9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased

[itsrobert]

9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased

By JESSE McKINLEY
Published: September 6, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 5 — Days before its scheduled debut, the first major television miniseries about the Sept. 11 attacks was being criticized on Tuesday as biased and inaccurate by bloggers, terrorism experts and a member of the Sept. 11 commission, whose report makes up much of the film’s source material.

The six-hour miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” is to be shown on ABC on Sunday and Monday. The network has been advertising the program as a “historic broadcast,” which uses the commission’s report on the 2001 attacks as its “primary foundation.”

On Tuesday, several liberal blogs were questioning whether ABC’s version was overly critical of the Clinton administration while allowing the Bush administration off easy.

In particular, 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 it, the officers, working with leaders of the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel group, move in to capture Osama bin Laden, only to allow him to escape after the mission is canceled by Clinton officials in Washington.

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.”

more....
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06path.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

[Ignacio Upton]

1. If we take the House back

We should start doing some investigating into Disney and ABC.

[Benhurst]

2. Not just Disney -- All the corporate media. The Fairness Doctrine

needs to be re-instituted.

And the broadcasters should have to pay more for their monopolies. Tax the bastards until the squeal.

[0007]

39. Isn't it all about corporate America and the people they choose

to run the country in their interest?

We the people have no country.

[Kurovski]

47. Amen, Benhurst. I've had it with all the lies being disseminated

over OUR airwaves.

[rrasile]

53. Airwaves

It's to late to complain. After they made the first move any complaint just makes us look like crybabys.
If PBS front-line would have put on a show about 9/11 the Bush people would be all over it.
Sometimes I am sure that we've lost all of our freedom and if we fail in the mid term we will be in some deep shit.

[jarnocan]

45. Got election fraud?

a big IF, but I know we have to keep trying.

[Psephos]

90. How would this be different from censorship?

The only speech that needs protecting is the speech we don't like.

Yes, let's use a Dem House to "investigate" all the broadcasting we hate. That'll protect the Constitution, fer sure, and let people know what we stand for.

WAKE UP. Progressives protest, debate, call-out, publicize, demonstrate, storm the net, and use every way available to put the truth out in response to untruths. But no true progressive censors and suppresses. That's what separates us from the other guys.

Unless you want to be the other guys.

Peace.

[bilgewaterbill]

91. We have AAR but it's ratings are miserable. We have to listen

and support the sponsors. If we want equal time, we have to make it profitable for everyone involved.

[texpatriot2004]

3. Thank you Mr. Clarke nm

[progressoid]

4. OK folks we only have a few days to spread this to the rest of the "media"

Sadly, we have to do their job for them. WE have to become the messengers of the bad news that is this miniseries

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. Finally the NY Times picked this up. If things get shittier

they will have to cancel the whole cha-cha.

[bliss_eternal]

22. That's my sincere hope...

..and why not cancel it? Didn't one of the networks cancel the raygun film before airing? :shrug:

[Skittles]

30. yeah

and THAT one was probably cancelled because it was the TRUTH

[bliss_eternal]

31. Exactly...

...and that pisses me off. As if we don't already know who and what raygun was, and what he was about. :eyes:

[truthisfreedom]

76. boycott disney. they cut and run on the truth. the GOP blocked Clinton

from getting action taken on the terrorism bills he wanted passed that might have stopped 9-11... and Bush abolished Clinton's anti-terror work one month into office.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2810906

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2811893

[greenman3610]

6. contacted ABC

at


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

[tinfoilinfor2005]

40. Done deal.

Along with my criticism of the "docudrama" and my withdrawal of support for Disney and other sponsors, I added my hopes that a democratic house would do an investigation into ABC and Disney for this erroneous and blatant effort to influence voters with corporate dollars.

[bilgewaterbill]

92. Just sent my comment. Hope it helps. NT

[ginnyinWI]

7. Richard Clarke was on tonight's ABC News--

And in fact, he was saying harsh things about the * administration. And it was on ABC, with Charlie Gibson.

My point is that you just can't paint an entire network with the same brush. Martha Raddatz and Charlie Gibson seem to be honest journalists, and they aren't afraid to tell the truth on the bushies.

[w4rma]

11. If they have Richard Clarke on as an intermission for this farce

I *might* forgive them. But, the fact that ABC spent all this money on this BS and are going to make it their big 911 salute leans me away from forgiveness.

