Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Movie Mix

Controversy Over ABC's 9/11 'Docudrama' Hits Fever Pitch

Editor & Publisher. Posted September 7, 2006.


ABC's 9/11 film featuring made up events, faces harsh criticism from real-life characters such as former president Bill Clinton.
mitchell
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

For the very latest in the controversy check out the video interview with E&P's Greg Mitchell, HERE.

Just bubbling up from the blogs into the mainstream press -- a New York Times article appears on Wednesday -- is debate over the "The Path to 9/11," the TV movie to be aired on ABC this coming Sept. 10 and 11. Liberals have charged that it reportedly pins most of the blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on President Clinton, often citing conservative bloggers or talk show hosts who made this very point after attending screenings.

Meanwhile, at least three real-life figures portrayed in the movie (Richard Clarke, Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger) have raised factual objections. ABC, and an adviser to the series -- former Gov. Thomas Kean, co-chair of the 9/11 Commission -- have said it is balanced and objective, and a docudrama, not literal truth.

But few of its critics have actually seen the film. E&P obtained an advance review copy on Tuesday, and we summarize the film below. It's possible that some changes may have been, or will be, made in this cut.

The nearly four-and-a-half-hour film, based on a script by Cyrus Nowrasteh and directed by David Cunningham, stars Harvey Keitel. It is ambitious and striking in execution, often relying on handheld cameras, tight close-ups and creative visuals.

The first half, to be aired Sunday, explores the terrorist threat starting with the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center, and there is little question that President Clinton is dealt with severely, almost mockingly, with the Lewinsky scandal closely tied to his failure to cripple al-Qaeda.

"The Path to 9/11" ends with a long segment on the day of the attacks and top officials' response -- though we only see President Bush in his speech to the nation, not in the Florida classroom with "The Pet Goat."

The attention on Clinton's culpability arrives about halfway through Part I, following the successful prosecution of several men involved in the 1993 WTC bombing. Keitel, an FBI security expert and clearly a tough-guy hero in this story, mentions Osama bin Laden (or "the tall one") for the first time. Richard Clarke, the White House terrorism expert and another sage in this story, agrees "we're at war." [CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story stated that Clarke was an adviser to the film. He was not. ]

After ABC airs an interview with bin Laden, O'Neill gets the okay to "snatch" bin Laden if he can, with a legal OK from the Justice Dept. U.S. operatives hook up with Massoud, the anti-Taliban leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and he takes them to a village where bin Laden is staying. A 15-man attack team is formed.

Meanwhile, back at CIA headquarters in Langley, the nervous Nellies -- i.e. Sandy Berger, the Clinton national security adviser, and (off and on) CIA director George Tenet -- raise questions, such as how to get money for this program, how covert should it be, aren't women and children in the village at risk? Besides, Massoud is a drug dealer. A decision is put off.

Clarke explains to O'Neill afterward that "they are worried about political fallout" and "legalities." O'Neill complains that terrorism is "perceived by this administration as a law and order problem." A CIA planner angrily declares, "It's not about sitting around a conference room covering your ass."

Right away comes a quick cut to Clinton making his famous statement about not having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. Clarke tells O'Neill that Clinton won't give the order to get bin Laden in this climate, with Republicans calling for his impeachment. O'Neill says that Clinton wants bin Laden dead -- but not if he has to order it. "It's pathetic," he declares.

Back in Afghanistan, the operatives plan for the snatch job anyway, hoping for approval once it's clear they have their man. One night, they call Langley -- they are ready to get bin Laden, he is nearby. "Do we have clearance?" they ask. Berger says he doesn't have authority, he would have to check, they're not all on "the same page."

A CIA official tells Berger the president has approved snatches in the past. Berger wonders about the quality of the intelligence. The CIA woman says it's never 100%. With that, Berger punts and asks Tenet if HE wants to offer a recommendation to the president. Tenet asks: Why does the buck always stop with me, like with the Waco disaster?

At that point, Berger simply hangs up -- and the operatives abroad pack up and leave. Massoud asks if they are "all cowards in Washington." Again there is an immediate cut to Clinton, parsing sexual terms in his taped testimony on the Lewinsky case -- and then a clip of him hugging Monica. (The New York Times story today -- see below -- notes that Clarke disputes much of this scenario.)

A little later in the film, the U.S. embassy in Nairobi is attacked, with many deaths. A CIA agent in tears yells at Tenet, saying he should have ordered the killing of bin Laden when they had the chance. O'Neill to Clarke: "Clinton has to do SOMETHING."

It's now August 1998. In the White House Situation Room, Tenet and Clarke say we need to move on the Taliban, who are protecting bin Laden. A new character, Secretary of State Madeline Albright, says that is too "major" an operaton, "The president is not willing to go that far." They should focus solely on bin Laden.

Finally Clinton acts. Told that bin Laden is meeting in an isolated location in Afghanistan on Aug. 20, 1998, Clinton orders attacks there, as well as taking out a chemical arms factory in the Sudan. But the chemical warehouse turns out to be a pharmaceutical plant, and bin Laden escapes from the other attacks, only raising his stature among his followers. A reporter notes that Republicans and "pundits" are accusing Clinton of acting only to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal.

An angry Massoud says that the attacks failed because the U.S. told Pakistan about them in advance. Tenet asks Albright about this and she confirms it, saying regional factors had to be considered. Berger pipes up, saying covert operations usually don't work or backfire -- look at the Bay of Pigs. Now Tenet is steamed and he goes on a rant.

Cut to O'Neill at a bar, praising Tenet for showing "cujones."

Part I ends with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad meeting with bin Laden in 1999 to discuss "the plane operation." Later Mohammad is told that bin Laden approves, but feels 10 planes are too many -- they won't be able to find that many reliable hijackers. He is also told that the target is important, for they need to maximize casualties.

