

No matter how detailed your reply is, it doesn't change the fact that politicians and former politicians are shrilly deriding a movie they haven't seen, and know only what thety do based upon second hand and hardly objective information.

See why this is so entertaining? The Senators' letter to ABC is written in language that almost makes it sound as if their objections are based upon the content of the movie, which, of course, they have *no* first-hand knowledge of.

One more question--Has Madeline seen it?
What I am saying to you is that even though they have not seen it they obviously have detailed knowledge of what is in it because their letters describe scenes that I know - from first hand knowledge - are in the movie and that are completely fictional.

Think about it. This movie is saying that Madelin Allbright's decision to warn pakistan about an impending missile strike against Bin Laden ultimatly resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people - a decision she never made and a phone call that never happened. How'd you like that? I'd be looking for blood if someone accused me of that. This movie also says that Sandy Berger hung up on a CIA operative that was within yards of Bin Laden and ready to capture or kill him. This event never took place nor did anything remotely like this. It's not just a fictionalized account, it's complete fiction through and through only, in this case, they use a real person.

Let me put it another way. They may not have seen this picture but I have and, as I said, am actualy watching it right now. It is inappropriately fictionalized and makes villians out of real people for mistakes they never made and things they never said. Further, whether they saw it or not, their complaints exhibit accurate criticisms of how they are portrayed in the movie and about how accurate the film is to real events.

What I am saying to you is that even though they have not seen it they obviously have detailed knowledge of what is in it because their letters describe scenes that I know - from first hand knowledge - are in the movie and that are completely fictional.

Think about it. This movie is saying that Madelin Allbright's decision to warn pakistan about an impending missile strike against Bin Laden ultimatly resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people - a decision she never made and a phone call that never happened. How'd you like that? I'd be looking for blood if someone accused me of that. This movie also says that Sandy Berger hung up on a CIA operative that was within yards of Bin Laden and ready to capture or kill him. This event never took place nor did anything remotely like this. It's not just a fictionalized account, it's complete fiction through and through only, in this case, they use a real person.

Let me put it another way. They may not have seen this picture but I have and, as I said, am actualy watching it right now. It is inappropriately fictionalized and makes villians out of real people for mistakes they never made and things they never said. Further, whether they saw it or not, their complaints exhibit accurate criticisms of how they are portrayed in the movie and about how accurate the film is to real events.

You've been saying you're sitting there watching it several times over the course of several hours, and you say you've already seen it several times. Sounds obsessive.

But I digress.

At this point I have no reason to believe that the movie was either fictionalized or not beyond the statements of people in this thread, half of which I don't believe and the other half I'll believe nor not after I've seen the movie.

I hold to my point. Anyone who hasn't seen the movie but complains about it loses credibility. It's just like when a few Jewish groups went nuts about Passion of the Christ before having seen it.

If you take exception to something in a movie that you heard was in it, wait until it comes out, then discuss it like rational people. Discuss it with others who have seen it and present your point of view. If the movie mischaracterizes something, then you've got them by the balls because it'll be impossible for the moviemakers to deny it.

To freak out prematurely raises questions in my mind, and that's perfectly valid.

Ummm, New Brettonia? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11656067&postcount=84)

Ummm, New Brettonia? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11656067&postcount=84)

yeah I saw that, but PsychoticDan was arguing from the point that they hadn't, and it was that which I was addressing.

Also, I grant you that some folks who are complaining have seen it, and that's fine. Problem is, not everyone who's complaining has seen it, and that's what I find entertaining.

Apparently, she has, so I sit corrected. According to the producer, Cryus Nowsrateh, on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, they did a DC screening of teh first night of the series--the Clinton night. And then gave out discs of the second night only for them to take home. That's when Albright and Richard Ben-Veniste both first complained--in the Q&A session afterward, and then later in writing. But they didn't have dvds of the first night to show anyone. The only people who got both nights in advance were right-wingers.

Oh yeah, linky (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=dee50320-ee9f-47d2-8308-4d4aa4af0d6d).

As I read more closely, I find that no, she hasn't seen it. She wasn't at that screening.

Thanks for the link, though.

As I read more closely, I find that no, she hasn't seen it. She wasn't at that screening.

Thanks for the link, though.

I mis-wrote. It's not clear whether she was there or not, but Ben-Veniste was definitely there and complained on the spot.

You've been saying you're sitting there watching it several times over the course of several hours, and you say you've already seen it several times. Sounds obsessive.
Obsessive how? The fact that I have seen it is central to my point. The scenes they describe in their complaints do, in fact, exist and portray them as they complain they are being portrayed. They have every right to protest those depictions.
But I digress.

At this point I have no reason to believe that the movie was either fictionalized or notExcept for the fact that ABC says it's fictionalized. beyond the statements of people in this thread, half of which I don't believe and the other half I'll believe nor not after I've seen the movie.

