The Path to 9/11

[Bob Hayes]

On September 10th and 11th, ABC is planning to air a "docu-drama" called "Path to 9/11," which is being billed as "an objective telling of the events of 9/11." In fact, the film was written by an unabashed conservative who twists the facts to blame President Clinton. For example when Bush testified before the commission he stated he never talked to anyone about the PDB ?Presidential Daily Briefing?. In this film he apparently tells key players he is very concerned about the attack. It is a re-writing of history by a major network on the anniversary of America?s greatest tragedy sixty days before one of the most important elections in US history.

 

ABC's new six-hour film was apparently screened in advance ONLY to conservative bloggers and journalists -- and received extensive praise from none other than Rush Limbaugh. The film is apparently also riddled with factual errors and distortions; former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has completely refuted one of the key scenes in the show.

 

It's simply stunning to think that as this fall's election approaches,

a major television network would devote six hours of prime-time programming to air such a slanted and inaccurate program.

 

If you remember these self same conservatives forced to pulling of CBS? mini series on Reagan because they didn?t feel it presented Reagan in a positive light.

[Alessandro Machi]

On September 10th and 11th, ABC is planning to air a "docu-drama" called "Path to 9/11," which is being billed as "an objective telling of the events of 9/11." In fact, the film was written by an unabashed conservative who twists the facts to blame President Clinton. For example when Bush testified before the commission he stated he never talked to anyone about the PDB ?Presidential Daily Briefing?. In this film he apparently tells key players he is very concerned about the attack. It is a re-writing of history by a major network on the anniversary of America?s greatest tragedy sixty days before one of the most important elections in US history.

 

ABC's new six-hour film was apparently screened in advance ONLY to conservative bloggers and journalists -- and received extensive praise from none other than Rush Limbaugh. The film is apparently also riddled with factual errors and distortions; former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has completely refuted one of the key scenes in the show.

 

It's simply stunning to think that as this fall's election approaches,

a major television network would devote six hours of prime-time programming to air such a slanted and inaccurate program.

 

If you remember these self same conservatives forced to pulling of CBS? mini series on Reagan because they didn?t feel it presented Reagan in a positive light.

 

The conspiracy is even bigger than that, try a 10 year conspiracy based on an unitiated consensual BJ (that's right, Monica was the initiator, not Bill) impeachment trial. Just last night, Joe Scarborough of "Scarborough Country" actually tried to make the point that "everytime a key moment in the Lewinsky trial came up, President Clinton tried to come up with some foreign policy crisis to divert attention". A Key moment in the Lewinsky trial????? How could Scarborough say that with a straight face???

 

Impeaching a president for not wanting to admit to a consensual BJ when the President didn't even initiate the encounter while also accusing Clinton of "diverting attention" from the BJ investigation by bringing up foreign policy issues was an act of treason then by the Republicans and is something that a comedy writer would never think of it so outrageous. Republicans hogtied the President's ability to do his job then, and now they want to blame Clinton for not doing more about terrorism???? Examples abound about how the Republicans tried to prevent the president from doing his job, these examples really do amount to acts of treason, such as....

 

.....Newt Gingrich is required to use the back door of Air Force One to exit after a Middle Eastern trip and vows revenge by shutting down Congress for well over a month, and actually DOES shut down Congress for well over a month over "budgetary issues". Newt Gingrich took it as an insult that he would not get to walk towards the front of the Air Forec one and on by the press and the president, so Newt shut down our government for over a month as "revenge" over the back door snub that he preceived he got.

 

Any attempt by President Clinton to discuss international issues are met with Republican chants of

"Clinton is trying to shift attention away from the Monica Lewinsky consensual BJ Impeachment trial". To show just how insane some Republicans can be, Ann Coulter actually has tried to accuse the democrats of treason. If the documentary that ABC shows does not depict how the Republicans purposely hamstrung President Clinton with their impeachment investigation at the expense of the safety of this country, than the documentary will be a complete and utter sham.

[Dan Goulder]

Recent polling shows 46% of the American public still believes Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. This is because the "religious Conservatives" in this country apparently have no problem supporting leadership that "bears false witness", which I guess is considered merely a sin of inconvenience. "Thou" also isn't supposed to kill, or steal (oil), but I guess when it's okay to break one commandment, you can break 'em all. Besides, having consensual sex with an adult intern is a far more serious offense, so of course everything is Clinton's fault. You can expect one superficial political distraction after another between now and election time, which is the purpose of this mockumentary, aimed mostly at the inexcusably ignorant masses.