PART II

Part II picks up with O'Neill learning of the bombing of the USS Cole in October, 2000. Again Clinton's crew gets hammered in this narrative. Clinton's ambassador to Yemen (a she-devil played by Patricia Heaton) won't let O'Neill do his job.

Clarke is shown advocating massive attacks on al-Qaeda camps but Albright and others say there's not enough proof that bin Laden was behind the Cole attack -- and Clinton has priorities more urgent than a "rogue attack" on some "caves."

Much of the story then shifts to the plans and movements by the hijackers. For some reason, ringleader Atta is about 15 times better looking than the original.

We also see Clarke warning Secretary of State Rice of a "spike" in terror warnings -- he wants to meet personally with Bush -- but she assures him that the president is "on it." Later she tells Clarke that his terrorism job is being "redefined" and he objects.

O'Neill, meanwhile, is thinking about quitting because "despite the red flags no one is taking terrorism seriously." But the script focuses on the CIA and FBI not sharing information, the FBI not acting on warnings about flight schools, and other slip-ups -- not any true lack of interest in the White House. O'Neill partly blames "political correctness."

Tenet complains that there are so many threats coming they are "overloaded," they need more analysts and translators, and more "actionable" tips. O'Neill quits and becomes head of security at -- the World Trade Center. Along the way we get subtle endorsements for the Patriot Act and airport profiling.

But what about the famous Aug. 6, 2001 "PDB" that warned the president about bin Laden's determination to strike within the U.S.? We see Secretary Rice reading it in private and looking concerned, but we never see the president's reaction.

However, on Sept. 4, 2001, Rice tells officials that thanks to the warnings in the PDB, the president is convinced al-Qaeda is a "real threat … the president is tired of swatting flies." She seems to advocate taking some strong action and Clarke agrees, but Tenet argues against it. So in this telling, it appears that President Bush is in the vigilant/aggressive camp, perhaps thwarted by Clinton holdover Tenet.

Finally we see how this plays out tragically on Sept. 11, 2001. O'Neill dies inside the WTC. Much attention is given to the decision to shoot down United flight 93, but the movie's time frame now badly needs fixing given the recent revelations about what officials knew about that flight and when. The president, in any case, seems firmly in control, appearing on TV to promise help for all, and declaring, "terrorism against our nation will not stand."

The film closes with a statement that the 9/11 Commission has given many failing grades on the response to its recommendations.

To state again: This was a review copy of the film and tweaks have possibly already been made. ABC announced Tueday it would air the film without commercials due to its sensitive and controversial nature.

***

The New York Times story today notes ABC's claims of objectivity but points out that "some critics -- including Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar -- questioned a scene that depicted several American military officers on the ground in Afghanistan. In a posting on ThinkProgress.org, and in a phone interview, Mr. Clarke said no military personnel or C.I.A. agents were ever in position to capture Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan, nor did the leader of the Northern Alliance get that near to his camp.

"It didn't happen," Mr. Clarke said. "There were no troops in Afghanistan about to snatch bin Laden. There were no C.I.A. personnel about to snatch bin Laden. It's utterly invented."

"Mr. Clarke, an on-air consultant to ABC News, said he was particularly shocked by a scene in which it seemed Clinton officials simply hung up the phone on an agent awaiting orders in the field. 'It's 180 degrees from what happened,' he said. 'So, yeah, I think you would have to describe that as deeply flawed.'"

"ABC responded Tuesday with a statement saying that the miniseries was 'a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews.'"

Gov. Kean said the scene in Afghanistan and the attempt to get bin Laden "is a composite."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I hope they get sued
Posted by: Thundergod on Sep 7, 2006 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For about a billion Dollars!

Slander is crime right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» They won't Posted by: edith
» For telling the truth? Posted by: bullwhip7
» RE: For telling the truth? Posted by: gonzoskismet
That liberal media
Posted by: lamar on Sep 7, 2006 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's that liberal media again!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That liberal media Posted by: bettyn
» RE: That liberal media Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: That liberal media Posted by: lamar
Freedom of Speech
Posted by: PJH67 on Sep 7, 2006 2:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Freedom of speech rears it's ugly head again.

ABC has every right to show this program.

Just like Michael Moore had every right to make "Fahrenheit 9/11".

It's called a remote. If you don't want to see it, change the channel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: PEEK
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: PJH67
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: gdpaul
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: PJH67
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: brunowe
» Did Moore.......... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Did Moore.......... Posted by: gonzoskismet
» RE: Did Moore.......... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Did Moore.......... Posted by: gonzoskismet
» What about the Reagan mini-series? Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» Did ABC........ Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: Did ABC........ Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Did ABC........ Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: Mop Cheese
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: PJH67
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: nylaw13
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: PJH67
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: jag585
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: Domokun
» RE: Ooops... Posted by: Domokun
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: PJH67
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» That wasn't anti-semetic Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: That wasn't anti-semetic Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: BlueStateBitch
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: PJH67
» Fair enough. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: Numinous
» RE: Freedom of Speech Posted by: PJH67
FABCOX: what you get if you cross an anus with a prick
Posted by: Plexius on Sep 7, 2006 2:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't ABC owned by right-wing Sinclair Broadcasting? Just another Republican-controlled media outlet we should all avoid. I get my news almost entirely from the internet now as well as much of my entertainment.

Just as the wingnuts took over AM talk radio, now they can take over broadcast TV. Hopefully, smart viewers and listeners will move to the internet before they seize that medium, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blatant Propaganda 2 months before the election.
Posted by: Jnutter on Sep 7, 2006 2:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So ABC... now we know who you are. You are a schill. Someone should strip ABC of its "network" status and relegate them to a channel that has 3 digits and is too far up the band for anyone other than the limbaughs of the world to find.