[RamboLiberal]

16. ABC have approximately 10 minutes to fill at end each night

And so far they have nothing scheduled for Monday night - supposedly Charlie Gibson is supposed to talk on it Sunday night. I'd suggest bombarding ABC that they let Clarke on one of those nights. Like the History Channel has historians on when they run a fictional movie that covers a historical event to discuss what is reel vs. real.

I already made this suggestion to Think Progress and Media Matters.

From near end of article in Variety.

Because the miniseries' actual length is less than the six-hour, two-night block in which it's scheduled to run, ABC has had to make other plans to fill the time following the conclusions of both parts.

ABC News has already prepared a special documentary hosted by Charlie Gibson to air following the end of night two of the mini, just after 10 p.m. on Sept. 11. Alphabet is still finalizing plans for the roughly 10 minutes of airtime left at the conclusion of night one, on Sept. 10.

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleid=VR1117949477&categoryid=14&cs=1&s=h&p=0

[w4rma]

25. An intermission from Clarke really should be in the middle. I agree. (nt)

[jarnocan]

44. EVEN if they did it would likely be for a few seconds

with no chance to explain in a meaningful way, and then they would call that fair.

[stepnw1f]

87. Oh Yes I Can

Big difference between Mr. Clark criticizing the administration and ABC airing (UNINTERRUPTED) a movie to smear Democrats before an election. HUGE difference...

[DeepModem Mom]

8. K AND R!!!

[Alcibiades]

9. my rambling rant to ABC

My rants are not normally this rambling, but I sure am ticked off.

Will someone explain to these idiots that there are tens of millions of Democrats in this country, and that we, too have money and are free to spend it with their advertisers, or to not spend it with their advertisers?

Anyway, let's shout about this thing loud enough so that it does not go away.


Dear ABC,

I have been a lifelong viewer of ABC, but this will change, starting today. The reason is the network's choice to air the docudrama "Path to 911.” I think that the decision to air this show in advance of the November elections is ill-considered, given that the current administration has chosen to politicize the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Though I have not seen this film, the fact that it was written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, a highly partisan Republican activist, and the fact that Richard Clarke has noted that the film depicts events that did not happen, makes the objectivity of this film suspect.

I am concerned that this film may be a partisan political contribution in an election year. If the content of the show paints Democrats in a bad light while portraying Republicans as heroes, then ABC has a problem that will make the scandal over Janet Jackson's nipple fade into obscurity. The choice to air what has been alleged to be a partisan revision of history is strange, given that it is in clear violation of the corporate policy of Disney, whose outgoing CEO has said (regarding his company's choice not to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11) that Disney: "did not want a film in the middle of the political process where we're such a nonpartisan company and our guests, that participate in all of our attractions, do not look for us to take sides." The difference between Fahrenheit 9/11 and the Path to 9/11 is that Fahrenheit 9/11 is shot with Michael Moore narrating and appearing in the film, and so it has a clear point of view, whereas the Path to 9/11 might be mistaken for a documentary. Why is it Disney has one policy for Michael Moore and one for Cyrus Nowrasteh? Is this how ABC and Disney demonstrate nonpartisanship?

This is the first time I've boycotted anything, but the decision to air the “Path to 9/11" shows that ABC now has taken up the banner of the Republican Party, as evidenced by the double standard when compared to the (non-) involvement of its parent company with the distribution of Fahrenheit 9/11. I will watch ABC one last time: I intend to watch "Path to 9/11," and to take notes on whether the film treats its subject evenhandedly, looking for possible evidence of the anti-Democratic bias that has been alleged against it, such as the various slanders against former President Clinton. I would love to be wrong about “Path to 9/11,” but, given Mr. Nowrasteh’s public statements that show contempt for millions of Americans who are Democrats, the allegations of bias in the film are entirely credible.

I will watch ABC one last time and, if warranted, I will complain to the FCC, who had better take my complaint as seriously as the complaints about Miss Jackson's nipple. If the content of the show warrants it, I will write to sponsors of the program to let them know that my family will no longer be buying their products. I will write to the members in Congress charged with oversight of the FCC to ask that they investigate the decision to air "Path to 9/11" and whether it is a violation of campaign finance law. Other than the airing of "Path to 9/11," my family will be boycotting WTVD, ESPN, Baby Einstein, The Disney Channel, Lifetime, A&E, Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, Miramax Films, Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Pixar, Hyperion Books, all of the various Disney properties, and all licenced merchandise associated with any of the above.

Millions of Americans feel as I do about the current president and his ilk. Pulling "the path to 9/11" from its scheduled broadcast on the public airwaves and releasing it straight to video is the right thing to do, if the network seeks to maintain its self-image as “a nonpartisan company.”

