Clinton & former administration officials question 9-11 miniseries

[Steff]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_en_...DJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

 

 

NEW YORK - ABC defended a miniseries on the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks after Clinton administration officials said it distorts history so drastically that it should be corrected or shelved.

 

 

"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," the network said in a statement Thursday.

 

Former administration officials and Senate Democrats said in letters to the head of the network's parent company that the "The Path to 9/11" was "terribly wrong."

 

Former President Clinton, speaking with news reporters after a Democratic fundraiser in Arkansas on Thursday, said he hadn't seen the ABC film.

 

"But I think they ought to tell the truth, particularly if they are going to claim it is based on the 9/11 Commission report," he said. "They shouldn't have scenes that are directly contradicted by the findings of the 9/11 report."

[Rex Kickass]

Apparently, that's not entirely true. A bunch of right wing pundits and bloggers have received screener copies, including Rush Limbaugh and have been assured that any edits to the final cut would be "unnoticeable."

[Texsox]

"But I think they ought to tell the truth, particularly if they are going to claim it is based on the 9/11 Commission report," he said. "They shouldn't have scenes that are directly contradicted by the findings of the 9/11 report."

 

History is always being rewritten as new information becomes available, there are always multiple points of view. Each part should be looked at within a specific context of when it was produced and by whom. Sorry Bill, the right wingers get to write some history also.

[Balta1701]

History is always being rewritten as new information becomes available, there are always multiple points of view. Each part should be looked at within a specific context of when it was produced and by whom. Sorry Bill, the right wingers get to write some history also.

Ed Gillespe, RNC Chairman -- Scarborough Country, 11/6/2003 (via Lexis)

 

GILLESPIE: And I think it was important that it be historically accurate. And if they didn't intend to make it historically accurate to make sure that viewers understood that it was not intended to be historically accurate but a fictional portrayal. So we made two requests: One is having historians review it for accuracy if you're going to broadcast it. And if you're unwilling to do that, inform the viewers that it's not historically accurate. That's not censorship, that's common sense. . .

 

I've sent a similar letter to the head of Showtime making the same point: "If you're not willing to have it reviewed for historical accuracy, make sure your viewers understand that it's a fictional portrayal. You know, in this society that we live in and with the media culture that we have, there's infotainment and docudrama and reality TV, and the lines between fact and fiction blur. That's fine when it's entertainment, but when you're talking about the formative phase of the Reagan legacy formation, I think that it's important that we get things right. . . .

 

I think that same standard should apply to the late president John F. Kennedy or to Jimmy Carter or any president. If you're going to portray a presidency and a president, I think you should do all you can to make sure it's accurate. . . .

 

...But I also think it points to a broader concern, which is a concern that we should be careful about how we portray historical figures, and especially when it's so current and so recent. You know, there's obviously been a lot of movies made about the late President Kennedy and others, but a lot of time had passed since those. And there have been more historical understanding of their presidencies. I think a lot of people were going to learn about the Reagan presidency for the first time, or at least learn what these screen writers at CBS and in Hollywood, how they perceived his presidency in this program. So I thought it was important that it be accurate.

 

 

Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly Factor "Talking Points", 11/4/2003 (Via Lexis)

 

Today CBS issued this statement, "Although the mini-series features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience."Well, fine, but how could CBS green light the film in the first place knowing that the producers, the director and the featured actors are all left wing thinkers?

 

That would be like CBS commissioning a movie about the Clintons written by Rush Limbaugh and starring Dennis Miller and Ann Coulter. Do you think that would ever happen?

 

 

Brent Bozell, November 5, 2003

 

Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, scoffed at the notion that CBS was stifling free speech. "There is no such thing as creative license to invent falsehoods about people," Bozell said. "I don't care who you are. You don't have that right."

 

 

Republican National Committee, November 5, 2003

 

Some conservatives were unhappy that the program would be aired at all. "I don’t know the misinforming fewer viewers on Showtime solves the problem," said Jim Dyke Republican National Committee.

 

 

Ed Morrow, National Review, October 23, 2003

 

Judging from the accounts that have been creeping into the press and the promotional bits played by Matt Drudge as a fill-in host on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, the miniseries is a vicious smear of Reagan and his wife Nancy. . . .