This miniseries is blatant propaganda. It was not released last year and they refuse to 'fix' it and release it next year... why? Because there is an election coming up in 2 months and (obviously) the whole point of this 'TV Movie' is to paint democrats as evil, lazy, and stupid, and republicans as the unwitting victims of democrat complacency. The sad thing is, there are enough stupid idiots in America to buy the crap they are selling.

Al Gore was right... democracy is going down the tubes in America thanks to the TV.

Boycott ABC.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What's a "schill"? Posted by: Ullern
» RE: What's a "schill"? Posted by: YogiBear
» Whats the problem??? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Whats the problem??? Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: Whats the problem??? Posted by: bassman
» RE: Whats the problem??? Posted by: Aesop
» RE: Whats the problem??? Posted by: Plexius
The Liberal Media Is Really Dropping The Ball
Posted by: Mop Cheese on Sep 7, 2006 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"there ought to be limits to freedom" G. W. Bush may 27 '99

First they tell people that Al Gore invented the internet. Then they fail to tell people that the 2000 Bush campaign used subliminal messaging in a campaign ad. Then they dropped a Reagan docudrama because of a few quotes that make you think that a Saddam-weapon supplying, El Salvador massacre funding, General Zia supporting president might not be the most ethical or compassionate of fellows (Did I mention he sold weapons to Iranian extremists to fund nicaraguan terrorists?). And now this, a film that practically uses republican campaign slogans from '04 ("this administration (substitute: John Kerry) thinks it's a law and order problem") as dialogue. Remember the good old days when we controlled the world?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Americans in love with lies, self-deceptions & glutton for power
Posted by: Kuber on Sep 7, 2006 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only are the maniac muslims out to get us, we are out to fall on our own swords and self-destruct with these lies and self-deceptions and glutton for power over such a serious subject matter as 911.

Every time this administration tries to foolishly pass the buck to the previous administration, it isn't even bright enough to know that it is making itself look even more incompetent with the insane islamist said to be responsible for 911 still strolling among the mountains of Pakistan.

Imagine the worse attack in America's history takes place on your watch; and you are off raining bombs on women and children in Iraq, making yourself look foolish and lost to the American people, falling in the polls, while the alleged architect of 911 is ‘chilling like a villin’ in the cool mountains of Pakistan.

You know your arch foe is in Pakistan; yet you are doing a Vietnam in Iraq. How moronic is that?
And the sleeping Americans just go along with the folly; but this is how people behave when their end is near: The are mindless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Email addresses of key senior Disney and ABC execs
Posted by: Humanistic Capitalist on Sep 7, 2006 3:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, here the names, titles and email addresses for a number of key senior Disney decision makers I found, starting at the top
with the CEO and board of directors are at the bottom.

Let's make our voices heard and see if we can get these guys to pull this blatantly obvious Bush propaganda. ABC may profit from the predictable controversy but airing a film designed to obfuscate Bush's responsibility for 9/11 will cause ABC to suffer greatly in the estimation of serious people.

Disney and ABC should leave the RNC propaganda to Fox, it's not ABC's demographic.

Robert Iger - CEO - robert.a.iger@disney.com

Rich Ross - President of Disney Channel Worldwide - rich.ross@disney.com

Sean Cocchia - VP/Business Development, Disney Channel Worldwide- sean.cocchia@disney.com

Gary Marsh - Disney Channel Worldwide President of Entertainment - gary.marsh@disney.com

Sarah Shelton - Assistant to Gary Marshsarah - shelton@disney.com

Scott Garner - SVP/Programming, Disney Channel - scott.garner@disney.com

Karen Myer - Assistant to Scott Garner - karen.myer@disney.com

Meredith Metz - Senior Vice President, Creative Affairs, Walt Disney Television Animation - meredith.metz@disney.com

Lisa Salamone - The Head of Animation Production, Disney Channel - lisa.salamone@disney.com

Mark Kenchelian - The Head of Business and Legal Affairs, Disney Channel -mark.kenchelian@disney.com

Jewell Engstrom - CFO and Executive VP for Disney-ABC Cable Group - jewell.engstrom@disney.com

Olivia Stafford - Assistant to Jewell Engstrom - olivia.stafford@disney.com

Albert Cheng - EVP/Digital Media, Disney-ABC Television Group - albert.cheng@disney.com

Karen Hobson - Digital Media Communications Office, Disney-ABC Television Group - karen.hobson@disney.com

George Bodenheimer - Co-Chairman Media Networks Group - george.bodenheimer@disney.com

Nicole Nichols - Senior VP of Entertainment Communications, Disney-ABC Television Group - nicole.nichols@disney.com

Aime Wolfe - Assistant to Nicole Nichols - aime.wolfe@disney.com

Patti McTeague - VP of Kids Communications - patti.mcteague@disney.com

Siobhan Kenny - Acting Head of International Communications - siobhan.kenny@disney.com

Paul Lee - ABC Family Channel - paul.lee@disney.com

Annie Fort - ABC Family Media Relations - annie.fort@disney.com

Alex Wallau - President of Network Operations & Administration - alex.wallau@disney.com

David Westin - ABC News President - david.westin@disney.com

Mike Shaw - ABC Sales and Marketing President - mike.shaw@disney.com

Fred Kuperberg - Disney/ABC Executive VP of Business and Legal Affairs - fred.kuperberg@disney.com

Kara Rousseau - VP of Ad Sales Marketing for Disney/ABC Kids Networks - kara.rousseau@disney.com

Kim Harbin - Buena Vista Media Relations - kim.harbin@disney.com

James Fielding - Senior VP, Retail Sales and Marketing for DCP - james.fielding@disney.com