[timHealy]

Apparently there are some comlplaints from Clinton and his administration about this film, but MSNBC just had a piece about it where they interviewed a member of President Reagan's administration. Shouldn't they be interviewing Clintons staff to find out what their issues with this film are?

 

I just think that the media plan old sucks.

 

Basically I can't really watch any of these 9/11 movies. I live a mile and a half from the World Trade Center. I don't desire to watch them.

 

Best

 

Tim

[timHealy]

Tell ABC how you feel:

 

 

http://abc.go.com/site/contactus.html

 

 

best

 

Tim

[Andy_Alderslade]

It's simply stunning to think that as this fall's election approaches,

a major television network would devote six hours of prime-time programming to air such a slanted and inaccurate program.

 

If you remember these self same conservatives forced to pulling of CBS’ mini series on Reagan because they didn’t feel it presented Reagan in a positive light.

 

Looks like ABC's trying to pull some tax relief for Disney World.

 

Out of curiosity did any American Networks broadcast the docu-drama 'The Hamburg Cell?'

 

If its really is as bad as you say, maybe you should initiate the start of a phone-in demonstration demanding that ABC cuts the inacurate and false scenes. If there are enough complaints they are bound to buckle, even within the three days you have till it airs.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade

[Dan Goulder]

Looks like ABC's trying to pull some tax relief for Disney World.

That may be one component. Another, and far more sinister aspect, is that these large media conglomerates are motivated to support the Party of media deregulation. This allows for the largest number of broadcast properties to fall into the smallest number of hands, which also allows for easier propagation of coordinated political propaganda, as an ever-shrinking number of individuals are responsible for "informing" the public. This sort of thing has already destroyed radio, which has been reduced to existing primarily as an RNC front (just ask the Dixie Chicks). When you can monopolize a transmitter, you can squelch dissent.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Who cares? The entire media is screwed up royally. This is just another blip on the radar of incongruous "facts" concerning all things 9/11. If this is going to change the way people vote in Nov., then these potential voters are complete idiots and shouldn't vote, but instead keep there grosse butts planted in the sofa and watch TVs newest, brightest, fall season stars make a mockery of what little culture we have left here...

 

...Besides Clinton is just making the matter worse. I never even heard of it before he opened that feotid mouth of his to object to its contents. Of course, I don't work in the industry and rarely watch the sh*tbox we call television. Also, he needs to protect his legacy. But, he will make millions more watch a network that was already going down the crapper....

 

This writer guy is an a**hole, so are the people who wrote west wing, so are all people behind "political drama" these days. No clear thought at all, just bias. Take your pick, left or right? "oh, thank you ABC. I much prefer this kool-aid!"

It is poignant that the network calls it a "docudrama" and they are airing a "facts" screen concerning the making of this steaming pile before the broadcast. What the hell is "docudrama" anyhow? Oh, Truth mixed with fiction!!! How network of them! You are surprised?

 

I guess the real reason for this post is that, at its roots, it calls into question Clintons focus on the big picture?Much like the Reagan miniseries called into question Reagans lack of focus on the social ills abounding in America at that time? Of course there were no "factual errors" in that series, no way!

 

"unabashed conservative", oh, no!!!!! Please baby jesus, save us all!!!!! TV networks trying to influence by proxy!!? Cable news isn't trust worthy? What has happened? Lions, Tigers, Bears, OH-MY! People who let a Tele program change the way they would vote or otherswise let infuence the way they vote need to be shot in the head. Ok, that was uncalled for, I admit. I don't really think we should shoot them, just dig a very deep hole and put them there.

 

 

Clinton is an idiot, Bush is an idiot, the government seems to have screwed everything up the last 15 years, and now the Television wants to help America on its way down the rabbit hole.

 

I can't help but agree with your worry over the blatant "fact" check that never was, concerning the series.

But, "stunning" is not a word I'd use to describe any networks decision making process. "stunning" eludes to "a big surprise" ...