I hold to my point. Anyone who hasn't seen the movie but complains about it loses credibility. It's just like when a few Jewish groups went nuts about Passion of the Christ before having seen it. It's nothing like that. Some Jewish groups complained about the film because it protrayed a bunch of long deceased Jews in a bad light in a widely published story that has been told for 2000 years and is the central tenant of faith for several billion people. In this case some people are complaining about fictional accounts of how they are protrayed as behaving while they were in positions of authority during what is arguably the most momentuous and tragic event of our generation. These depictions are personal, harmful and completely fictional.

If you take exception to something in a movie that you heard was in it, wait until it comes out, then discuss it like rational people.UInless you heard what was in it from, say, the exec producer. These people obviously heard what was in thi movie from reliable sources because they are right about what is in it. Discuss it with others who have seen it and present your point of view. If the movie mischaracterizes something, then you've got them by the balls because it'll be impossible for the moviemakers to deny it.

To freak out prematurely raises questions in my mind, and that's perfectly valid.

Anyone who's honest knows that much of history is perception. Columbus is still widely credited with both discovering America and proving that the Earth is round though he did neither. This film, though I have serious reservations about it, is very powerfully executed. It is emotional, it has tremendous tempo and it is gripping. People will hold their piss for a few hours if they have no Tivo while this is on. It's very well directed, acted and shot and people will walk away from it with a perception that may become history. Not something I'd like to go down in history for.

Oooh, this is gonna sting (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/american-airlines-to-blame-for-911.html).


I'm just wondering when American Airlines is going to realize that it's about to be defamed in the entire English-speaking world.

As I first noted yesterday, I have the entire "Path to 9/11" video. And one of the very first scenes makes it explicitly clear that American Airlines had Mohammad Atta in its grasp, warning lights flashing on the computer screen, yet the airline simply blew off the threat and helped Atta kill 3,000 Americans.

Unfortunately, it's a total lie.

Here's what the "Path to 9/11" claims American Airlines did on the morning of September 11. According to Disney/ABC, American Airlines had Mohammad Atta at its ticket counter and a warning came up on the screen when he tried to check in. The AA employee called a supervisor who kind of shrugged and said, blithely, just let him through. The first employee, shocked, turned to her supervisor and said, shouldn't we search him? The American Airlines supervisor responds, nah, just hold his luggage until he boards the plane. The scene is clearly intended to make American Airlines look negligent.

Only problem? It never happened.

First off, Disney/ABC got the airport wrong. The warning for Mohammad Atta's ticket popped up in Portland, Maine, not at Boston Logan as the tv show claims (this is on page 1 of the September 11 Commission report).

Second, the security rules at the time said nothing about searching a passenger who has a "warning" pop up, they only required that the bags be held until the passenger boarded. The Disney/ABC tv show, on the other hand, clearly tries to imply that American Airlines violated the security rules in letting Atta go. This simply isn't true. (This is also on page 1 of the report.)

But most importantly, Disney/ABC implicated the wrong airline. And I quote the Director of the FBI:

On September 11, at 6:00 AM, Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al Omari boarded a U.S. Airways flight leaving Portland, Maine en route to Boston's Logan Airport.

The 9/11 Report, on page 1 of all things, makes clear that it was in Portland that Atta's warning came up. And FBI director Mueller makes clear that Atta flew US Airways Express from Portland to Boston. So, Disney/ABC, in the first ten minutes of its error-riddled tv show - a show about to be broadcast to the entire English-speaking world this Sunday - paints American Airlines as one of the most irresponsible air carriers on the planet. An air carrier that is directly responsible for killing 3,000 Americans because its own employees are too lazy to follow safety rules.

And Disney/ABC got it totally wrong, defaming one of the largest airlines in the world.
American Airlines hasn't raised an objection yet, but man, they ought to, and if I were a major stockholder, I'd be talking to a lawyer about damages.

And what does it say about the producers that they fucked up something on page one of the 9-11 commission report?

Oooh, this is gonna sting (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/american-airlines-to-blame-for-911.html).

American Airlines hasn't raised an objection yet, but man, they ought to, and if I were a major stockholder, I'd be talking to a lawyer about damages.

And what does it say about the producers that they fucked up something on page one of the 9-11 commission report?

How many companies have been "defamed" by their fictional representation in a movie? Probably quite a few.

How many haev been able to do anything about it, because it's entertainment?

Next to none.

Apparently airlines were upset about the Qantas remark in Rain Man, but they couldn't do jack shit about it.

How many companies have been "defamed" by their fictional representation in a movie? Probably quite a few.

How many haev been able to do anything about it, because it's entertainment?

Next to none.

Apparently airlines were upset about the Qantas remark in Rain Man, but they couldn't do jack shit about it.

