Clinton & former administration officials question 9-11 miniseries

[mr_genius]

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

 

Oh wait.

 

well, there have been entire series (aka, west wing) that portray demcrats in a very positive light. i would think they would be fairly happy with the ratio of pro-democrat television to criticism of democrats shown on network television.

 

did you think the Reagan miniseries should have been moved to showtime? or did you think it was censorship.

[Balta1701]

well, there have been entire series (aka, west wing) that portray demcrats in a very positive light. i would think they would be fairly happy with the ratio of pro-democrat television to criticism of democrats shown on network television.

 

did you think the Reagan miniseries should have been moved to showtime? or did you think it was censorship.

I think it belonged on Showtime. Seriously, who thinks it's a good idea to put Barbara Streisand's husband in a picture about Ronald Reagan while he's suffering from Alzheimer's? That sure didn't belong on network/free TV.

[Rex Kickass]

Id didn't belong there, because it was terrible.

 

I have no problem with this program being broadcast. I have a problem with marketing it as "news-like," which is exactly what they're doing.

 

Fox News' Chris Wallace on the subject on Fox and Friends today:

 

But when you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.—it better be what she said or I think she has a heck of a case…

 

Bill "Abortions cure Crime" Bennett on the subject on CNN today:

 

Well, maybe having been a cabinet member you know you have some heightened concern about being quoted accurately and correctly. Look, “The Path to 9/11″ is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.

 

Conservatives have to be consistent Soledad, when the Reagan’s that show about the Reagan’s, CBS show came out, had all sorts of distortions and misstatements. Conservatives went crazy and had it relegated somewhere, I don’t know, it never appeared on CBS. And so I think they should be consistent. And when ABC comes out and has conversations taking place among cabinet members on recent history, on matters that are still before us, I think they should correct those inaccuracies.

 

Historian Arthur Schlessinger

 

Dear Robert Iger:

 

We write as professional historians, who are deeply concerned by the continuing reports about ABC's scheduled broadcast of "The Path to 9/11." These reports document that this drama contains numerous flagrant falsehoods about critical events in recent American history. The key participants and eyewitnesses to these events state that the script distorts and even fabricates evidence into order to mislead viewers about the responsibility of numerous American officials for allegedly ignoring the terrorist threat before 2000.

 

The claim by the show's producers, broadcaster, and defenders, that these falsehoods are permissible because the show is merely a dramatization, is disingenuous and dangerous given their assertions that the show is also based on authoritative historical evidence. Whatever ABC's motivations might be, broadcasting these falsehoods, connected to the most traumatic historical event of our times, would be a gross disservice to the public. A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the falsification of history, except to expose it. We strongly urge you to halt the show's broadcast and prevent misinforming Americans about their history.

 

Sincerely,

Arthur Schlesinger

Sean Wilentz, Princeton University

Michael Kazin, Georgetown University

Lizbeth Cohen, Harvard University,

Nicholas Salvatore, Cornell University;

Ted Widmer, Washington College;

Rick Perlstein, Independent Scholar;

David Blight, Yale University;

Eric Alterman, City University of New York.

[Balta1701]

When's the next time the Mickey Mouse copyright law comes up for renewal? I'm hoping it's soon enough that the Democrats remember this.

 

Two retired F.B.I. agents said today that they had rejected advisory roles on the disputed ABC mini-series, “The Path to 9/11,” because of concerns about the program’s accuracy.

 

One of the agents, Thomas E. Nicoletti, was hired by the producers of the mini-series in July 2005 to oversee its technical accuracy, but left after less than a month because of scenes he believed were misleading or just false.

 

“There were some of the scenes that were total fiction,” said Mr. Nicoletti, who served as a supervisory special agent and a member of the joint terrorism task force before retiring in 2003. “I told them unless they were changing this, I could not have my name associated with it.”

 

Chief among Mr. Nicoletti’s concerns were scenes that placed people at places they had not been present at and scenes that depicted events that were out of chronological order.

 

“There were so many inaccuracies,” he said.

 

Mr. Nicoletti said he asked the producers to make changes, but was rebuffed. “I’m well aware of what’s dramatic license and what’s historical inaccuracy,” Mr. Nicoletti said. “And this had a lot of historical inaccuracy.”

...

 

Dan Coleman, who retired from the F.B.I. in 2004, said he also was concerned when he read the script last summer after being approached by producers about being a technical advisor.

 

“They sent me the script, and I read it and told them they had to be kidding,” Mr. Coleman said. “I wanted my friends at the F.B.I. to still speak to me.”

