The Path to 9/11

[Bob Hayes]

It?s amazing that this film was only screened for a select group of Bush supporters. Listening to talk radio to day most of the right wing hosts had seen the film and loved it. They went out of their way to quote the inaccuracies of the mini series as facts. Then they said the left was trying to cut out these ?facts? of the 9/11 report that painted them poorly. This is the same 9/11 report that Bush tried to prevent from happening until family members complained publicly. The 9/11 bipartisan commission that Bush tried to restrict access to information. The bipartisan commission that had to threaten Bush with a subpoena to get him to show up. The one where Bush admitted he read the PBD but NEVER TALKED TO ANYONE ABOUT.

 

?If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.? Joseph Goebbels

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Hi,

This is a tiny bit off topic but interesting noetheless:

 

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/page/1/

 

What does everyone make of that?

Edited September 8, 2006 by Tomas Koolhaas

[timHealy]

You people who "see" big differences between the parties make me laugh my ass off.... :lol:

 

That is exactly what Ralph Nader was trying to present, that the republicans and democrats are very very similiar. So not all see the two major parties as dissimiliar. Though personally, I think all politicians are bad news, and in a very generalized way, I kind of see democrats as slightly less evil, and more fair and equal than republicans. But it even though it woul be bad if the democrats had full control of the executive and legislative branches of government, it would be slightly less bad than the republicans having full control. But that is just my opinion.

 

best

 

Tim

[Andy_Alderslade]

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.

 

Thanks, thats actually 16mm black and white fuji film shot on a clockwork K3. The quality would be much better, but it was only telecined on a video-steenbeck, the whole thing cost less than £25.

 

 

Back on topic, this whole conversation has turned a little silly, what has Moore got to do with it? Moore's a polemical filmmaker - and theres nothing wrong with that, whether they are conservative or liberal, providing those filmmakers are willing to take the legal implications of their work, which they often do (most will be sued several times).

 

However let I remind you that Moore and many other polemical filmmakers or artists find their work to 'hot' for the american networks to handle. The only out-put for this kind of work are the cinemas that will accept them, or arts centres, maybe even the smaller networks.

 

Thats why its a complete abuse of power for a major US network to broadcast one thing of a slanted political agenda and not another of the opposite political agenda.

 

This is particularly poor taste as its about 9/11, the wholy grail of national tragedies.

 

The prevailing argument here that, 'all the networks are just as bad' is complete lazy trite, there comes a point where they cross the line and we all have to say 'Enough!'

[Thomas Bays]

If this was anti Bush Dems would be screaming censorship...amazing. such Hypocrites.

[Alessandro Machi]

That is exactly what Ralph Nader was trying to present, that the republicans and democrats are very very similiar. So not all see the two major parties as dissimiliar. Though personally, I think all politicians are bad news, and in a very generalized way, I kind of see democrats as slightly less evil, and more fair and equal than republicans. But it even though it woul be bad if the democrats had full control of the executive and legislative branches of government, it would be slightly less bad than the republicans having full control. But that is just my opinion.

 

best

 

Tim

 

Unfortunately, the democrats have become worse than the Republicans because they don't have the guts to say no new taxes in an era of a shrinking job base for middle america.

 

What I find so suspicious about our political system is that usually the moderates of both parties make the most sense yet they seem to carry the least amount of power. Here's a statistic that I find stunning. If just one in five elected Republicans, and just one in five elected Democrats left their own political parties and started a political party called the moderates, they would instantly be the largest political party in the United States.

 

Just one in five! That's all it would take, if just one in five left their own political party and started a moderate group, yet it's never been tried. Why?

 

If just one in six left elected politicans left their own political party they would have equal size to the what would be left of the democrats and the republicans.

 

Clinton was a master at using both democratic and republican ideas to solve problems, and this P'O'd the Republicans no end and that's the real reason Clinton's personal behavior was used as an excuse to purposely blockade Clinton from doing anything of note over the last couple of years of his second term in office.

 

Yet it's moderate thinking that actually creates the best base for our country to go forward in an intellectually well thought out way.