[Drum]

14. Nice!

Well done Alcibiades... :toast:

[bliss_eternal]

21. Excellent letter--thanks for sharing!

:hi::thumbsup:

[bliss_eternal]

26. Would you mind, if I use a segment of your letter...?

... I liked your quote regarding Eisner's comments about their not wanting to seem to be a partisan company--when they distanced themselves from Farenheit 9/11. I've been looking all over the internet tonight for these comments.

I want to share this with them when I call tomorrow to let them know they've lost the support of the Eternal household with this decision. A household that has bought several Disney movies for our collection, are frequent annual passholders to the Disneyland resort, purchasers of baby Einstein products and other Disney themed items for our beloved niece. We've participated in several of the Disneyland resorts other special events, which required purchase above and beyond the cost of admission or our annual passes. So they can kiss the revenue from us bye-bye. The day they decide they can stop making partisan decisions to influence others, we'll THINK about giving them our money again.

:mad:

[Alcibiades]

74. Absolutely

Though I think that Eisner himself is no longer at Disney, if his statement does reflect corporate policy, then the decision to air this show may violate it, particularly in an election year, which was the context he claimed meant he couldn't distribute Fahrenheit 9/11.

I never got to go to Disney as a kid, but my wife did, and we were looking forward to bringing our 19 month old son when he's a bit older. Not going to happen now, and no Pooh bear stuff or any of the other Disney crap will darken my door unless they refuse to air this think or air it with a disclaimer appearing every 15 seconds announcing that "the show you are watching is a complete and total fantasy, the product of an expatriate Iranian with an axe to grind." Nonpartisan, my ass.

[Straight Shooter]

88. bliss eternal's own DU thread on the hypocrisy of Disney re: 9/11

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2065827

:thumbsup:

[jarnocan]

46. Media Mattrs link on this with contact info

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609010012

the right-wing media have resurrected an already-debunked claim that attempts to place the blame for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks at the feet of the Clinton admin...

[leQ]

58. what a great letter! God i wish i had the nuance for words like you. -eom

[Pacifist Patriot]

85. Excellent. Well done!

[anotherdrew]

10. this crap should never make it to the screen, they will pull it. n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

12. I always knew Clarke was an Honest Man

but, I know what these jerks of the movie are doing. they are trying to combine that story by the CIA agent at Tora Bora during the war where they did have Bin Laden cornered and transporting it back in time to the Clinton years. This actually happened when we invaded AFTER 9-11. That was a Bush administration screw up.

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. Nice how they morphed the two stories

into one.

Now Americans will believe that it was Clinton who let Osama walk or fly out of Tora Bora rather then Bush.


BTW: Welcome to DU :hi:

[Nostradammit]

13. From ABC's web page:

The message you get right after sending them feedback:

"Note: The Company's long-established policy does not allow us to accept for review or consideration any ideas, suggestions, or creative materials not solicited by us or our subsidiaries. Therefore, in the event that you have submitted such content, please be advised that the submission has been forwarded to the Company's legal department for handling."

What the hell does that mean?

OOOOhh, are they gonna send CIA goons after me cuz I railed on them for their propaganda?

[Drum]

15. I think it means

"We here don't care what's in your letter unless it's threats or slander. We will run your letter through Legal's filters, and if there's anything that we can sue you for, you'll be hearing from us. Oh yes, Homeland Security has some filters that they'll apply as well...watch your mail. And watch your back. And watch our shows."

But hey, I'm no lawyah...:shrug:

[Nostradammit]

19. I think that's exactly what they mean

Hope they accept for review or consideration my suggestion that they go fuck themselves.

[bliss_eternal]

32. ...and while they're doing that...

they can review my suggestion that they kiss my liberal, tree huggin' ass.

[agio]

37. creative materials

It is for people who are using the feedback form to pitch show ideas.

[jdadd]

51. I think it means...

They'll call Fox security on you...:rofl:

[fujiyama]

17. If box office reciepts for Flight 93 and 9/11 are any indication

this thing will be a ratings bomb.

Fuck you ABC. More bullshit propaganda from "American Bush Corporation"....

[bliss_eternal]

23. It seemed those movies didn't last in theaters long...

Hollywood is so stupid.

I agree, Fuck ABC!