 

The substitution of propaganda for fact is dangerous. It's not by accident that tyrants create "history" to justify their schemes. Hitler couldn't have taken control of Germany without the many anti-Semitic myths that had been allowed to fester and go unchallenged. Stalin and Mao couldn't have kept a heel on the neck of their countries without self-glorifying myths that demonized anyone who stood in their way. In this case, simple justice demands that the lies about Ronald and Nancy Reagan must not go unchallenged but, in a larger sense, truth itself must be defended. Attempts to distort our history must be resisted. Historical truth is simply too valuable to be made a plaything for biased filmmakers rewriting it to fit their politics.

 

 

Seth Leibsohn, National Review, November 6, 2003

 

The latest critique of the conservative movement — which should be a critique of anyone dedicated to the thought that our knowledge of history is bad enough — is that we censored a CBS miniseries on President Ronald Reagan because we think Reagan "untouchable." That is a mischaracterization. . . . Show the man in all his glory and all his defeat, we are not ashamed of history. We should all be ashamed of bad history, though — of dressing up fiction as fact. What offended us was a portrayal of Reagan that put words in his mouth he never uttered and attributed positions to him he never held. . . .

 

Perhaps if the CBS miniseries attempted accuracy, there would have been less concern. But we don't need false portrayals of living (but incapacitated) historical figures, in the nastiest forms possible. It's not decent, and it sure is not helping us understand history better — something we could all afford to do . . .

 

 

Bernard Golberg and Pat Buchanan -- Buchanan & Press, 11/26/2003 (via Lexis)

 

BUCHANAN: All right, Bernie . . . Here's what they've got Ronald Reagan saying in this film."Look at her," about Mrs. Kennedy. "Couldn't she at least have changed her dress? There's blood all over it."Housekeeper to Mrs. Reagan. "Are we going to cancel the cocktail party tonight?" "No, we're not going to cancel anything. Why should we cancel the cocktail party?"And the purpose of this is complete fabrication, utterly out of character with Ronald Reagan.

 

GOLDBERG: Exactly.

 

BUCHANAN: putting a lie in his mouth, in order to make the American people, or a generation that never knew him, hate him. Why do - I don't understand why Bill Press and other liberals will not at least say, get the lies out of his mouth.I don't think he was that good a president. But Dennis shouldn't put lies in his mouth.

 

GOLDBERG: I think that decent, open-minded, fair liberals cannot like that. They can't like it any more than conservatives like it.

 

 

Republican National Committee -- CNN. October 31, 2003

 

The Republican National Committee Friday asked CBS to allow a team of historians and friends of former President Ronald Reagan and his wife to review a miniseries about the couple before it airs.

 

Republicans have expressed concern that the miniseries, titled "The Reagans," may inaccurately portray the couple.

 

 

Michael Medved, Scarborough Country, 11/5/2003 (via Lexis)

 

The whole idea of creating a movie about Ronald Reagan without consulting or involving someone like Peggy Noonan. Peggy Noonan was even brought into the "West Wing" to try to give that a little bit of balance. Why not have her -- she was a speechwriter for President Reagan -- consult on the movie? And you could have avoided some of these problems.If you are only going to have one Reagan biography on TV, and they only have had one, then for goodness sake, you do have a responsibility to make it a little bit balanced and not a smear job.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Balta1701

[EvilMonkey]

What? No mention of the fact that the Democrats have issued a vieled threat against ABC's broadcast liscense if they didn't change it?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/se...-threatens.html

 

And before you get started, yes, Republicans were outraged against CBS for unfair portrayals in “The Reagans” and lobbied to get it quashed. Still, they didn’t use the threat of government sanction against a broadcaster exercising its 1st Amendment rights. If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it. They can organize protests and boycotts, letter-writing campaigns and so on. What they cannot do is to threaten a broadcast license for political differences, regardless of the situation. It violates the spirit of free speech and makes the Democrats look like Big Brother.

[Balta1701]

What? No mention of the fact that the Democrats have issued a vieled threat against ABC's broadcast liscense if they didn't change it?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/se...-threatens.html

 

And before you get started, yes, Republicans were outraged against CBS for unfair portrayals in “The Reagans” and lobbied to get it quashed. Still, they didn’t use the threat of government sanction against a broadcaster exercising its 1st Amendment rights. If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it. They can organize protests and boycotts, letter-writing campaigns and so on. What they cannot do is to threaten a broadcast license for political differences, regardless of the situation. It violates the spirit of free speech and makes the Democrats look like Big Brother.