 

Instead, we appear doomed to instead keep getting either 4 or 8 years of ultra liberal or ultra conservative politial insider quackery shoved down our gullets. This country won't survive much longer without moderates taking control, we desperately need a third party comprised of moderates to give this country a much needed jumpstart.

[timHealy]

ABC to re edit their movie. (copy and paste together if link is broken)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washingt...artner=homepage

 

for those who have trouble with the link. The complete article:

 

September 8, 2006

ABC Said to Re-Edit Key Parts of 9/11 Show

 

By PATRICK HEALY and JESSE McKINLEY

Under growing pressure from Democrats and aides to former President Bill Clinton, ABC is re-evaluating and in some cases re-editing crucial scenes in its new mini-series ?The Path to 9/11? to soften its portrait of the Clinton administration?s pursuit of Osama bin Laden, according to people involved in the project.

 

Among the changes, ABC is altering one scene in which an actor playing Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser, abruptly hangs up on a C.I.A. officer during a critical moment in a military operation, according to Thomas H. Kean, a consultant on the ABC project and co-chairman of the federal Sept. 11 commission.

 

Mr. Berger has said that the scene is a fiction, and Mr. Kean, in an interview, said that he believed Mr. Berger was correct and that ABC was making appropriate changes.

 

The reassessment came as two Clinton aides mounted an unusual attack last night on the motives of Mr. Kean, a Republican and a former governor of New Jersey. In a letter to Mr. Kean, the two aides, Bruce R. Lindsey and Douglas Band, wrote that his defense of the mini-series ?is destroying the bipartisan aura of the 9/11 Commission,? on whose findings the project is partly based. They asserted that Mr. Kean was driven by payments from ABC or his own partisan politics.

 

Mr. Kean, who called Mr. Clinton a good friend, said it was outrageous to suggest he was being swayed by money or politics, and added that any fee he received would be donated to charity. He said he stood by the film because he believed it would draw attention to the commission?s security recommendations, many of which have not been put into effect, and because the film did not pretend to be a documentary.

 

Yet Mr. Kean, as well as other members of the commission, did say they were concerned that their widely praised investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks might be diminished in some way by the mini-series.

 

?Mini-series often make things more dramatic by fictionalizing,? Mr. Kean said. ?I don?t think the fictional moments reflect on the work of the commission, but I do hope that the controversy doesn?t tarnish it. ABC is trying to be as accurate as possible.?

 

Democrats and allies of Mr. Clinton unleashed full-throated appeals to ABC yesterday to cancel the broadcast, which is scheduled for Sunday and Monday nights. The Senate Democratic leadership sent a letter to Robert A. Iger, the chief executive of the Walt Disney Company, ABC?s parent, saying that broadcasting the film ?would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility.?

 

The national Democratic Party drew more than 100,000 signatures in 24 hours to a petition of complaint that it plans to give to ABC today.

 

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, one of 10 senators at a news conference yesterday where the mini-series came up, left before she could be asked about it. A small throng of reporters who followed her out of the building toward her office were kept at bay by her aides.

 

The changes to the mini-series are still being made inside an editing suite in Los Angeles, with a variety of creative staff members and executives, including Marc Platt, the executive producer, who has been monitoring the editing from London, and David L. Cunningham, the director, who is being consulted at his home in Hawaii.

 

Mr. Kean said that two other parts of the film are also under review. One is a scene where an actress playing former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright is apparently obstructing efforts to capture Mr. bin Laden. The other part suggests that Mr. Clinton was too distracted by impeachment and his marital problems to fully focus on Mr. bin Laden.

 

Mr. Platt said that he could not offer specifics about what scenes were being examined, but that editing was going on and ?will continue to, if needed until we broadcast.?

 

?From Day 1, we?ve examined any issue or question that?s arisen,? he said. ?And we?ll continue to do so until the last possible moment.?

 

Mr. Kean said he was surprised by the outcry, since most of the critics have not seen the film. He said Mr. Clinton had spoken directly to Mr. Iger last Friday; Clinton aides declined to comment.

 

Several 9/11 commission members said yesterday that they respected Mr. Kean immensely but that they were concerned about the ABC project and his role in it. One of them, Timothy J. Roemer, a Democrat, said he called Mr. Kean yesterday to urge ABC to make changes. Another, Jamie S. Gorelick, a former Clinton administration official, wrote Mr. Iger yesterday that the nation and schoolchildren would be poorly served if they drew lessons from the mini-series that were inaccurate.