[RamboLiberal]

24. I'm thinking we may be making much ado about nothing

It probably won't get that great a ratings. People will watch it and forget it. I don't think it will make much impact at the polls. If you went in hating Clinton you'll come out hating Clinton. If you went in hating Bush you'll come out hating Bush. I have a feeling most Americans place blame on both administrations.

WTC and United 93 died quick deaths at the box office. I think the public is 9-11 weary. ABC would get better ratings showing Steve Irwin's death video.

[bliss_eternal]

27. While I understand what you are saying...

I'd like to respectfully disagree and assert that this isn't really the point, at least not for me.

The point for me at least is that ABC/Disney are hypocrites. They refused to support or distribute Michael Moore's film because they didn't want to be partisan, or so they said.

By airing this movie the way they are (commercial free) they are saying--this is important. This is a film we want you to see and pay attention to.

It doesn't matter if no one watches it, or if those that see it maintain their stances after doing so. The point is that they are airing it at all--a company that previously claimed to not want to appear to be on either side of the political spectrum. They have a side, and they are showing it to us all with this crap. It's up to us to show them we hear them loud and clear and that we will take our money elsewhere.

At least that's how I feel about it. :)

[redqueen]

59. Well said!

It's important to demand accountability from the media. Allowing them to be used / serve willingly as partisan tools of the right and refusing to call them on it due to ratings is silly.

We must call them on it every time.

[yorkiemommie1]

79. the fact that it will be distributed to schools

means that it may or WILL find a permanent place in school libraries and be used to influence millions of students!

[agio]

38. I agree

While it's nice to see the blogosphere flex its muscles on this, I think it is going to bomb for non political reasons.

9/11 is just not something people want to see dramatized, docudramatized, etc. It's still too painful for us all.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

71. Isn't Sunday night the BIG night for TV?

n/t

[aquart]

94. And if the ratings were fabulous

Would you throw up your hands and say, "What can we do, people like this stuff" and insist there was still nothing to do?

Thanks for your concern.

[RamboLiberal]

18. Anyone know if Michael Scheuer was a consultant on this movie?

I don't have his book Imperial Hubris but I remember skimming it at the book store. And I've read about him from other sources that he is somewhat an enemy of Richard Clarke. I seem to remember from what I skimmed of the book that Scheuer was really critical of the efforts at the Clinton WH. I've been getting the vibes that Scheuer is a bit of a nut case.

Richard Clarke
"Clarke's book is also a crucial complement to the September 11 panel's failure to condemn Mr. Clinton's failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting. Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before September 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat. That trio, in my view, abetted al Qaeda, and if the September 11 families were smart they would focus on the dereliction of Dick , Bill and Sandy and not the antics of convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui."<9>

Criticisms
Thomas Joscelyn of Weekly Standard wrote a highly critical piece on Scheuer and an interview Scheuer did on Chris Matthews Hardball. <9> Joscelyn wrote:

"When Michael Scheuer, the first head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, first emerged into public view almost a year ago, it was a curiosity how he could appear in the media--time after time--claiming that there was no evidence of a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. It was curious because, in 2002, Scheuer wrote the book Through Our Enemies' Eyes, in which he cited numerous pieces of evidence showing that there was, in fact, a working relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. That evidence directly contradicted his criticism of the intelligence that led this nation into the Iraq war, which he called a 'Christmas present' for bin Laden."
Scheuer wrote about the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in his 2002 book (see above, 2002). Yet when interviewed in 2004 he stated that he had found no evidence of a Saddam/al-Qaeda connection. Tim Russert asked Scheuer to explain the seeming contradiction on Meet the Press (30 November 2004). Scheuer replied:

"I certainly saw a link when I was writing the books in terms of the open-source literature, unclassified literature, but I had nothing to do with Iraq during my professional career until the run-up to the war. What I was talking about on "Hardball" was, I was assigned the duty of going back about nine or 10 years in the classified archives of the CIA. I went through roughly 19,000 documents, probably totaling 50,000 to 60,000 pages, and within that corpus of material, there was absolutely no connection in the terms of a--in the terms of a relationship."<10>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer

Till he was outed - I believe he may have outed himself - he went by anonymous. Here's some of his testimony before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee according to an article in The Atlantic.

5. August-September 1997: For most of a year the Bin Laden unit prepared for an operation in a foreign city that was set to come to fruition in late-summer 1997. The unit's lead U.S.-based officer on this operation was an extraordinarily able analyst from another IC component; she knew the issue cold. Days before the operation occurred the IC component ordered her back to its headquarters. She protested, but was told that she would not be promoted if she balked at returning. I protested to my superiors and to the three most senior officers of the IC component who were then in charge of terrorism. All refused to intervene. The operation was much less well exploited because of the loss of this officer. A year later, al-Qaeda destroyed U.S. facilities in the area near the foreign city of the under-exploited operation.