No matter how many times you try that bullshit argument, it still doesn't smell any better. The producers were hyping the factual nature of this piece, and claiming it was based on the 9-11 Commission report. They don't get to fall back on the "it's fiction" argument now.

No matter how many times you try that bullshit argument, it still doesn't smell any better. The producers were hyping the factual nature of this piece, and claiming it was based on the 9-11 Commission report. They don't get to fall back on the "it's fiction" argument now.

I guess you always skip over the part where, in the same claim, they say that they've taken "dramatic license".

If you think it's a bullshit argument, take Michael Moore's movies off the market forever. And round up every copy of every DVD he ever sold.

Or take your argument home.

I guess you always skip over the part where, in the same claim, they say that they've taken "dramatic license".

If you think it's a bullshit argument, take Michael Moore's movies off the market forever. And round up every copy of every DVD he ever sold.

Or take your argument home.

You keep bringing up Michael Moore, even though it's not nearly the same. Moore has never written dialogue for an actor, had that actor portray a real person, and then had that person say something he or she never said. He uses footage of the person speaking. Now you can claim that he's deceptive in the way he does that, or in the way he cuts the film, although the vast majority of those claims are crap, but it's not the same as what these producers have done.

But you're a subscriber to the "if it makes my opposition look bad, it's fair game, even if it's a lie" mentality. So by all means, stay the course. It's what your president does, after all.

I guess you always skip over the part where, in the same claim, they say that they've taken "dramatic license".

If you think it's a bullshit argument, take Michael Moore's movies off the market forever. And round up every copy of every DVD he ever sold.

Or take your argument home.

Micheal Moore's film was:

A. Something you had to go and pay to see.
B. Blatant propaganda that never claimed to be anything else.
C. Not dressed up as an objective look at history.

And let me reiterate this point, DK. It doesn't matter what those producers say now. They sold this piece of crap as fact from the beginning, to the point where they had Scholastic America providing classroom materials to students as history aids--fortunately for their reputation, they backed out as the egregious errors came to light. So to play the dramatization card once you've been called a bullshit artist is, to say the least, weak.

Micheal Moore's film was:

A. Something you had to go and pay to see.
B. Blatant propaganda that never claimed to be anything else.
C. Not dressed up as an objective look at history.

Sorry, everything I've read about the miniseries claims this to be a dramatization, nothing else.

I would add that at the beginning of this thread, I proved using the 9/11 Commission Reports own words that Sandy Berger's claim that he NEVER opposed ANY attack on al-Qaeda that poor Sandy was lying out of his ass.

None of you have refuted it, either.

So, this is a dramatization of that. Sure, it would be more accurate to show Sandy pencilling in the margin of a request "No." to an attack. But that doesn't get people to sit through to the commercial break.

Sorry, everything I've read about the miniseries claims this to be a dramatization, nothing else.

Then you're either lying or you've been horrendously selective in your reading. I vote for lying. It's your MO after all.

Then you're either lying or you've been horrendously selective in your reading. I vote for lying. It's your MO after all.

Go to the top of the thread, where I posted Sandy Berger's lie, and the refutation of his lie by the 9/11 Commission.

Come back when you finish weeping about the truth.

No matter how many times you try that bullshit argument, it still doesn't smell any better. The producers were hyping the factual nature of this piece, and claiming it was based on the 9-11 Commission report. They don't get to fall back on the "it's fiction" argument now.

Now all advertising is factual, as well, huh? C'mon back to Earth now and we'll still let you have a place at the table.

What I understand you to say is that every bit of advertising and every bit of entertainment must absolutely conform to newsworthy standards for content, if there is the slightest hint that it's based on facts?

No one expects that and that will never happen. Advertising is hype and entertaiment is what sells soap.

Sorry, everything I've read about the miniseries claims this to be a dramatization, nothing else.

I would add that at the beginning of this thread, I proved using the 9/11 Commission Reports own words that Sandy Berger's claim that he NEVER opposed ANY attack on al-Qaeda that poor Sandy was lying out of his ass.

None of you have refuted it, either.

So, this is a dramatization of that. Sure, it would be more accurate to show Sandy pencilling in the margin of a request "No." to an attack. But that doesn't get people to sit through to the commercial break.

That's bullshit. Period. The have claimed from teh beginning, back two years ago when I was downloading camara tests for them and it was called the "Untitled History Project" that it was supposed to be a docudrama that was supposed to factually represent the events leading up to the Iraq war. I would recommend everybody watch this movie because the spirit of it is true. Also, it is very well acted, directed and shot. The problem comes when the try to dramatize disparate events like the scene with Allbright that I mentioned earlier in this thread. It's character assasination.