Chris Bess - Buena Vista Home Entertainment - chris.bess@disney.com

Peter Murphy - Senior Adviser to Mr. Iger - peter.murphy@disney.com

Judy Estrin - Board of Directors - jestrin@packetdesign.com

John Bryson - Board of Directors - john.bryson@edisonintl.com

Monica Lozano - Board of Directors - monica.lozano@laopinion.com

John Chen - Board of Directors - john.chen@sybase.com

Gary Wilson - Board of Directors - gary.wilson@nwa.com

Leo Odonova - Board of Directors - leo.odonovan@mbna.com

Thomas Staggs - CFO/Senior V.P. - tom.staggs@disney.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» M. More lawsuit and freedom of speech.. Posted by: Conservasaurus
Use proper labeling
Posted by: veive on Sep 7, 2006 3:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Disney applies the following disclaimer, all will be well. "This is a work of fiction. Any similarity to actual events or people depicted is purely coincidental." Maybe then old Walt Disney can stop spinning in his grave.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Use proper labeling Posted by: Plexius
» RE: Use proper labeling Posted by: byrdman
blatant propaganda, and it will work
Posted by: mwildfire on Sep 7, 2006 6:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So we learn that the advance copies were distributed only to right-wing sites...and that, due to the controversy, ABC will air this without commercials.
I watched CNN's take on the "controversy," and it was subtly slanted too--suggesting the falsifying was done "to dramatize" 9-11, as though it weren't dramatic enough. No, they might dramatize something if they're trying to sell commercial time, as usual--but they're foregoing all revenue from this airing, because they're NOT airing this film to make money. They're airing it to keep Republicans in the White House. Why? because the big media corporations are intimately tied in with weapons manufacturers, and because the Repugs will allow limitless merging of media corporations, and because the fat cats at the top hope to pass on their entire enormous fortunes without their spoiled offspring having to pay any taxes on it, etc. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but when you own both, you dictate policy. You can even get people to embrace policies that mean they will work harder and harder for less money, while being constantly spied on, and the environment is eaten and tossed away.
People are more influenced by images than words. The controversy doesn't matter much. People watching this thing will be heavily influenced, and for a long time to come, despite advance knowledge that some of it is fiction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Blatant propaganda, will work" - Too true
Posted by: Ullern on Sep 7, 2006 7:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Blatant propaganda, and it will work." - Too true.

Facts and truths are kept at bay by the propagandists trowing out ever more spin. This happens so fast and massively now that debugging, debunking and correcting the falsehoods, twists and outright lies becomes well-nigh irrelevant. There's always new lies added in the same vein before the old ones are penetratively and lastingly refuted.

"Slander, slander! - something will always stick..." is a proverb favored by, I believe, the propaganda-minister of another fascist-regime: Joseph Goebbels.

The "world-view shaping game" is not about the individual facts anymore, but about the general tenor of feeling in the mainstream, and influencing and directing that current by throwing claims into it. The truth of the claims is entirely subordinate. The mainstream current flows on in the changed direction after the incorrect claims are fished out.

Sad to watch. The barrage of distortions gets thrown at us faster than the mind can process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

propaganda
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 8, 2006 2:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The propaganda machine of the Bushies and their allies is in high gear. We can expect more of this blatent propaganda on TV since most TV moguls love the Bushies and the crimes that they perpetrate on the people of the world and the people of the USA. The people at ABC and other major TV outlets are quite busy creating pro Bushie propaganda so that they can continue to have a Congress that rubber stamps Bushie crimes and misdemeanors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I will only watch...
Posted by: Suburban Dad on Sep 8, 2006 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...if there is a truly tragicomic 7 minutes devoted to our Fearless Leader frozen in his chair as AMERICA IS ATTACKED!! And then cut to the adminstration in chaos because nobody knows where anybody is - Dick Cheney in some cool Bondesque bunker for like 10 months being cloned so he can still run the country even if his heart gives out.

Hey, if they're going to rewrite history, rewrite it with flair!

FLIGHT SUIT embraces LAURA and kisses her passionately.

FLIGHT SUIT: They hate our freedoms, darlin'.

LAURA: You need to do this for the children!

Bravely, Flight Suit climbs into the cockpit of the F-18. Gracefully, it rises to sky.

See here I have a problem, though. Should I totally rewrite the ending and have Flight Suit save the day? I mean why not it's a "dramatization" right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Path to 9/11 IS NOT Farenheit 9/11
Posted by: cold2touch on Sep 8, 2006 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The former is a blatant lie, a "composite" in Gov. Keane's triple-speak. The latter is true, everything Mike Moore brought up was factual truth, yet some people here equate the two.

Consider how the corporate propaganda machine, also referred to as media, spin the two sides:

1) outright lies, like Whitewater "scandal" or Clinton's alleged cause of Vince Foster's suicide (WSJ) or John Kerry's swiftboating go unpunished and un-acknowledged,

2) plainspoken truths, like Bush's shameful record of draft avoidance and subsequent AWOL during his Air National Guard tenure, as told by Dan Rather, are hysterically attacked on flimsy pretext of "forged documentation", when in fact all the statements were fully corroborated by Bush's commanding officer's secretary who saw originals and pronounced them fully in agreement.
Dan Rather is forced into ignominious retirement as becomes synonymous with fake journalism, while the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter carry on with their debaucheries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Moore was a liar..but that old hat Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Moore was a liar..but that old hat Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Moore is NOT a liar Posted by: Plexius
Independent???
Posted by: Pocahontas on Sep 8, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believer that PJH67 is an "independent." He/she isn't objective nor neutreal enough to weigh all sides of the issue before getting on his/her stump about it.