6. April-May 1998: The Agency's Bin Laden unit was ordered disbanded and reduced to a small branch. This was done, so far as I know, without the knowledge of the DCI ... When DCI found out about this plan, he intervened in mid-May 1998. By doing so, the DCI preserved the unit and dodged the bullet of having to explain to the American people why the Agency thought Bin Laden was so little of a threat that it had destroyed the Bin Laden unit weeks before two U.S. embassies were demolished. Needless to say, the on-again, off-again signals about the unit's future status made for confusion, distraction, and much job-hunting in the last few weeks before al-Qaeda's August 1998 attacks in East Africa.

7. May 1998-May 1999: The CIA officers working Bin Laden at Headquarters and in the field gave the U.S. government about ten chances to capture Bin Laden or kill him with military means. In all instances, the decision was made that the "intelligence was not good enough." This assertion cannot be debated publicly without compromising sources and methods. What can be said, however, is that in all these cases there was more concern expressed by senior bureaucrats and policymakers about how international opinion would react to a U.S. action than there was concern about what might happen to Americans if they failed to act. Indeed, on one occasion these senior leaders decided it was more important to avoid hitting a structure near Bin Laden's location with shrapnel, than it was to protect Americans. Two other points: the truth has not been fully told about the chance to militarily attack Bin Laden at a desert hunting camp being used by wealthy Gulf royals; and our best chance to capture Bin Laden—an operation which showed no U.S. hand, risked no U.S. lives, and was endorsed by senior commanders of the Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg—was cancelled because senior officials from the Agency, the Executive Branch, and other Intelligence Community components decided to accept assurances from an Islamic country that it could acquire Bin Laden from the Taleban. U.S. officials accepted these assurances despite the well-documented record of that country withholding help—indeed, it was a record of deceit and obstruction—regarding all issues pertaining to Bin Laden between December 1996 and May 1998. The makers of this decision ignored the extensive documentary record that showed nothing but uncooperativeness from this Islamic country.

8. August 1998: After the bombing of two U.S.-based embassies in East Africa, the senior CIA managers asked what the Bin Laden unit needed most to enhance the attack against al-Qaeda. I again raised our dire need for verbatim reports derived from electronic collection. These senior managers ordered this to be arranged. After receiving less than a dozen such transcripts the process stopped. Despite repeated requests, I failed to get the flow of data restored. Also, tragically, no member of the Bin Laden unit was asked to testify before the State Department's accountability boards for the 1998 embassy bombings. This exclusion ensured that the systemic problems embedded in the Intelligence Community—which had become overwhelmingly clear before the 1998 al-Qaeda attacks—were not raised before the only pre-9/11 panel that might have been able to initiate remedial action.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/anonymous

[RamboLiberal]

20. On further checking Scheuer went after this docudrama in July

Is this why the producer claimed the right went after him? If what I'm reading about this docudrama they sure didn't follow Clarke's book - did they follow Scheuer's?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060704-110004-4280r.htm

Bill and Dick, Osama and Sandy
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Michael F. Scheuer
July 5, 2006

With one credible September 11 movie, "United 93," under our belts, it will be interesting to see whether ABC-TV will complete the September 11 Commission's whitewashing of the pre-September 11 failure of U.S. intelligence-community leaders in its forthcoming mini-series based on Richard Clarke's memoir, "Against All Enemies."

Media teasers about the mini-series have said that Mr. Clarke -- the former "terrorism czar" -- and a senior FBI officer, the late John O'Neill, will be the heroes of the saga. If true, and if ABC's fact-checkers are not diligent in verifying Mr. Clarke's stories and claims, the mini-series will be the September 11 commission's dream come true: The Bush administration will be blamed for September 11, the feckless moral cowardice of the Clinton administration will be disguised and Mr. Clarke and Mr. O'Neill -- in my view, two principal authors of September 11 -- will be beatified.

Mr. Clarke's book, on the basis of my involvement to varying degrees in the issues it covers, is a mixture of fact, fiction and cover-up. Mr. Clarke seems to get most names and dates right, and is correct in damning the early Bush administration for obliviousness to the al Qaeda threat. We must also take him at his word on his touching, if sycophantic, tales of Mr. Clinton instructing a young boy to be good to his mom and Hillary Rodham Clinton's secluded moment praying on her knees.