 

Scholastic, the children?s publishing company, which had been working with ABC to use ?The Path to 9/11? as a teaching tool, said yesterday that it was removing materials related to the film from its Web site. A spokeswoman said a new study guide was being prepared that would explain the difference between a docudrama and a documentary.

 

Anne E. Kornblut contributed reporting from Washington.

[timHealy]

I got this e mail from MoveOn.org today fighting this very biased view of things. I personally have nothing to do with move on but I do get emails from them about important issues. all thes links are theirs.

 

best

 

Tim

 

Dear MoveOn member,

 

In a little over 48 hours, ABC will air a five-hour "docudrama" on the 9/11 attacks. The movie was written and produced by a right-wing activist who fabricated key scenes to blame Democrats and defend Republicans.1 It's so partisan that even Rush Limbaugh was surprised ABC decided to air it.2 And an FBI agent who was brought in to consult on the docudrama quit because, he said, "they were making things up."3

 

Public outrage is mounting across the country, and Variety reports that ABC is now "mulling the idea of yanking the mini altogether."4 But we only have a little time to act. We'll start delivering this petition to ABC headquarters tomorrow at noon and continue as more signatures come in. So we're looking for 200,000 signatures TODAY.

 

Can you sign? Click here:

http://pol.moveon.org/abcdoc?id=8706-69831...rvxC0OA&t=4

 

Then please pass on this message to folks you know who can help.

 

The Path to 9/11 appears to be part of a coordinated push?including speeches by President Bush and millions of dollars in advertising?to exploit the five-year anniversary of 9/11 for political gain. That's not acceptable from anyone?especially not a news organization like ABC.

 

It's not just that ABC's movie is slanted. Big parts of it are simply untrue. The producer himself even admitted to simply improvising a key scene which depicts the Clinton administration letting bin Laden go when they had him in their sights?a complete fabrication.5 Last night, the movie's star, Harvey Keitel, said "It turned out not all the facts were correct."6

 

It's really pretty simple: ABC shouldn't have any role in the political exploitation of 9/11. But this docudrama is designed to do just that?spreading a false message to millions of viewers across the country.

 

Sign the petition to tell ABC not to air partisan propaganda on 9/11. Click here:

 

http://pol.moveon.org/abcdoc?id=8706-69831...rvxC0OA&t=5

 

Thank you for all you do.

 

?Nita, Eli, Carrie, Joan, Jennifer and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team

Friday, September 8th, 2006

P.S. For the most current information on the scandal involving this film, and for more information on the movie itself, please visit our friends at ThinkProgress:

 

http://www.thinkprogress.org

 

Sources:

1. "Writer of ABC's 9/11 'Docudrama' Is Avowed Conservative Activist," ThinkProgress, September 1, 2006

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2047&id=8706...rvxC0OA&t=6

 

2. "Clintonoids Prepare To Attack 9/11 Movie," The Rush Limbaugh Show, August 30, 2006

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2049&id=8706...rvxC0OA&t=7

 

3. "FBI Agent Who Consulted On Path to 9/11 Quit," ThinkProgress, September 7, 2006

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/fbi-agent-quit/

 

4. "Under fire, ABC mulls yanking mini," Variety, September 7, 2006

http://www.variety.com/VR1117949675.html

 

5. Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher, MSNBC appearance, September 7, 2006

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2077&id=8706...rvxC0OA&t=8

 

6. "Harvey Keitel speaks out on Path to 9/11: 'It turned out not all the facts were correct'", Showbiz Tonight, September 7, 2006

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2078&id=8706...rvxC0OA&t=9

Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.3 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you'd like to support our work, you can give now at:

 

http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.h...vxC0OA&t=10

 

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/

Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

[Alessandro Machi]

ABC to re edit their movie. (copy and paste together if link is broken)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washingt...artner=homepage

 

for those who have trouble with the link. The complete article:

 

September 8, 2006

ABC Said to Re-Edit Key Parts of 9/11 Show

 

By PATRICK HEALY and JESSE McKINLEY

 

Mr. Kean said that two other parts of the film are also under review. One is a scene where an actress playing former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright is apparently obstructing efforts to capture Mr. bin Laden. The other part suggests that Mr. Clinton was too distracted by impeachment and his marital problems to fully focus on Mr. bin Laden.