I think the ultra-conservatives and repugnicans are flooding this site with comments to divert discussions away from logical debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Independent??? Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: Independent??? Posted by: PJH67
» RE: Logical Debate Posted by: ISlamIslam
Government propaganda
Posted by: karihari on Sep 8, 2006 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am sure President Clinton made mistakes while in office but it was the Repubublicans who hounded him (at the cost of millions of taxpayers' money) during his whole second term. President Bush commits treason, bankrupts the U.S. and destroys Iraq; while HE and his cronies get obscenely rich on war profiteering. 9/11 happened on George Bush's watch. He did not heed briefings by Clinton staff when he took office. People BELIEVE what they see on T.V. This movie is not a docudrama it is propaganda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Government propaganda Posted by: Steve Adair
» RE: Government propaganda Posted by: ignition
» RE: Clinton's reaction Posted by: Plexius
» RE: Government propaganda Posted by: byrdman
AMERICANS ARE DUMB ENOUGH TO THINK THIS IS REAL
Posted by: ignition on Sep 8, 2006 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a country where people think Exodus is the true story of the founding of Israel. Of course numb nuts will belive this propaganda is true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Missing one major point
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Sep 8, 2006 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton may have been distracted by the silly sex scandal thing, but who promoted it and the trivial basis for an impeachment? The Republicans! The mini series should have started with Reagan and his cowardly cut and run response to the Murder of marines in Lebanon in the 80s. Then it could have lead up to the attempted coop with the impeachment kagaroo court silliness. History will not treat Bush and his moronic supporters very kindly, no matter what Corporate propagandists cook up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FROM A VERY SADENED VETERAN
Posted by: 15delta on Sep 8, 2006 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I served my 20 years with no regret, and saw combat both in Korea and Vietnam.
At that time we were too busy fighting a war and left politics to other people.
Well times have really changed, and the enemy just loves it.
As we fight among our selves we are fighting the enemy there way and they surely love it.
WAKE UP GENERALS IN CHARGE!
GET OUT OF THE POLITICS!
DO WHAT YOU WERE TRAINED FOR AND DO BEST.
NOW!
GOD, DON’T START VIETNAM AGAIN!! REMEMBER? 50,000 PLUS DEAD!!
I would think the brains we have in this country from the President on down would have better sense and KNOW how we are digging our own grave. Taking our own best interest ahead of this war and putting each other completely down as we are is a war the enemy will win.
Where are our brains, PEOPLE?
This is disgraceful. This is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and I along with WW1-WW11-Korea-Vietnam-Iraq veterans
fought and died for better than this.

STOP IT!!!!

FROM A GRATEFULL TO BE ALIVE EX FIGHTER PILOT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're all just Preaching to the Choir
Posted by: JHolmes on Sep 8, 2006 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looking at both right wing and left wing sites on this movie, I can tell you that both groups are just preaching to the choir.

Many members of the left are complaining that the right is controlling the release of this movie and that it is nothing but propaganda. Guess what, other members of the left are completely agreeing, and making a huge issue in the press, on the web, and any other place they can find. They say that the American people are idiots that can't change a channel, or make up their own mind, or distinguish fact from fiction - especially if it's portrayed on television.

Many members of the right are complaining that the left is trying to control the release of this movie, and this whole thing is a terrible demonstration of how they continually try to re-write history, repress everything bad about Clinton, and portray everything bad about Bush. Guess what, other members of the right are completely agreeing, and making a huge issue of it in the press, on their talk radio shows, and any other place they can find. They say that the American people are continually bombarded with leftist propaganda like Farenheit 9-11 and that we can't distinguish fact from fiction...especially if it's shown in the movies...

Understand this - the American people are not stupid. Most of us sit on the sidelines, don't get too fired up about most things, and make decisions on the facts as we interpret them. We know that there are political leanings to about everything we see (even websites that proclaim to publish "just the news", to CNN, and to FOX News!). We take what we can gather, and then make decisions on that. There is plenty of BS out their, but actually we're pretty good at sifting through it.

The right wing and left wing zealots that believe they know what is best for the American people always underestimate this. I'm not just speaking for myself, but for hundreds of people I have met over the years that are able to sit down and have an intelligent conversation over politics without dissolving into liberal or conservative bashing, political slogans, or making a slanted movie. I'm not scientifically sure the people I've talked to are a representative sample of the US population; but I'd guess there is about a 3-5% sampling error built into the poll. (stop reading here if you take that last sentence seriously)

Understand this - most of us are out there and know we can control the information we intake. We know how to read. We know how to change a channel. We know how to surf the web. We know how to buy a newspaper. Yes, the general public even knows how to be critical. Most of us know what a drama is. Most of us know that the world is spinning not just because of the fact that it rotates on it's axis, but also because politicians, media outlets, and other zealots put their own spin on the ways of the world.

Don't mistake the fact that most of us don't post on this site or get rattled because of movies like this one or Farenheit 9-11 for idiocy, or ignorance, or lack of patriotism or concern about our nation. Most of us go about our daily lives trying to deal with the concerns at hand - trying to work hard, trying to make life better for our communities and families, and trying to appreciate and enjoy the freedoms we are given. Most of us know that because of these freedoms we are being advertised to at all times - that we have people trying to convince us to buy everything ranging from a big bridge out in the San Francisco area to a truckload of manure posing as a docudrama or documentary. But, we wouldn't change it for anything.

So - liberals and conservatives, leftists and rightists, Bushies and Clintonistas - please get this message: We understand you are very high on your opinions. Know that when you voice them, you're just preaching to your own. The rest of us generally choose not to listen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And your point is...? Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: And your point is...? Posted by: Plexius
» RE: And your point is...? Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: And your point is...? Posted by: Plexius
WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE VICTIMS OF THE CRIME IN THE BATTLE WITH ABC!
Posted by: michaelo on Sep 8, 2006 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fight over the ABC "docudrama" Path to 9/11 between the Big Boys from the GOP and the Dem Party may be the greatest media treat since, ummm, uh, the last one: the impeachment of Clinton who "did not have sex with that woman," and then lied about not having done it ... or having had it done to him!