I'll fire this back at you then...CBS could always run "the Reagans" under the excuse that they were running it not as a part of a public interest, but were doing so for profit.

 

The 9/11 thing on ABC is being broadcast commercial-free. With no sponsor. And given away freely online. That's over $40 million going into a pre-election political statement with almost no means for ABC/Disney to recoup its expenses.

 

How would you react if a major network decided to run Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial free 2 months before an Election, offered to distribute the movie freely online, and billed it as based on the facts surrounding 9/11?

[Texsox]

Whoa Whaaaaaat? My opinion is changing . . .

[Rex Kickass]

I'll fire this back at you then...CBS could always run "the Reagans" under the excuse that they were running it not as a part of a public interest, but were doing so for profit.

 

The 9/11 thing on ABC is being broadcast commercial-free. With no sponsor. And given away freely online. That's over $40 million going into a pre-election political statement with almost no means for ABC/Disney to recoup its expenses.

 

How would you react if a major network decided to run Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial free 2 months before an Election, offered to distribute the movie freely online, and billed it as based on the facts surrounding 9/11?

 

Michael Moore tried to have that happen in 2004, remember? No network dared.

[EvilMonkey]

I'll fire this back at you then...CBS could always run "the Reagans" under the excuse that they were running it not as a part of a public interest, but were doing so for profit.

 

The 9/11 thing on ABC is being broadcast commercial-free. With no sponsor. And given away freely online. That's over $40 million going into a pre-election political statement with almost no means for ABC/Disney to recoup its expenses.

 

How would you react if a major network decided to run Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial free 2 months before an Election, offered to distribute the movie freely online, and billed it as based on the facts surrounding 9/11?

How I would react is not the point. Stay on point and quit trying to bring in stray arguments. The point is that the Democrats are trying to extort ABC into changing or nor releasing the movie with the threat of removing thier license. That is just wrong, any way you look at it.

 

So are you suggesting that if they took commercial breaks that it would be ok?

[Rex Kickass]

Actually, its because they tried as much as possible to present this as news - even though its a freakin miniseries. To the point where until yesterday, Scholastic Books was offering curriculum guides based around the freakin docudrama.

[Balta1701]

How I would react is not the point. Stay on point and quit trying to bring in stray arguments. The point is that the Democrats are trying to extort ABC into changing or nor releasing the movie with the threat of removing thier license. That is just wrong, any way you look at it.

 

So are you suggesting that if they took commercial breaks that it would be ok?

It would certianly be better if there were commercial breaks. It would also be better if they were not saying it was "Based on the 9/11 commission report" when it is based on the 9/11 commission report and a bunch of things were inserted that were not part of the 9/11 commission report. It would also be better if there was some means by which the things bashing Democrats and praising Bush in the movie were balanced (hell, they run Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial free also and I shut up). It would certainly be better if they weren't distributing it freely to students through the internet as though it was a 100% factual movie and should be treated as educational material.

 

There's no reason to prevent people from seeing the film. It shouldn't just disappear. The ideal thing would be for it to get the same treatment that "The Reagans" got. It should appear on Cable. Disney is a part owner of A&E...I think that'd be an excellent place for it to run, maybe even a couple times. And put out the DVD's so that people can rent it, buy it, etc.

 

But don't run a one-sided "Mockumentary" on a major network for free right before the election. And especially don't pretend it's educational and historical when its not. And especially don't do so without any balance. And especially don't run it commercial free, to the point where it is literally a campaign contribution.

[Rex Kickass]

I should also add that the AFA (the ones who went hogwild over the Janet Jackson nipple tragedy of 2004) have been pressuring CBS over their 9/11 documentary because there are some bad words used in the DOCUMENTARY.

 

 

 

Since this is within the 60 day window of a federal election, it could conceivably be considered an in-kind political contribution.

 

From today's Variety

"The Path to 9/11" is looking a lot like "The Reagans, Part II."

 

Bill Clinton loyalists are demanding wholesale changes to the upcoming miniseries -- and while ABC is making some snips, the alterations, insiders say, may not please the Dems.

 

But a bombshell decision may happen anyway: Sources close to the project say the network, which has been in a media maelstrom over the pic, is mulling the idea of yanking the mini altogether...