 

 

 

Ok, upon rereading this to edit before post, I have come to the realisation that I'm an a**hole. Sorry to those if I come off that way to you. But in the interest of "truth", I will not edit myself. Yep, there are people like me all over, and we vote! But not based on sh*tty "drama" produced for the worst kind entertainment, television! Oh, I do like some HBO stuff, however. And I watch the History channel...crap. I do watch Tv!

[Dan Goulder]

If this is going to change the way people vote in Nov., then these potential voters are complete idiots and shouldn't vote, but instead keep there grosse butts planted in the sofa and watch TVs newest, brightest, fall season stars make a mockery of what little culture we have left here...

Unfortunately, millions of people in this country (enough to sway election results) take whatever gets broadcast as the gospel, and don't possess your healthy (though understandably jaundiced) skepticism. Forget about al Quieda, terrorism, or Iraq. With elections approaching, it's now time to make an all-out media assault on the American public.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Who cares? The entire media is screwed up royally. This is just another blip on the radar of incongruous "facts" concerning all things 9/11. If this is going to change the way people vote in Nov., then these potential voters are complete idiots and shouldn't vote, but instead keep there grosse butts planted in the sofa and watch TVs newest, brightest, fall season stars make a mockery of what little culture we have left here...

 

I think you've missed the point, lieing is rarely acceptable in the adult world. An adult doesn't let their children lie under the pretext that every child lies, they correct and appropriatly punish the child for the misdemeanor.

 

There is no place for noble or white lies in something as vital as parliment and demecracy.

 

So its your responibility as a responsible adult to complain and object about somebody using this medium to distort the truth.

 

Phone-in, email - in the end very little effort it better than nothing.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

My quote:

It is poignant that the network calls it a "docudrama" and they are airing a "facts" screen concerning the making of this steaming pile before the broadcast. What the hell is "docudrama" anyhow? Oh, Truth mixed with fiction!!! How network of them! You are surprised?

 

 

 

 

:lol: No, in fact , I do get the point. It is the selection of lies we choose to fight that pisses on my shoes... :blink:

 

My whiney-baby prose and soap-box ramblings clouded the fact that I understand the point...My skin is no place for a sane man to live!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: Sorry for the confusion...

[Thomas Bays]

It would be much nicer if we had a Michael Moore movie I guess. Liberals are just nuts.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

My basic point is that it seems everything is propaganda these days....

 

Are M. Moore films docs? Yes, but they're also propaganda, like network news is. You can't fully take "POV" out of the doc or news (against nature!) but its current inflection in everything has to be subsided for the good of the world.

 

People want to fight their fight, ego! I'm/we are right and you/them are wrong!

 

Absolute rubbish!! Radical psychology and behavior. It is more right to win a discussion than to solve a real problem. Humans suck. :lol:

[Andy_Alderslade]

Absolute rubbish!! Radical psychology and behavior. It is more right to win a discussion than to solve a real problem. Humans suck. :lol:

 

Have you been drinking? ;)

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

hehehe..no, not now. :) Um, I do like the occasional Guiness...... :)

 

Do you see my point in regards to the present discourse of political speech?

 

No matter political leaning..."It is more right to win a discussion than to solve a real problem. Humans suck. ...." (minus the humans suck) qoute is as real as it gets regarding the psychology of talking heads on TV and all of our politicians. Have you not heard Nancy Pelosi or George Bush or Howard Dean or Dennis Hassert or ANYBODY speack lately? Its all radical. Its all "me or you".

 

I reject the idea of "team"(party) when it comes to politics, "us vs. them", which is what it has ultimately become. Whats the score? is the only question asked by these blowhards...

 

Where is Pericles? Where is the "stable"? But, alas, I have a drinking problem....logic must be the domain of a singular thought process..a singular "party"...? :rolleyes:

[Andy_Alderslade]

Do you see my point in regards to the present discourse of political speech?

 

Er....no. Are you sure you haven't been drinking?

[Dan Goulder]

Liberals are just nuts.

Who could argue with such deep, thoughtful, well educated, deductive reasoning as that?

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Er....no. Are you sure you haven't been drinking?

 

Andy, allow me to point you to the comment/foment below and you will see my point about "extremes" in discourse.....Particularly the monolithic "nuts" part.

 

 

It would be much nicer if we had a Michael Moore movie I guess. Liberals are just nuts.

 

 

As the famous TV add says, "Can you hear me now?"