However, we the people, are once again the losers in this battle.

Neither the GOP nor the Democrats, (and certainly not the woefully shallow commercial tart ABC,) will choose to tell the truth about how Bin Laden and the angry Third World came to embrace terror as a weapon. See:
http://blog.radioleft.com/blog

THE TRUTH ABOUT ABC TV PROPAGANDA, BUSH, CLINTON, BUSH, THE CIA & 9/11

Protesting ABC's Path to 9/11 is obligatory for anyone wanting clarity regarding what is now called 9/11, which was in fact an act of war by the army of Islamic Fundamentalism, acting as the surrogate army for the "State of Islam." The attempt by the most reactionary political party of in recent US history, that is President Bush's Republican Party, to blame the other, more liberal party during a time of war is not simply bad propaganda, it borders on sedition.

Its primary purpose is to mislead a general public already woefully ignorant of its country's history of foreign affairs into believing that the act of war on 9/11 was because of the negligence of the Clinton administration rather than that of the previous and current Bush administrations.


http://blog.radioleft.com/blog

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

still defending Clinton? Why?
Posted by: folkdude01 on Sep 8, 2006 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He obviously didn't do enough to prevent 9/11 from happening. Clinton works very closely with the Bush Administration, I'm shocked that Bush hasn't defended him yet on this matter. A week ago Clinton received $3M to defend Wal-Mart. Are you kidding me? And everyone knows about the politics of his wife....So, again, I ask you: Why are you all defending Bill Clinton?

PS
The bottom line is it's a fictional movie, not a documentary. Films generally take a heighten reality when telling a story, and yes, sometimes skimming over the facts. Maybe everyone in here complaining needs to take a film course, hehe. Anyways, when director Paul Haggis (Crash, Million Dollar Baby) does his film version to Clarkes' Against All Enemies everyone in here will defend it while the conservatives will probably complain. So, everyone should relax, there are more important issues to worry about than how Clinton or anyone is portrayed in a TV movie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: still defending Clinton? Why? Posted by: soulfulnotes
» RE: still defending Clinton? Why? Posted by: folkdude01
» What is your point? Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: What is your point? Posted by: folkdude01
» RE: What is your point? Posted by: Jnutter
Still Missing the Big Picture (most of YOU)
Posted by: johndoraemi on Sep 9, 2006 12:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm quite disgusted by the partisan idiocy that we are confronted with daily. I'm disgusted mostly because it's a sham, an act, nonsense, fictional posturing.

While a few dramatic scenes in this latest bit of media crapola probably did not happen that way, the actual Clinton record is much like that of GW Bush and the elder "Poppy" Bush. To date, Clinton has murdered more Iraqis than the idiot son of Bush has managed to kill.

After half a million Iraqi children had been massacred through barbaric and medieval sanctions, forced upon Iraq by the United States, through pressure on the UN, Madeleine Allbright told us that she thought the price was "worth it."

That kind of creepy sadism is straight out of the dark ages. From a million to a million and a half Iraqis perished under Clinton's wrath, mostly from preventable diseases.

Next we take the offer by the Sudan government to extradite bin Laden, when they realized what a pain in the ass he was. The Sudanese intelligence service was reading his mail and tapping his phones. They wanted to share a large file of intelligence with the US and to kick him out to stand trial somewhere.

Clinton's administration would not accept bin Laden on a platter.

When the Sudanese government asked more firmly to send bin Laden to the US, Clinton took it upon himself to bomb the only medicine plant in the Sudan with cruise missiles (several days later), thus leading to the deaths of many Sudanese children as well.

This is verifiable and documented history.

Why would Clinton behave that way?

Why would Clinton allow the CIA to import cocaine by the ton through Mena Arkansas, when he was governor?

Why are there DC-9's flying cocaine today into Mexico dressed up like Department of Homeland Security jets (ask Porter Goss why he resigned so "mysteriously")?

Why is Afghanistan the opium capital of the world today, after all that wonderful "freedom and democracy" we dropped on them from B-52s, and CIA men running around with suitcases full of money?

Why was CIA meeting with bin Laden in Dubai, and treating him at an American military hospital for kidney problems in July of 2001?

Why was bin Laden in a Pakistani military hospital on September 10 of 2001, on the eve of 9-11?

There's reasons why, but you're not going to like them. Or, you're going to deny it all and not bother doing a minute's research, or just call me names. The American sheeple have lots of techniques for avoiding guilt by association, that they actually support a brutal murderous empire with military bases in most countries of the world, that uses the threat of terror from the sky as a tool of hegemony ("Hey Bob, isn't that terrorism?").

But, hell, a grade schooler could figure it out with a little bit of education. "Terrorism" replaced "Communism" as the new boogey man. This was a long term plan, written about extensively throughout the 1990's. The collapse of the Soviet Union confronted the world's "military superpower" with a shortage of threats. They set about manufacturing them, coddling them, training and helping them. The "Al Qaeda" threat has connections going to Pakistani ISI, American CIA, MI-6, and Saudi intelligence among others.

They were seen as good business to imperial interests who seek to dominate through military "supremacy."

They still are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» uninformed Posted by: johndoraemi
» RE: uninformed Posted by: Plexius
» Johndo is... Posted by: bassman
» RE: Johndo is... Posted by: Plexius
» RE: UNINFORMED JOHNDO Posted by: Plexius
pigs on animal farm
Posted by: gerdhansel on Sep 9, 2006 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't Democrats like Tom Daschle raise holy hell when CBS pulled the Reagan movie?