 

Mr. Platt said that he could not offer specifics about what scenes were being examined, but that editing was going on and ?will continue to, if needed until we broadcast.?

 

Anne E. Kornblut contributed reporting from Washington.

 

Come on ABC, Clinton wasn't distracted from Bin Laden by the Impeachment trial, The impeachment trial which was supported by LESS THAN 40% of the population distracted Clinton from pursuing Bin Laden. Just change that one aspect, and the whole program turns on a dime, and becomes truthful.

 

In case anyone is skipping over posts, I listed several links that illustrate the Republicans accusation that Clinton was "Wagging the Dog" (creating a war against Osama to distract from the impeachment trial) in post 19 of this thread...

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...st&p=125894

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Thanks, thats actually 16mm black and white fuji film shot on a clockwork K3. The quality would be much better, but it was only telecined on a video-steenbeck, the whole thing cost less than £25.

Back on topic, this whole conversation has turned a little silly, what has Moore got to do with it? Moore's a polemical filmmaker - and theres nothing wrong with that, whether they are conservative or liberal, providing those filmmakers are willing to take the legal implications of their work, which they often do (most will be sued several times).

 

Yeah, I also saw it on a friends really bad monitor(and small), He actually said it was 16, I told him he was an idiot. oops, Sorry, Michael.

 

The prevailing argument here that, 'all the networks are just as bad' is complete lazy trite, there comes a point where they cross the line and we all have to say 'Enough!'

 

Yes, unfortunately no one can agree on when they actually crosed the line, was it just now over this crappy series, or perhaps 5 years ago in their frenzied pulp coverage of the actual event? Perhaps their "uncoverage" of the Darfur events? You see, its a much bigger picture. We need to say "enough" not just to one little piece of crap (calculated as it is) but to whole damned mess that is media. They are all just as bad, so we can't end our dissatisfaction with this one show, but keep going on all wheels !

 

If this was anti Bush Dems would be screaming censorship...amazing. such Hypocrites.

 

The Dems did just that over the Reagan miniseries. What happened? It got pulled, not rewritten. Of course this 9/11 series has more political ramifications....I agree with Tim, why even make a movie about this tragedy now? I for one can't bring myself to go to the theater for this junk nor will I watch this crap on TV.

[Rhonda L. McReynolds]

ABC's new six-hour film was apparently screened in advance ONLY to conservative bloggers and journalists -

 

Now who is giving out misinformation??? This was screened by people from both sides of the aisle in Washington...

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...view.guest.html

 

http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/index.html

 

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.

 

Sheesh... "Docu-drama says it all..."

 

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.

 

Wrong again. They didn't pull it. It went to another channel - Showtime.

 

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004376.html

[Alessandro Machi]

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.

 

Wrong again. They didn't pull it. It went to another channel - Showtime.

 

 

Although the point is still valid in that it went off of "free TV" and onto pay TV.

[timHealy]

Now who is giving out misinformation??? This was screened by people from both sides of the aisle in Washington...

 

Do you actually have a guest list as to who was there? jst becasue Rush Limbaugh got an advance copy doesn't really mean all people Dem or Reb got to see one. Apparently they left out a few people including the people the movie is about, like oh whats his name...Clinton! thats it, Bill Clinton.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-dvd/

 

Best

 

Tim

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

I think he means "pulled" as in taken off a major network...Thats what I mean when I say Pulled...

 

Showtime...? Whats that again? Does anybody watch it? Not compared to network TV, they don't.

 

BTW, why should we put up with a "docu-drama" concerning 9/11? Again, what is docu-drama? If you think its "the dramatization of actual events" I feel sorry for you...

 

Its a great way for both sides of the slimy aisle to mix facts with fiction. Hence, slant to their view.

 

All you people can't get enough of the kool-aid, it seems. This reminds me of the FUTURAMA episode where the characters keep drinking "Slurm", even when they find out it's very bad for them...