 

Mr. Coleman said his concerns mainly dealt with the depiction of law enforcement officers, particularly John O’Neill, an F.B.I. counterterrorism expert who died in the attacks. “I’m Irish and I believe in ghosts,” he said. “I don’t want to be haunted.” He said he passed on the job.

 

But Terry Carney, another former F.B.I. agent, took the position, which he said had more to do with correcting the look and demeanor of agents, not the facts of the investigation.

 

“I was never asked to comment on historical accuracy,” Mr. Carney said. “That wasn’t my role.”

2 FBI guys resign because of the historical problems...so when they find a 3rd, they don't ask him to pay any attention to that part.

[EvilMonkey]

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

And after reading that, did you NOT see a threat?

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.

Even you are not blind enough to miss the subtlty there. "Gee, what a nice network you have. It would be a shame if something happened to it" Almost like this came from the Sopranos. And this isn't the first time the Dems have threatened people with revocation of licenses. Remember Sinclair Broadcasting? Sinclair Broadcasting owns 62 local TV stations around the country. It planned to air Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal on about 40 of them in October 2004. That would be right before the presidential election. But the Kerry campaign got wind of it and threatened Sinclair that its licenses might be in jeopardy if it aired the doc and Kerry happened to win.

 

Words from the Dems on the Regan movie.

"No, there are no First Amendment violations here. The RNC protested the content of a program, which is its right, and CBS voluntarily pulled that program off the air, which is its right. But the decision makes it very easy to imagine a future where representatives for the Bush administration have the power to disapprove of any content that touches politics, policy, or history — including news programs."

Hmm. Seems like the word Bush should be replaced with Clinton?

 

 

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.”

This the Same Jamie Gorelick that was instrumental in creating that so-called wall between the FBI & CIA that helped to contribute to this mess? I wonder if she wants that part changed, too?

 

You can argue about the timing all you want. I won't disagree, it seems a little odd. You can argue facts all you want, but it doesn't say 'a true story'. If people are too stupid to realize that, oh well. But you can't argue that threatening to revoke a license for political programming you disagree with is a good thing. Maybe Bush should have tried to yank CBS's license after Rathergate, and the 'fake but accurate' documents.

[Rex Kickass]

And after reading that, did you NOT see a threat? Even you are not blind enough to miss the subtlty there. "Gee, what a nice network you have. It would be a shame if something happened to it" Almost like this came from the Sopranos. And this isn't the first time the Dems have threatened people with revocation of licenses. Remember Sinclair Broadcasting? Sinclair Broadcasting owns 62 local TV stations around the country. It planned to air Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal on about 40 of them in October 2004. That would be right before the presidential election. But the Kerry campaign got wind of it and threatened Sinclair that its licenses might be in jeopardy if it aired the doc and Kerry happened to win.

 

You can argue about the timing all you want. I won't disagree, it seems a little odd. You can argue facts all you want, but it doesn't say 'a true story'. If people are too stupid to realize that, oh well. But you can't argue that threatening to revoke a license for political programming you disagree with is a good thing. Maybe Bush should have tried to yank CBS's license after Rathergate, and the 'fake but accurate' documents.

 

First, I don't see a threat here. I see a reminder - which networks seem to get all too rarely - that the bandwidth that they utilize every day does not belong to them but to everyone. A threat to someone's license is more along the lines of what you saw with nipplegate, not the Reagans and not this letter.

 

However, an argument may be made (and knowing slim to nothing about political advertising before an election - I don't know) that this special docudrama, because of the way it has been marketed may be an in-kind political contribution and possibly in violation of FCC/FEC guidelines towards political advertising within an election window.

[EvilMonkey]

First, I don't see a threat here. I see a reminder - which networks seem to get all too rarely - that the bandwidth that they utilize every day does not belong to them but to everyone. A threat to someone's license is more along the lines of what you saw with nipplegate, not the Reagans and not this letter.

 

However, an argument may be made (and knowing slim to nothing about political advertising before an election - I don't know) that this special docudrama, because of the way it has been marketed may be an in-kind political contribution and possibly in violation of FCC/FEC guidelines towards political advertising within an election window.

You should change your name to ostrich if you can't see that, since your head is obviously buried somewhere.

[Texsox]

You should change your name to ostrich if you can't see that, since your head is obviously buried somewhere.

 

Evil, as much as I like to report on government abusing their positions, I'm siding with Rex on this one. I think it was a reminder that they have a public trust that has to be upeld. Likewise, I would support the network stating that it is a public trust and that is why they are airing it commercial free and making it available for schools. IN other words, both can make the same statement to back their position.

 

Now, I wonder how much of the point counterpoint on what is accurate and what isn't, is based on politics.