I remember the furor quite clearly. Reagan made hateful statements about AIDS victims? Nancy slapped her daughter Patty? The film may have gotten shown on Showtime, but I never saw those two scenes.

Bloggers ranted about the missing Reagan/AIDS speech for days on end.

Now the same Democrats and bloggers want ABC to yank a film about about 9/11 because, GASP!!!, the film has the gall to portray unflattering and exaggerated scenes about President Slick Willy.

Sauce for the goose, people.

Remember the pigs on Animal Farm. In the beginning their righteous mantra was "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD."

As the pigs became more like the farmers they'd overthrown, the mantra changed to the hypocritical "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BETTER."

Listen to what Orwell has to say. Don't be a hypocritical pig.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pigs on animal farm Posted by: Plexius
The point (and missing it).
Posted by: Jnutter on Sep 9, 2006 12:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point here is whether or not we the viewing public will allow a major television network to air blatant partisan propaganda in the critical period of time leading up to an election.

This is NOT about Clinton. Clinton's record is now a matter for historians to squabble over. Any attempt to make this issue all about Clinton is an attempt to obfuscate the real matter at hand (and as such, is a detriment to us all).

The continuing struggle to maintain our checks and balances that assure that democracy does not become a commodity that can be bought and sold by the rich IS the issue we should be concerned about. The major networks used to have a standard of decency to uphold, they used to have a sense of responsibility to the public and respect for fairness in the political process. We have never seen such an erosion of those qualities before and this film is a glaring example of that erosion. The people who are speaking out against this film are true patriots and defenders of real democracy. I salute them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PJH67 request Posted by: Plexius
» RE: PJH67 request Posted by: PJH67
» RE: Nat Hentoff Posted by: Plexius
» RE: Nat Hentoff Posted by: PJH67
» RE: Nat Hentoff Posted by: Plexius
» RE: Nat Hentoff Posted by: PJH67
» RE: Nat Hentoff Posted by: Plexius
» RE: Nat Hentoff Posted by: PJH67
» RE: Nat Hentoff Posted by: Plexius
» Unlimited Freedom Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: Unlimited Freedom Posted by: PJH67
» Why we have laws. Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: Why we have laws. Posted by: PJH67
» RE: Why we have laws. Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: Why we have laws. Posted by: PJH67
» RE: Why we have laws. Posted by: Jnutter
» RE: Why we have laws. Posted by: PJH67
TV is Truth
Posted by: YogiBear on Sep 9, 2006 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's an ad for this movie on the back page of the "Life" magazine supplement that comes with our daily newspaper. The ad says nothing about it being fictionalized, only that it's "Based on the 9/11 Commission Report."

So, whatever they present is going to become fact for the viewing public whether it's actually documented, or simply dramatization. To many, TV is truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: TV is Truth Posted by: Plexius
» RE: TV is Truth Posted by: folkdude01
Better things to do
Posted by: gonzoskismet on Sep 9, 2006 3:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I got better things to do than to watch America lie itself into another grave. Been there done that. There are weapons to buy and, in the future, graves to dig. Have a happy, America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abc can air Death of a President
Posted by: morabors on Sep 9, 2006 9:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps ABC can air the new British film "Death of a President". It is as controversial (depicting the killing of the President), but remember it is a fictional documentary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Australia is running this a day ahead of the US....tonight
Posted by: ohureo on Sep 9, 2006 10:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so I guess that speaks to all the editing ABC is supposedly busy doing. Not only that, it is being billed as "THE OFFICIAL TRUE STORY" in the promos and as for slant - watch the video of the promo on the station's website: http://au.tv.yahoo.com/tv/ (click on the video promo on the right hand side).

From the promo:

"How they could have wiped Bin Laden out - they didn't, but why?....How one decision changed the world".

I get their game in the U.S., that's a no-brainer - do they really think they're going to sway WORLD opinion for Bush's Long War with this?? Or is this an 'end-times evangelicals of the world unite' effort??

I'm no longer in the US, but apparently those of you who are will be treated to Bush's formal 9-11 statement on your Monday night in the middle of the series on another channel. I can just imagine how well chosen his words will be to tie in with what's going on in this shameless propaganda miniseries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ABC: Propaganda Organ
Posted by: Gaubladt on Sep 10, 2006 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The big story isn't the lie that Clinton held back the missiles from killing Bin Laden: The real story is that Bush & Co. deliberately stopped looking for him after Kabul was taken. Bush Co. was dragged kicking and screaming by rogue cia agents to Tora Bora. Bush Co. didn't want him. The reason is simple. They decided that America needs a live boogey man, not a dead one!
Now, the Taliban and al Qaeda can collect money and work towards their nuclear surprise. Do the Bush Co. Confederates care? No! Why should they, as long as the targets are blue state cities like Washington DC and New York and L. A. ? Think of the possibilities for them,the confederates: With NY decimated, Americas new business center could be Huston! With LA irradiated, the entertainment center could move to San Antonio ( home of Clear Com) While the capitol could move to Dallas. For them, keeping Al Qaeda alive and active is an absolute necessity.
It's not such a strange tactic. It's like a Capital One commercial, where the credit card company disparages bogus briggands who ask "what's in your wallet?" to customers. But, Capitol One is the real "Vandal" who would like nothing better than to take your life savings, and posses your home. Well, ABC is projecting the Republican message that blames terrorism on the Democrats. While, for the past five years, the Republicans have been negligent on the issue of Al Qaeda.
The original Al Qaeda organization is still sending terrorists, money, and propaganda to do harm to Americans. This is the real issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Path to the Bush-Cheney 'Top Gun'
Posted by: zippy on Sep 11, 2006 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ABC-DISNEY AND WHITE HOUSE
TEAM UP TO REMAKE ‘TOP GUN’