 

 

Off topic-I saw your website today. Nice super8 experiment with the inner-monologue and cig narrative. Good actress, she did well by her face.

 

Now, lets get back to arguing!

Edited September 8, 2006 by Jon-Hebert Barto

[Alessandro Machi]

Will the "Wag the Dog" accusations the Republicans spread against President Clinton in the 90's be in the 911 documentary that is scheduled to air in just a couple of days. The Republicans should be tried for treason after they what they did to our country during the Clinton years....to now accuse Clinton of not doing enough to catch Osama Bin Laden after what the Republicans put him through during the Monica Lewinsky impeachment trial is just over the top nonsense by a group of people that won't stop until everyone acts and believes just like they do.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/shields&gi...98/sg_8-21.html

Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot and syndicated columnist Mark Shields analyze a week that included President Clinton's nationally-televised admission that he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and a missile strike against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and Sudan.

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603200012

In fact, during Clinton's tenure, a number of Republicans criticized Clinton's retaliatory military attacks on Osama bin Laden's purported Afghanistan compound and reported sites of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by repeatedly accusing the Democratic president of "Wag the Dog" tactics -- using military action to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky controversy.

 

http://www.mideastnews.com/press98summer.htm

Cruise Missle Diplomacy (this one is a stunner as the Republican diversion accusations against Clinton are used against the U.S. by the Arab World.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_omalley/20050603.html

When Clinton announced to the American public that bin Laden was a serious threat to the U.S. and he intended to strike back, the Republicans and many in the media accused him of diverting attention away from the Lewinsky scandal with a desperate Wag the Dog tactic.

 

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/1.../symposium.html

Accusations that the Lewinsky trial was purposely being done to distract from real life situations that needed tending.

 

http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clintoncrime.htm

The president's surrogates and supporters are expert in diverting attention from whatever current scandal President Clinton is embroiled in.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/....lkl/index.html

"The Clinton administration failed to bomb the [al Qaeda] camps that were in Afghanistan, that we knew were there," Clarke said. "Clinton bombed them once. The public reaction was negative to that. ... Everyone said Clinton's just bombing Afghanistan to divert attention from the Monica [Lewinsky] business, and so he didn't bomb them again.

 

"That was during a time when they were turning out thousands of trained terrorists. It was an assembly line."

[timHealy]

My basic point is that it seems everything is propaganda these days....

 

Are M. Moore films docs? Yes, but they're also propaganda, like network news is. You can't fully take "POV" out of the doc or news (against nature!) but its current inflection in everything has to be subsided for the good of the world.

 

I agree that it can be hard to remove the bias from any documentary, but the problem I have is this: If Michael Moore makes a documentary and he has this crazy wacky point of view he wants to present, then I know it is Michael Moores view.

 

But if ABC, one of the major American networks and a corporation that broadcasts something that they have advertised that is ripped from the pages of the 911 commission, and by that introducing it as fact, when in reality has been treated as a fictional depiction of true events. Who do I blame at ABC? The president of the network, the production comany that produced it? The director? the writer?

 

And more important why are they airing this now?

 

It may have been 5 years since 911, but it hasn't been long enough for me. This is not some silly Nancy Kerrigan Tonya Harding kind of crap.

 

Best

 

Tim

[Tomas Koolhaas]

I agree that it can be hard to remove the bias from any documentary, but the problem I have is this: If Michael Moore makes a documentary and he has this crazy wacky point of view he wants to present, then I know it is Michael Moores view.

 

But if ABC, one of the major American networks and a corporation that broadcasts something that they have advertised that is ripped from the pages of the 911 commission, and by that introducing it as fact, when in reality has been treated as a fictional depiction of true events. Who do I blame at ABC? The president of the network, the production comany that produced it? The director? the writer?

 

And more important why are they airing this now?

 

It may have been 5 years since 911, but it hasn't been long enough for me. This is not some silly Nancy Kerrigan Tonya Harding kind of crap.