[NorthSideSox72]

Wow. Amazing the amount of slime coming off people involved with this movie. To run a drama series commercial free and marketed in every way as fact, well, that's just spineless and negligent. To try to use the government to prevent them from running it isn't much better, even if it were in response.

 

If this thing were running as a normal commercial program, and wasn't being called "based on the 9/11 commision report", I'd be perfectly fine with it. Fiction and all.

 

 

You know, the more and more this sits with me, the timing with the elections and running it commercial-free... this is really, really slimy. WAY worse than running a possibly disparaging documentary about a President from the 80's. I have to say this is absolutely an in-kind contribution, and it is making me really angry.

 

Damn liberal MSM.

[Goldmember]

so when some of you see a movie that says 'based on a true story,' do you think that is exactly how those events happened?

[EvilMonkey]

so when some of you see a movie that says 'based on a true story,' do you think that is exactly how those events happened?

I was just gonna say that. Beat me to the punch!

[Balta1701]

so when some of you see a movie that says 'based on a true story,' do you think that is exactly how those events happened?

Is "Based on a true story" the same thing as saying "Based on the 9/11 commission report"? I think the latter convey far more weight in terms of saying it follows specific details, because of what it is claiming to be based on.

 

Secondly, do you think that a film about 9/11 should be held to a higher standard than your usual movie of the week? Is 9/11 more important than Scott Peterson, for example?

 

Furthermore, Fox News reported that the producers of the movie told them it was based "solely and completely on the 9/11 Commission Report.”, which is some pretty specific language being peddled by that network.

[NorthSideSox72]

so when some of you see a movie that says 'based on a true story,' do you think that is exactly how those events happened?

1. There is a difference between what an educated, analytical, politically savvy person takes from that, and what most other people take from it. I realize that sounds harsh, but it is true.

 

2. When its presented as "based on a government report of 9/11" and is run commercial-free in Prime Time, its projected as news. I may know it to contain falsehoods, so may others. But many will take it as fact. That is not the same as some Lifetime movie.

[Goldmember]

Is "Based on a true story" the same thing as saying "Based on the 9/11 commission report"? I think the latter convey far more weight in terms of saying it follows specific details, because of what it is claiming to be based on.

 

if the true story lists its source(s), yes.

 

Secondly, do you think that a film about 9/11 should be held to a higher standard than your usual movie of the week? Is 9/11 more important than Scott Peterson, for example?

 

it should be held to the same standard as other historical event movies, all of such genre should definitely be held to a higher standard then all the scott peterson-esque movies. all are still movies, however, and people know (at least they should) liberties will be taken.

 

Furthermore, Fox News reported that the producers of the movie told them it was based "solely and completely on the 9/11 Commission Report.”, which is some pretty specific language being peddled by that network.

 

haven't heard that (all i've seen are the commercials--'based on 9-11 commision report') and frankly don't care, because 1) i won't be watching, no matter what and 2) like a pointed out above, it is a dramatization and liberties will be (and in some instances, have to be) taken...

[Cknolls]

It would certianly be better if there were commercial breaks. It would also be better if they were not saying it was "Based on the 9/11 commission report" when it is based on the 9/11 commission report and a bunch of things were inserted that were not part of the 9/11 commission report. It would also be better if there was some means by which the things bashing Democrats and praising Bush in the movie were balanced (hell, they run Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial free also and I shut up). It would certainly be better if they weren't distributing it freely to students through the internet as though it was a 100% factual movie and should be treated as educational material.

 

There's no reason to prevent people from seeing the film. It shouldn't just disappear. The ideal thing would be for it to get the same treatment that "The Reagans" got. It should appear on Cable. Disney is a part owner of A&E...I think that'd be an excellent place for it to run, maybe even a couple times. And put out the DVD's so that people can rent it, buy it, etc.

 

But don't run a one-sided "Mockumentary" on a major network for free right before the election. And especially don't pretend it's educational and historical when its not. And especially don't do so without any balance. And especially don't run it commercial free, to the point where it is literally a campaign contribution.

 

 

LMAO. you are calling for balance. F ing hysterical. Have you seen the movie? How do you know it praises the Bushies. From what I hear it rips both admins, especially Condi for transferring Clarke to another position.