[EvilMonkey]

Evil, as much as I like to report on government abusing their positions, I'm siding with Rex on this one. I think it was a reminder that they have a public trust that has to be upeld. Likewise, I would support the network stating that it is a public trust and that is why they are airing it commercial free and making it available for schools. IN other words, both can make the same statement to back their position.

 

Now, I wonder how much of the point counterpoint on what is accurate and what isn't, is based on politics.

Tex, I make no claims on its accuracy. I haven't seen it, and based on reports that appear even on 'conservative' blogs, there are some 'fake, but accurate' moments in it. But this IS a threat to change, or else.

[Texsox]

Tex, I make no claims on its accuracy. I haven't seen it, and based on reports that appear even on 'conservative' blogs, there are some 'fake, but accurate' moments in it. But this IS a threat to change, or else.

 

IF the evidence shows serious mistakes in the show, and they are in effect trying to create their own history, then perhaps they should realize what the penalties would be. I can't explain it clearly but we all know this will probably be the version of history that everyone will remember. What they air, will become in our collective concious the "truth". Especially when it airs without commercials and is available for free. This isn't some made for tv movie, this is something more, something biggerl; at least that's going to be the feeling left behind.

 

It's a strange twist, the government is going to the people (re: ABC) and telling them not to abuse the public trust, yet ABC is the public. So the whole thing is twisted.

[Rex Kickass]

Tex, I make no claims on its accuracy. I haven't seen it, and based on reports that appear even on 'conservative' blogs, there are some 'fake, but accurate' moments in it. But this IS a threat to change, or else.

 

"Fake but accurate?" What is this, Fox News?

[EvilMonkey]

"Fake but accurate?" What is this, CBS & Dan Rather News?

I fixed that for you, Rex.

[Rex Kickass]

No problem.

 

BTW: ABC will be wrapping its miniseries conclusion around a 15 minute live prime time presidential address.

[kapkomet]

It amazes me how the Democrats are all in a panty-wad tight uproar about this. From what I hear, there's plenty of blame to go around, on all accounts, but the 20 miuutes of "Clinton blame" is JUST too much!!! OMG!!@#$!%!!!!!

[NorthSideSox72]

It amazes me how the Democrats are all in a panty-wad tight uproar about this. From what I hear, there's plenty of blame to go around, on all accounts, but the 20 miuutes of "Clinton blame" is JUST too much!!! OMG!!@#$!%!!!!!

You don't actually think that is what is upsetting, do you? I could give two craps about Clinton's legacy. The point is that it is being marketed as a documentary, with some connotation of truth, when it is apparently nothing more than a political scheme. Its slimy as hell. That is what bothers me.

 

Put commercials with it, and change "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" to something like "suggested by...", and I'm fine with it. Its still slimey, but at least it isn't an out and out use of public broadcast time to gain a political end.

[southsider2k5]

Too bad this wasn't a college professors movie, it would have been OK then...

[Balta1701]

You don't actually think that is what is upsetting, do you? I could give two craps about Clinton's legacy. The point is that it is being marketed as a documentary, with some connotation of truth, when it is apparently nothing more than a political scheme. Its slimy as hell. That is what bothers me.

 

Put commercials with it, and change "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" to something like "suggested by...", and I'm fine with it. Its still slimey, but at least it isn't an out and out use of public broadcast time to gain a political end.

"The Story of Exactly What happened" = Disney's marketing slogan for this overseas.

[Balta1701]

It amazes me how the Democrats are all in a panty-wad tight uproar about this. From what I hear, there's plenty of blame to go around, on all accounts, but the 20 miuutes of "Clinton blame" is JUST too much!!! OMG!!@#$!%!!!!!

At least based on every one of the reviews I've read, it sure seems like there's well more than jsut 20 minutes of Clinton Blame, not to mention the "making Bush look slightly better" that I mentionned earlier. For example, the "Berger hanging up on CIA guys wanting to kill Bin Laden" happens at only about 2 hours into the movie, so it's not like it's just stuck in there at the end, it's the end of a whole segment. And the film goes to a lot of effort to link the Lewinsky scandal to 9/11 afterwards, and so on.

 

LA Times Review

But something strange starts happening around hour three of the miniseries, when the film none-too-subtly suggests that then-President Clinton was too busy dropping his trousers and later struggling not to lose his shirt in impeachment hearings to pay much attention to what was going on in the world, terrorism-wise. The film shows real news footage of Clinton's denials of "sexual relations ... with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" in 1998 while O'Neill and other CIA and FBI agents were desperately scrambling to find Bin Laden and thwart more attacks.

 

And then the partisan politics begin to emerge in the script — big time.

 

According to "The Path," the Clinton administration was too concerned with such trifles as respecting international laws and treaties, protecting civil liberties, following diplomatic protocol, displaying cultural sensitivity and pursuing larger goals (like Mideast peace) to bring down the bad guys.

Washington Post Review

Clinton himself is libeled through abusive editing. A first-class U.S. operative played by Donnie Wahlberg argues the case for getting bin Laden while the al-Qaeda leader is openly in view in some sort of compound in Afghanistan. CIA officials haggle over minor details, such as the budget for the operation. The film's director, David L. Cunningham, then cuts abruptly to a TV image of Clinton making his infamous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" remark with regard to Monica Lewinsky. The impression given is that Clinton was spending time on his sex life while terrorists were gaining ground and planning a nightmare.

 

It would have made as much sense, and perhaps more, to cut instead to stock footage of a smirking Kenneth Starr, the reckless Republican prosecutor largely responsible for distracting not just the president but the entire nation with the scandal.

The film was focused enough to even convince the NYT's reviewer (damn liberal media!) of a complete falsehood.

From the New York Times review of Path to 9/11:

 

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

What the 9/11 Commission actually says (pg. 118):

 

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

This is not just a side 20 minutes in the film. This is a significant fraction of it.

 

And again, you ask why Democrats have their panties in a wad about this? I'll respond again...how would you like it if on the anniversary of 9/11, CBS decided to show a 2 day, commercial free marathon of Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, in the middle of an election season? And then marketed this marathon by giving advance warning of weeks, and advance previews of some sort, only to left leaning columnists, radio personalities, and bloggers? And then marketed it as the truth about gun control and 9/11?

Edited September 10, 2006 by Balta1701

[Balta1701]

Linkity

 

John Beug, the widowed husband of Carolyn Beug, a former vice president at Walt Disney Records who was on the plane that slammed into 1 World Trade Center, has written a letter to ABC chief Bob Iger pleading with him not to run the film. A source provided us with a copy of the letter.

 

It reads, in part: "I am writing to express my concern and deep reservations about this film and to ask you, out of respect for the victims of 9/11 and their families, not to air it...I strongly and respectfully urge you not to air this film."

 

Reached by phone, Mr. Beug confirmed the letter was his and verified its accuracy. "I think it's unfortunate that people are sensationalizing the story for whatever reason they're doing it," Mr. Beug said. "It shouldn't be politicized." Soon after her death, Carolyn Beug was described by U.S.A. Today as a "former Walt Disney Records executive" who "won acclaim for her work on the Pocahontas film soundtrack."

The full text of the letter is at the link.

[juddling]

I heard on the radio the other day some clips of Harvey Kietel who played in the movie saying things like "I always thought this movie was wrong" and " I had a feeling this wasn't right". Gee.....i guess it didn't stop Harvey from cashing the checks now did it??????

[Balta1701]

I heard on the radio the other day some clips of Harvey Kietel who played in the movie saying things like "I always thought this movie was wrong" and " I had a feeling this wasn't right". Gee.....i guess it didn't stop Harvey from cashing the checks now did it??????

Harvey Keitel = Disney Corp? (And keep in mind, Disney seems to have invested $40 million with zero immediate return, clearly expecting a return somewhere along the line)

[kapkomet]

It cracks me up how the focus on my last post was '20 minutes' and I see 200 links refuting it. OF COURSE Clinton was worried about covering up a blow job. But none of that matter now.

 

Southsider hit it on the head, though... Michael Moore is a f***ing celebrity, but now ABC is nothing short of political hacks. Amazing the double standard.

[Flash Tizzle]

Jesus Christ.

 

Who gives a f***?

 

If the American people are that impressionable, as to believe a miniseries which has basically been labeled as fictional for over a week, than the Democrats should do themselves a service and create some sort of rebuttal.

 

Even if they were willing to believe it, are Americans somehow supposed to associate Clinton's indifference with future democratic candidates?

 

Stop whining.

[NorthSideSox72]

Southsider hit it on the head, though... Michael Moore is a f***ing celebrity, but now ABC is nothing short of political hacks. Amazing the double standard.

 

Look through the thread. You'll see people EQUATING Moore with ABC. That is the opposite of a double standard.

[Balta1701]

Jesus Christ.

 

Who gives a f***?

 

If the American people are that impressionable, as to believe a miniseries which has basically been labeled as fictional for over a week, than the Democrats should do themselves a service and create some sort of rebuttal.

 

Even if they were willing to believe it, are Americans somehow supposed to associate Clinton's indifference with future democratic candidates?

 

Stop whining.

Um, one question...can you tell me the last name of the person who is currently the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 2008?