That's bullshit. Period. The have claimed from teh beginning, back two years ago when I was downloading camara tests for them and it was called the "Untitled History Project" that it was supposed to be a docudrama that was supposed to factually represent the events leading up to the Iraq war. I would recommend everybody watch this movie because the spirit of it is true. Also, it is very well acted, directed and shot. The problem comes when the try to dramatize disparate events like the scene with Allbright that I mentioned earlier in this thread. It's character assasination.
Read the beginning of the thread where I post Sandy Berger's assertion.

Then read the same post where the 9/11 Commission says that assertion is a complete lie.

Then cry about it.

That's bullshit. Period. The have claimed from teh beginning, back two years ago when I was downloading camara tests for them and it was called the "Untitled History Project" that it was supposed to be a docudrama that was supposed to factually represent the events leading up to the Iraq war. I would recommend everybody watch this movie because the spirit of it is true. Also, it is very well acted, directed and shot. The problem comes when the try to dramatize disparate events like the scene with Allbright that I mentioned earlier in this thread. It's character assasination.

Doesn't the very name 'docudrama' imply less than rigid adherence to facts? Isn't that why there are also 'documentary' films?

Doesn't the very name 'docudrama' imply less than rigid adherence to facts? Isn't that why there are also 'documentary' films?

I've had a fun time pointing out major inaccuracies in "docudramas" on the History Channel, but I guess because they're about the Civil War, or the Revolutionary War, or the Mongols, no one gives a shit.

Yet I know they are taking dramatic license, and wanting to gloss over things, and don't give a crap if they get something wrong.

I've had a fun time pointing out major inaccuracies in "docudramas" on the History Channel, but I guess because they're about the Civil War, or the Revolutionary War, or the Mongols, no one gives a shit.

Yet I know they are taking dramatic license, and wanting to gloss over things, and don't give a crap if they get something wrong.

This is a silly discussion. The contrarians want to hold ABC, Disney, and their advertisements to a higher standard for facts than we hold Reuters and the New York Times.

Read the beginning of the thread where I post Sandy Berger's assertion.

Then read the same post where the 9/11 Commission says that assertion is a complete lie.

Then cry about it.

In the movie it protrays him as hanging up on a CIA agent who is with a Northern Alliance commander who risked the lives of his men to get that agent to within binocular range of Bin Laden. He basically tells the agent, played by Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch's brother Donny Wahlberg, "I can't get everyone to sign off on this so scrap the mission."

The mission never happend, the commander is fictional and no one was ever within binocular range of Bin Laden. It's one thing to make a film about how the Clinton Administration (as well as Bush Sr., Ronald Reagan and Donky Kong Jr. up until Sep. 10, 2001 for that matter) treated this as a law enforcement problem and not a war. It's another to claim that he risked the loves of his men and our allies to get them into a position where all the had to do was take the shot and he backs out. It's also taking huge dramatic license to have Allbright say that the reason she warned the Pakistanis about the missile strike was because of some vague "regional concerns" and play it as if those concerns were frivalous when the concern was that Pakistan might nuke India and that ALLBRIGHT DIDN'T WARN THE PAKISTANIS! In fact, no one from the Clinton Administration did. It was a Pentagon official who warned them and he did it because, basically, you don't fire missiles into a country's airspace without warning them unless you are at war with them.

\My dgree is in film. I have worked in this industry for almost ten years now and I have worked as a writer's assistant and a director's assistant before I started in post about five years ago. I understand what a dramatization is and I understand the need to combine charaters and events into singular people and events in order to tell a story in a way that flows. I am telling you I have seen this movie start to finish several times now in many different configurations and they play very fast and loose with the facts, in my opinion, for a movie about such a important event.

In the movie it protrays him as hanging up on a CIA agent who is with a Northern Alliance commander who risked the lives of his men to get that agent to within binocular range of Bin Laden. He basically tells the agent, played by Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch's brother Donny Wahlberg, "I can't get everyone to sign off on this so scrap the mission."

Like I said, I would be happy with them showing agencies and the Pentagon requesting permission to kill bin Laden and attack al-Qaeda in a boring meeting room, and watching Sandy Berger pencil in the margins "No" as the 9/11 Commission says he did.

Not exciting TV, but historically accurate.

Like I said, I would be happy with them showing agencies and the Pentagon requesting permission to kill bin Laden and attack al-Qaeda in a boring meeting room, and watching Sandy Berger pencil in the margins "No" as the 9/11 Commission says he did.

Not exciting TV, but historically accurate.

BTW - I hope you're looking forward to the part of the film that takes place during the Bush Administration. Makes him look completely incompetent.

BTW - I hope you're looking forward to the part of the film that takes place during the Bush Administration. Makes him look completely incompetent.

Really? I had heard it made him look heroic and determined. Afterall. We all know that when it happened he was sitting in a school room reading "My Pet Goat," and I've heard that in the movie that is completly glossed over. It's edited to make it look like he sprang into action.