[Balta1701]

it should be held to the same standard as other historical event movies, all of such genre should definitely be held to a higher standard then all the scott peterson-esque movies. all are still movies, however, and people know (at least they should) liberties will be taken.

haven't heard that (all i've seen are the commercials--'based on 9-11 commision report') and frankly don't care, because 1) i won't be watching, no matter what and 2) like a pointed out above, it is a dramatization and liberties will be (and in some instances, have to be) taken...

Yes, I'm willing to admit that a film such as this is a dramatization and liberties can and will be taken just to put something like this on film. But the scenes that are causing so much controversy are ones which are clearly beyond the bounds of what anyone would consider to be liberties taken to put the story on film...they are liberties taken to clearly make the story seem worse for the Clintons and better for the Bushes.

 

The most infamous is a scene where CIA operatives are on the phone with Sandy Berger saying that they have Bin Laden targeted and asking permission to take him out, where Berger says no and slams down the phone. ABC responded by explaining that the slamming down of the phone was a liberty they took. Only problem was...according to all sources, that entire event never happened. The U.S. never was even able to get people within Afghanistan, let alone have Bin Laden directly targeted as is predicted. Angrily slamming the phone down, yeah that's a liberty I can understand. Inventing an entire scene like that one?

 

Some of the other stuff they've invented, according to people who have seen the film, involve Dr. Rice going around and telling everyone how concerned Mr. Bush was about the August 6th PDB, the "Bin Laden determined to attack inside U.S." one. Even according to Dr. Rice's own testimony before the 911 commission, the memo was supposed to be "Purely historical", and thus it provoked almost no response from the Bush administration.

 

Heck, an FBI Agent who reportedly was working with the production of the film quit half-way throguh it because they were "Making stuff up".

 

This is not taking liberties to get the thing to look better on film. This is deliberately retelling the story in such a way as to make one party look as good as possible and the other look as bad as possible.

[NorthSideSox72]

I've seen the scene where they falsely protray that Clinton put a stop to killing Osama who was in their sights. 9/11 commission called BS on that story. The one time they could have gotten him, they tried - and failed.

 

BTW, I do actually agree that the Clinton admin should take some blame for 9/11. not a lot, but some. I just hate to see this sort of drama being marketed as fact.

[Balta1701]

I've seen the scene where they falsely protray that Clinton put a stop to killing Osama who was in their sights. 9/11 commission called BS on that story. The one time they could have gotten him, they tried - and failed.

 

BTW, I do actually agree that the Clinton admin should take some blame for 9/11. not a lot, but some. I just hate to see this sort of drama being marketed as fact.

Oh, his administration definately takes some blame. They could have acted on the Cole faster (the CIA was almost convinced by Dec 00 that Bin Laden's group was responsible, but they were nervous about another Sudan-type strike, especially right before Bush's people took over). They could have put significantly more effort at disrupting or attacking Bin Laden's organization in the late 90's. They could have accepted higher rates of civilian casualties than they were willing to risk to get UBL. The President could have used more of the bully pulpit to put the focus on UBL's group, no matter how many times the Republicans cried "Wag the Dog." They could have conducted more thorough analyses of airport security, especially after the McVeigh attack...i mean, for crying out loud, knives were freaking legal on planes then! They could have put resources and money into trying to build a stable state in Afghanistan before the Taliban took over. And so on, and so on, and so on.

 

In a disaster as big as 9/11, there's an absolute ton of blame that can be put around. The Clinton's get plenty. The Bush's get plenty. The problem of course is this movie takes all of the blame that the Clinton administration gets, tries to find every way possible to multiply that blame, and then excuses the Bush's.

[mr_genius]

haha, this is great

 

one miniseries that might make the democrats look bad might actually sneak on TV and all the left wingers are going nuts.

[Balta1701]

haha, this is great

 

one miniseries that might make the democrats look bad might actually sneak on TV and all the left wingers are going nuts.

Because the political right wing would never do such a thing...

 

Oh wait.

[Rex Kickass]

Here's the "veiled threat" from Senator Reid and a few others.

 

Mr. Robert A. Iger

 

President and CEO

 

The Walt Disney Company

 

500 South Buena Vista Street

 

Burbank CA 91521

 

Dear Mr. Iger,

 

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

 

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. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

 

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

 

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

 

Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

 

# Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

 

# Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

 

# Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

 

# Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

 

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

 

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

 

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

 

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

 

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. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

 

Sincerely,

 

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

 

Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin

 

Senator Debbie Stabenow

 

Senator Charles Schumer

 

Senator Byron Dorgan