 

What would you do without your slurm? It must feel good to be on a "team". I play for the Donkeys! I play for the Elephants! In reality you're just playing with yourselves....

[Rhonda L. McReynolds]

Do you actually have a guest list as to who was there? jst becasue Rush Limbaugh got an advance copy doesn't really mean all people Dem or Reb got to see one. Apparently they left out a few people including the people the movie is about, like oh whats his name...Clinton! thats it, Bill Clinton.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-dvd/

 

Best

 

Tim

 

No, I don't have a list. :blink: Limbaugh did not get an "advance" copy. He watched it along with everyone else at the screening and received a copy afterwards that he could watch using his closed captioning. And if I read the article correctly, (I need to find it again), the Clintons were invited...

 

 

Although the point is still valid in that it went off of "free TV" and onto pay TV.

 

Agreed. And I would never advocate pulling a program no matter what. If you don't like the content, just don't watch. I think it's pretty simple.

[timHealy]

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.

Wrong again. They didn't pull it. It went to another channel - Showtime.

 

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004376.html

 

What!? Your link says it all:

 

"Showtime will air the controversial movie about Ronald Reagan that CBS pulled on November 30"

 

CBS did "pull" it from their line up from pressure from conservatives. Just because it found life and a much less audience on Showtime did not mean CBS did not pull it.

 

But whether CBS pulled it or not, the subject matter about Path to 911 is still timely and has a direct affect to the political landscape today. The Reagan thing I think had more to do with how Reagan is remembered. I question ABCs judgement to produce something that will be taken as truth by lazy Americans who don't read as much as they should about such events. How many still believe Saddam Hussien still has weapons of mass destruction and had something to do with 9/11??? It is also Americans that are not as media savy as others and members of this forum who may be able to to look at such things and understand what fictionalizing something means. And this is something they intend to use as an educational tool!!!!!!! Apparently Scholastic has already dropped it from the website and will have to review their plans to use the film.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/schola...to-911-support/

 

Hurray for Scholastic for being responsible!

 

I mean come on, members of Clintons administration have concerns about scenes that never happened or facts refute what they are portraying. I think it is a disgrace that ABC which uses public airwaves to broadcast something that at best is biased and at worst, simply wrong.

 

Like I said before this is not some lame ass 'docu drama' about Nancy Herrigan and Tonya Harding! I'm sorry, but I think ABC or any other network take something like this very seriously and they owe it to everyone get it right.

 

Best

 

Tim

[timHealy]

Limbaugh did not get an "advance" copy. He watched it along with everyone else at the screening and received a copy afterwards that he could watch using his closed captioning.

 

According to the link limbaugh says:

 

I finished watching The Path to 9/11, and as I told you last week, when they previewed this film in Washington... well, my copy of it is five hours, and that's without commercials

 

So I may have misread it. re reading it seems as though he was at a screening, but he still has a copy! A copy which apparently Clintons staff do not have a copy of yet.

 

And today in defense of the film and hoopla ABC is saying: "No one has seen the final version of the film".

 

So what version was screened in Washington and what copy does Limbaugh have?

 

Best

 

Tim

[Rhonda L. McReynolds]

I think he means "pulled" as in taken off a major network...Thats what I mean when I say Pulled...[quote}

 

Understood. I took it mean the same as "shelved" never to see the light of day, anytime, anywhere...

 

Showtime...? Whats that again? Does anybody watch it? Not compared to network TV, they don't.

 

sooo true.

 

BTW, why should we put up with a "docu-drama" concerning 9/11? Again, what is docu-drama? If you think its "the dramatization of actual events" I feel sorry for you...

 

I hate the phrase, too. My major in school is documentary film and I'm on the edge of disillusionment...

[timHealy]

Conservative Bill Bennett says they need to get it right too.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/08/video-...in-path-to-911/

 

read or watch the clip.

 

I the statemnt about the conservatives need to be consistant and that these matters are still before us. At least he is trying to be fair.

 

best

 

Tim

Edited September 8, 2006 by timHealy

[Thomas Bays]

okay be fair...let ABC have a seat next to the president at the Republican National convention.