 

Best

 

Tim

 

 

Exactly, only certain people will pay money to go see a micheal moore film, and they probably wouldn't be swayed politically by what they see as they already probably agree with his views, however ABC is a network that reaches EVERYONE in the US, and they are presenting this program as "Educational" they are even sending it to schools with a "Fact pack" (ironic name for a fictional program). This is unprecendented, never has such clear propaganda been shown to so many people so close to an election!!! just for example they apparently have a scene in the program where Bush franticly tries to act on the PDB (Presidential daily briefing) about "Bin Laden ready to strike inside US" when he has publicly admitted that he never acted upon or discussed this PDB with any of his closest staff. Condoleeza rice didn't even remember reading it or showing it to Bush when she was questioned by the senate comittee.

This is really an outrage, and by the way I am nuts, but I am not a liberal, I make my mind up about each decision/issue on a case-by-case basis, sometimes I agree with the conservatives and sometimes the liberals, usually neither, the point is that this sort of propaganda by either party is really unhealthy for a democracy!!!! You wouldn't get this on the BBC!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited September 8, 2006 by Tomas Koolhaas

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Fantastic point , Tim. But this has actors in it. Network news anchors and the "story" (or "coverage") producers are supposed to be "non-fiction" in orientation. My point.

 

 

 

Alex, I agree, for once. Also you could take it further....

 

Many Dems should also hang. What was Berger/burglar stealing from the Natl. Archives? How come nobody knows? Must have been pretty important seeing as how its CLASSIFIED!!! What a dumb ass....(him, not you)Then Bush, of all people letting go without an investigation? " WTF!? ", is a good way to put it.

 

Madeline Albright and Kosovo? Hmmmm. Here is a bit of truth...comments from the horses mouth....

 

Iraq Sanctions:

"It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it."

Her response to a May 11, 1996 60 Minutes question about the over half a million children killed by the [iraqi] sanctions

Death of 500,000 Children 'Worth It'

 

Kosovo:

“What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?”

... as remembered in Colin Powell’s memoir. Powell wrote that he almost had an aneurysm, he was so upset.

How many people/children died...? Do you think any, oh I don't know, "innocent" folks died in all that mess?

 

Again, these people are sick. Just plain sick, and the same, BTW. You people who "see" big differences between the parties make me laugh my ass off.... :lol:

 

Pericles, anybody? Stable...?

Edited September 8, 2006 by Jon-Hebert Barto

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Tomas, the BBC is farcical. They ARE propaganda. Just like ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, SKY, et al.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/ne...300/4222353.stm

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j...0&listSrc=Y

 

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=10641

 

http://www.richardwebster.net/whatthebbcdidnottellus.html (more of a blog, but still the truth. a nut, though)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/29...lair/index.html

 

Just some ideas of how they slant. Everybodys doing it! Its the most popular thing since teenagers having sex in backseats!

Edited September 8, 2006 by Jon-Hebert Barto

[Alessandro Machi]

I agree that it can be hard to remove the bias from any documentary, but the problem I have is this: If Michael Moore makes a documentary and he has this crazy wacky point of view he wants to present, then I know it is Michael Moores view.

 

But if ABC, one of the major American networks and a corporation that broadcasts something that they have advertised that is ripped from the pages of the 911 commission, and by that introducing it as fact, when in reality has been treated as a fictional depiction of true events. Who do I blame at ABC? The president of the network, the production comany that produced it? The director? the writer?

 

And more important why are they airing this now?

 

It may have been 5 years since 911, but it hasn't been long enough for me. This is not some silly Nancy Kerrigan Tonya Harding kind of crap.

 

Best

 

Tim

 

All excellent points. Moore was pay to play, and as I recall, the Reagen TV docudrama was not aired after complaints were made by Republicans.

 

 

Alex, I agree, for once. Also you could take it further....

 

Yes, I noticed that. Was it a blue moon last night? :D

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Tomas, the BBC is farcical. They ARE propaganda. Just like ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, SKY, et al.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/ne...300/4222353.stm

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j...0&listSrc=Y

 

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=10641

 

http://www.richardwebster.net/whatthebbcdidnottellus.html (more of a blog, but still the truth. a nut, though)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/29...lair/index.html

 

Just some ideas of how they slant. Everybodys doing it! Its the most popular thing since teenagers having sex in backseats!

 

Jon,

Interesting Links! Yeah, of course everyone is completely slanted, and even contains outright lies and propaganda, I still think the ABC film trumps anything the BBC would do, especially when it is directly towing one party's line just before a very important election! I can't see the BBC doing anything that blatant (not because they are too honest but because it is too obvious).

Cheers.