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts, Sept.10 – As film editors struggle to correct flaws in ABC’s docudrama “The Path to 9-11,” it was revealed today that the Bush administration and ABC-Disney are collaborating on a remake of the movie “Top Gun.” In a highly unusual move, ABC has made available a videotape of a focus group led by the President and Vice President for the purposes of reshaping a rough version of the sequel to the 1986 blockbuster. Parts of the focus group can be viewed at youtube by searching for "The Bush-Cheney 'Top Gun' Focus Group"
ABC’s disclosure came in the wake of controversy over its miniseries about events leading up to the attacks of 9/11. A statement issued by the network said the existence of its “Top Gun” project was made public due to anger over issues of dramatization. “ ‘The Path to 9/11’ is not a documentary, and for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictional scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression,” a spokeswoman explained. “But the public doesn’t get it, so we figured everyone might as well know now that we are also making a film that is entirely fictional, one we can’t be attacked for since it won’t depend on any relation to the truth of some report.” She added, “We don’t want to have to ask the Democrats for their thoughts, and besides, people like fiction more than documentaries.”

An aide to Robert Iger, the president of Disney, ABC’s parent company, took a preemptive strike at would-be critics. “Just as with ‘The Path to 9/11,’ no one has seen the final version of the new ‘Top Gun,’ so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible,” the aide said. An international hit, the original “Top Gun” was credited with being the biggest recruitment vehicle ever for the armed forces. Tom Cruise, who originated the lead role of “Maverick,” has not been asked to star in the remake. The casting of the new movie is still a secret, but in the video of the focus group, Mr. Bush himself takes the role of “Maverick” and even sings new songs from the movie’s soundtrack. “This film is a sign of our faith, commitment, and leadership in advancing America’s ideals at home and abroad,” said a spokesman for the White House’s Office for Public Diplomacy, who added, “It will boost recruitment, convince skeptics of our noble cause, and show the Muslim world what freedom and liberty are all about.”

In addition to the website listed above, Ian Maxwell MacKinnon and Eric Zinman, who produced the focus group, invite viewers to see archives of previous Bush-Cheney performances at the website http://www.492cafe.org/audio/comedy-satire/mackinnon.ian/ Included are readings from the Bush Bible, Q&A sessions, and the songs “Faith-Based Gospel” and “The Sun Never Sets On The Eagle,” sung by President Bush, accompanied by the Vice-President on piano.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Poetic Justice!---Really Tickles Me
Posted by: NeoCogito on Sep 12, 2006 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the father of fake news and spin was exposed by someone big enough who didn't genuflect e.g., ABC. Those who oppose the Clintons have historically, and with alarming consistency, had a way of vanishing or taking a big hit. Are you guys sure what you look for in a president is a vindictive "terminator?"

Why I fear the Clintons:
For all of those who fell by the wayside on their ladder to success and everyone who's fallen on the sword for them; for all the things they've managed hook or crook to cover up, the smoking guns, the many times s/he took the fifth; for all the empty gestures and grandstanding beginning with Nat'l Health Care when s/he, everybody knew it had no chance; for all his Neo-"Liberal" rhetoric cynically designed so we'd look for a healer and we did.

And, for all the propaganda forums funded by his overflowing corporate sponsored treasure-chest, the intimidating cyber-goon squads that dominate and fan out on the web bullying and censoring attempts that threaten to expose the southern conservative who destroyed our party from WITHIN! and, as such, hurt civil/human rights and our democracy more than 10 of Reagan, Nixon or Bush. Are you sure you're happy with a vain, power-obsessed man(or his wife) with a thorough-going contempt for the people-- running our party?

Just Ran Across This From the new book "Screwed" --yeah! this may be more than you wanted to know.

"...An entire generation has been indoctrinated in this smaller-is-better view to the point where polls showed that when Bill Clinton said “smaller government,” people reacted positively. Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996,the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),and the General Agreement on Tariff s and Trade (GATT),further reducing the power of We the People to regulate business and the media. The result was another explosion of mergers and the near total takeover of the American media and the American workplace by multinational corporations that have little or no allegiance to the USA or the concept of democracy. Today the bottom line rules and workers be damned... In the corporatocracy, politicians are paid by economic interests rather than by We the People.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Network TV mandate
Posted by: Jnutter on Sep 12, 2006 5:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of people on here have been trying their damndest to say that this is a non-issue because Moore made Fahrenheit 911 or because The Daily Show is obviously biased or whatever... and I have been stating over and over again that to compare something that was shown in theatres only or something that is on cable tv with something that is on a network is missing the point. I unfortunately did not at the time know the name of the law that I was talking about, but now I do... It is called the Communications Act of 1934 and ABC violated that act and may very well lose its broadcasting license because of that violation.

The following is a quote from a letter by leading senate democrats to the CEO of Disney:

"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."

The full text of the letter can be found here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Educational Programming
Posted by: Jnutter on Sep 12, 2006 5:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You all should know (though it may scare the pants off you) that Disney intends to use "the Path to 9/11" as a teaching tool in its Scholastic program. This load of crap is now also going to be taught to our children as if it were the truth.

The fight isn't over people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TV is the problem
Posted by: spanky on Sep 12, 2006 7:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of the brainwashed masses can't seem to figure out that corporate media like ABC/Disney are not interested in presenting the truth or promoting democracy or informing the populace. This applies not just to this docu-drama/fairy tale, but to everything they produce including their so-called "news".

They are owned by greedy and powerful lunatics who want to protect the status quo. Once you understand this simple fact, you can begin to purge this influence from your life.

Then you can start reading, talking to people, doing your own research, and slowly but surely the truth will start to emerge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement