Objections to Upcoming ABC 9/11 Program

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Sep 8, 2006.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  2. tonyexpress

    tonyexpress Whac-A-Troll Patrol Staff Member

    Where's the ACLU now? FREEDOM OF SPEACH !:thumbup1:

    You didn't see the other side complaining like this about Michael Moore's movie.

    What a joke, the Dems must really have something to hide to react like this.
  3. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Dems. reaction WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

    Cry Babies !

  4. Slothrop

    Slothrop Member

    Think Progress Conservatives On The Path to 9/11: ‘Unacceptable,’ ‘Defamatory,’ ‘Strewn With A Lot of Problems,’ ‘Zero Factual Basis’

    The criticism against ABC’s docudrama The Path to 9/11 isn’t isolated simply to Clinton aides. In fact, many conservatives have criticized the film. Here are a few examples –
    John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor:
    The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint. [NYPost, 9/8/06]
    James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor:
    The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.” [OpinionJournal, 9/7/06]
    Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog:
    One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so. [Hugh Hewitt blog, 9/6/06]
    Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:
    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. [Fox, 9/8/06]
    Captain’s Quarters blog:
    If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point. [Captain Quarter’s blog, 9/7/06]
    Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:
    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. [CNN, 9/8/06]
    Seth Liebsohn, Claremont Institute fellow and produce of Bill Bennett’s radio show:
    I oppose this miniseries as well if it is fiction dressed up as fact, creates caricatures of real persons and events that are inaccurate, and inserts quotes that were not uttered, especially to make a point that was not intended. [Glenn Greewald’s blog, 9/7/06]
    Richard Miniter, conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror”:
    If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that. [CNN, 9/7/06]
    Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center:
    I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes, important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit them, I think they should edit them. [MSNBC, 9/6/06]
    Bill O’Reilly, Fox News pundit:
    Ok, we’re talking about the run up to 9-11 and this movie that they’re re-cutting now and they should because it puts words in the mouth of real people, actors playing real people that they didn’t say and its wrong. [O’Reilly radio show, 9/8/06]
  5. Slothrop

    Slothrop Member

    Slander is not feeedom of speech.
  6. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    First off, if ABC or any media entity is going to use a real event and the names of real people involved, especially on a touchy subject as this, then it should use the real facts. If they want to add in elements that either didn't happen or may not have happened, or at best what is one person's conjecture then at the very least do not use the real names of the persons involved. Tons of movies are fictionalized accounts of true events where names of person and places are changed but you still get the gist of what happened.

    To be honest I'd heard a little of this brew-ha but wasn't sure what the uproar was about until yesterday when the whole thing as it relates to my world broke open. It was being discussed everywhere including several conversations I heard others having at work. Most arguments drew along political lines because of the persons in the film are involved. Same would appear to be the case here to some degree or that's how I see it. As for me I have no plans on watching this movie because come Monday night I'm working anyway and tomorrow night I'm likely watching Wind Tunnel on Speed as I happen to believe this to be of more value than watching this movie.

    I also think ABC/Disney is just trying to corner the viewer market for the next 2 nights with this movie and thus all the hype that swirls around it. Privately they have to be smiling and in fact I would think Pres. Clinton and others with him would be too. Reason for that is ABC got a huge media blitz from this and now it appears the piece may in fact be editted to remove the offending sections thus giving some appearance of exoneration to the Clinton folks. Even if left in, it so known now to be a work of fiction that any viewer with no political axe to bare can only come away thinking there is no real evidence against Clinton and Co. so stuff had to be made up to fill the movie up. No matter what they still come out winners the way I see it.

    Although from a political perspective I can appreciate Mr. Reed's position, what does bother me is the 2nd paragraph concerning the 1934 Federal Communications Act in what I read is a slightly veiled threat. Personally I don't think the Federal gov't has any business regulating or licensing the airwaves but I also understand I'm more than likely the only one here who holds this type of view. That said, I also have grave concerns when I see a public official, even though on his point of order he is correct, throwing around the weight of his power to influence a vital and important check and balance in a system that has very little check and balance left.

  7. Slothrop

    Slothrop Member

    Interesting response to Sen. Reid from a Disney employee:
    Daily Kos: Brief Open Letter to Sen. Harry Reid

    Oh, and mac, no gov't regulation of the airwaves? Really? Whoever has the most powerful transmitter decides what we watch and listen to? No thanks!
  8. aaaaa

    aaaaa Guest

    Is the truth not interesting enough? Why a docudrama? I can not believe that they are not telling the truth about the events leading up to one of the most important events in our recent history. If they fail to get this right, I also think it also says something about ABC's news division.
  9. rushfan

    rushfan Well-Known Member

    Being an Independent Conservative, I have these thoughts:

    "Slander is not freedom of speech"? What, it happens every day. dingy harry reid, turbin durbin, and many others slander and defame the military. Republicrats do the same to the Demicans every day. Everybody slanders each other on tv, radio, and fishwrap media outlets.

    Sure the Republicans made a big deal about the Reagan film. However, did they go the extreme with senators threatening ABC the revocation of their broadcast license. Stating they have the responsibility of being responsible for the truth-when ABC news is part of the old news bias.

    Were lawyers used threatening a network with the Reagan film?

    True, if the ACLU stands for free speech, where are they on this issue?

    What needs to be answered, What was done to go after the terriorist bastards who did the first WTC attack? What was done when the bastards when they attacked the USS Cole? What about that hole in the earth Somalia. Let's just forget that it ever happened No one had balls then, and imho, still don't who ran and are running the Defense Department.

    We are being too "nice" to these people who still live in the early centuries of civilization, and want to kill the infidel. If someone doesn't like me, I don't need to "understand" them.

    The 911 commission was a damn joke. I blame both Demicans and Republicrats for that. That's congress for you.

    Why did Sandy Burglar...er Sandy Berglar steal documents from the National Archives in his underware? No one investigated what the documents were. Bush was stupid to pardon him.

    What is going on, some in the government are threatening censorship. That's one of the reasons why my ancestors fled Europe. If it doesn't go along with their idealogical ideas, it needs to be censored.

    IMHO: The dems are freaking out over nothing. Yep, in the back rooms, Clinton is loving this free publicity. The whole thing is for publicity, and money. ABC's ratings will be high, as this thing will cause people to be curious and watch it.

    I'm going to watch football.

    One last thing, then I'll shut up.
    We wouldn't have the terriorist problem, and We would be done in Iraq if we had generals like this famous general:

    "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
    He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
    General George Patton Jr

    We need more Patton leather than Patent leather!

    God bless America!
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2006
  10. tonyexpress

    tonyexpress Whac-A-Troll Patrol Staff Member

    I couldn't have responded better to this than rushfan already has:thumbup1:

    “The Path to 9/11” isn’t a documentary; it’s a docu-drama. Part of the idea of fictionalizing historical events is to tell a story, to get at a deeper truth than a documentary could. After all those Oliver Stone movies—not to mention dozens of “reality” TV shows—viewers know the difference between real history and an entertainment that uses history as its subject. If the Reagans can survive the snarky look at their relationship posited by the mini-series “The Reagans,” certainly Clinton can survive “The Path to 9/11,” too. This isn’t a history lesson. It’s a television show.

    ABC's 9/11 Docudrama: When Do the Facts Matter? - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

    If the worst criticism of President Bush is that he lied to us about Iraq, then we just got a whopping reminder of Bill Clinton's extraordinary talents for deception.

    If they weren't describing the Clinton administration, then who?
    A full reading of the report makes clear that the Clinton administration understood the seriousness of the Bin Laden threat, but failed to act decisively. In this, when ABC said "general indecisiveness" allowed the 9/11 attacks, it was correct to include the Clinton administration.
    And why the indecisiveness? Rack it up to the idea that he need to prosecute, not kill, terrorists; that someone who has literally declared war on us should be tried with all the rights of American citizens. Maybe we should have tried negotiations instead.

    RealClearPolitics - Articles - Clinton's Artless Equivocation on 'The Path to 9/11'

    "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
    He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
    General George Patton Jr

    We need more Patton leather than Patent leather!

    God bless America!

    Nicely said rushfan.:cool:
  11. Slothrop

    Slothrop Member

    Rush & Tony,

    The events that led to that day are too important to rewrite for the sake of entertainment.
  12. tonyexpress

    tonyexpress Whac-A-Troll Patrol Staff Member

    You're certainly entitled to your opinion.:cool:

    By the way I find the choice of a Mohammed Atta avatar totally disgraceful and without feeling for those who lost their lives on 9/11.

    It's interesting that you state that the subject matter is too important to portray in a docu-drama, yet you choose to mock the victims of 9/11 by using the Mohammed Atta avatar.:sad:
  13. Slothrop

    Slothrop Member


    Disney has chosen to mock the victims, not me. Why does the most important event of this century have to be fictionalized?

    By the way, I find yours and Rush's potrayal of our military leaders as 'patent leather' both disrepectful and uncalled for.

    Perhaps you desire that the generals don't follow the orders of their superiors?

    I'd be more than happy to intelligently debate the subject with you, if you feel confident enough of your beliefs.
  14. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    slopthro......oops, damn that dyslexia! slothrop...

    So don't watch the program. For the REAL account, watch CNN on 9-11 and they are running the actual footage as received and reported that day. Actual pictures are worth a 1000 words.

    There will be plenty of programs on the subject........even that Flight 93 movie had to be fictionalized a bit because all eye witnesses from inside the plane perished. We can only surmise what actually was said and what actions were taken and by whom.
  15. Slothrop

    Slothrop Member

    Name calling? That's the best you can do?

    The rest of your message deserves no response.
  16. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Anybody here watch the 2 part series and what did ya think? I didn't watch it myself but would be interested to see what others thought who did!
  17. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    I taped both parts and plan on watching tonight. I heard the 2nd night there was only 13 mil. viewers. For all the fuss made prior, kind of a non-event. I'll let you know what I think.
  18. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    wkmac... OK, I just watched 5 straight hours of that movie. The first 30 mins. or so I was so lost, but after that, I couldn't stop watching.

    Just as a movie, I thought it was very good. I really don't know what parts were actually fictionalized. As far as the leadership goes, I don't care if it's Rep. or Dem., there is bureaucratic B.S. that bogs down the works.

    We had a good informant in Massoud. I wish they would've gotten UBL when he was in our sights. I could barely tell the players without a program.....just about everyone was Muhammed something or other.

    What we really need is Harvey Keitel for president.

    I was happy to see a couple of very observant women guards foil a couple of plots. However, the ambassador of Yemen was definitely PMS'ing. Also, how was the ABC newsman able to get so up close & personal with all these thugs?
    I wish someone would've ignored "red tape" and pulled the trigger on UBL.
    From the beginning, AlQueda was hellbent on bringing those towers down......from that Ramsi Yousef to the 9-11 terrorists.
    It seems many of the mistakes have been or are being addressed. The info. sharing between the different agencies is important. Even down to showing picture ID's....one of the hi-jackers didn't even have a picture ID and they let him on the plane.
    I think profiling is absolutely necessary and the hell with political correctness. (the ACLU can just pout about that!) If they fit the profile, open their computers, their briefcases, whatever you have to do in order to check them out thoroughly.
    Anyway....good movie. I really don't see what the uproar was all about. Mistakes were made and hopefully we learn from them.

    I absolutely hated the middle eastern music......I'd choose rap over that ear piercing sound......and I hate rap! Sorry if I rambled......it's late and I'm tired.
  19. Slothrop

    Slothrop Member

    The previous poster demonstrates what was wrong with the Disney/ABC TV show.

    The poster admits that they had no idea what was true or false to begin with, and the points out some of the things they found disturbing. Every one of the things they pointed out NEVER HAPPENED.

    BTW, you don't need ID to travel domestically, at least not yet. See this for an interesting account:
    How to fly without ID!

    As one more point, the 4th & 14th Amendments make it illegal to profile based on race. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court more than once.
  20. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Everytime I fly I am required to show my picture I.D. It's usually a couple times a year and to Hawaii. I have to show it 2 or 3 separate times. That's just my experience.

    I still feel that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. it probably is a duck. Check it out thoroughly!! I don't give a flying crap what the Supreme Court says. I don't believe in protection for "insane radical nuts".