On the fantasy level, Mr. Clarke lays it on thick. His claim that the Clinton administration "defeated an al-Qaeda attempt to dominate Bosnia" is nonsense; bin Laden sent few fighters there because he had no contiguous safe haven for them. Mr. Clarke's claim that "the CIA had taken months to tell the FBI" several hijackers were in America is a lie. FBI officers sat in the unit I first commanded and then served in and they read the same information I did. If the data did not get to FBI headquarters it is because the FBI then lacked, and still lacks, a useable computer system. The FBI did not know the September 11 hijackers were here because Judge Louis Freeh and Robert Mueller have failed to provide their officers computers that allow

[Skittles]

29. will they show bush frozen in the classroom, then hiding?

yeah,I thought not

[CJCRANE]

33. "What the President Did on Sept 11"

would make an exciting docudrama. I'd like to see that one.

[LynneSin]

34. I spent 5 minutes reading the blogs on ABC - bunch of idiots

One guy was like "I hope ABC doesn't cave and change the facts about how Clinton caused all of this"

Do these idiots know how to read? Like the 9/11 Commission especially!

ABC had about 10,000 disclaimers on the site for this movie with the "This is a Dramatization taken from various reports including the 9/11 commission" and yet how many people INCLUDING those from the 9/11 have criticized the innacuracy of the movies.

Perhaps if they're willing to show this right-wing 'docudrama' then to be fair and balanced they should show Farhenheit 9/11

[underpants]

49. I recommend (in terms of the 9/11 Report itself)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=233426&mesg_id=233426

[sattahipdeep]

35. The question is, "Did NIST test for controlled demolition evidence?"

http://www.teamliberty.net/id273.html

[erpowers]

36. Wrong President

The real problem with this miniseries is that it criticizes and goes after the wrong president. Yes that scene in Afghanistan did happen, or at least something similar to it happened. However, it happened a few years after Clinton left office. I do believe that CIA officials and military officials have said that U.S. troops were either close to capturing Bin Laden or close to finding Bin Laden, but that job was handed off to the Northern Alliance when some American troops were redeployed from Afghanistan to Iraq.

[BonnieJW]

41. I not only contacted ABC

I also contacted the two shows I watch on ABC: Oprah (when I have a day off) and Grey's Anatomy. I told the shows that while I am a big fan, I regretfully will no longer be able to watch their programs due to ABC's decision to air an inflamatory and false show. I, along with millions of other concerned Americans, have decided to boycott ABC, Disney and all it's holdings. We will no longer stand by and be lied to by the government, the media and the entertainment industry.

[yorkiemommie1]

80. Bye bye Boston Legal for me

n/t

[E-Z-B]

42. Another attempt to rewrite history

[jarnocan]

43. seems like the media is falling back into step

not that they were ever out that much. I watched NBC this AM seemed all about promoting repubs. Bush and Sen. Fisk had a lot of Air Time with a couple 1 second clips of Sen.s Reid and Boxer- not even enough for a full sentence.
Between the media and election fraud, I don't feel very hopeful.
There are petition/letters to send to ABC but of course and individual call/letter is better.

[LeahMira]

48. Admit it

Democrats dropped the ball on this one. The public generally is more interested in entertainment than in reading the blogs and listening to Mr. Clarke's comments, and they are generally not able to distinguish between documentary and docu-drama. Besides that, a lot of people will consider it a patriotic duty to watch this program. About the best that can be done at this point might be to arrange special sale hours at WalMart and Home Depot to get them out of the house while it's on.

[MissB]

54. How did Democrats drop the ball?

:rofl:

[bliss_eternal]

83. Yes, I'd like to hear this as well...

:shrug: When did the Democrats become the gatekeepers to all networks decisions?

:wtf:

[jeanarrett]

50. Join "Act for Change's" Campaign to Stop the Broadcast.

Here:

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=21317&afccode=n69hdl

[Nordic65]

52. Who is actually paying for this?

30 million dollars, no revenue and then later giving it away for free at iTunes. Nobody, but nobody in Corp USA is that stupid.

And I certainly don't see Disney/ABC trowing 30 million in production + two nights of lost ad revenue out of the window either.

Something Here Does Not Compute...

[stepnw1f]

56. That's What I Would Like to Know Too (nt)

[grizmaster]

69. Originally it was supposed to have "limited" commercial breaks

In other words there was supposed to be just a few prestige spomnsors kicking in big bucks. But with the exposure of the lies and propaganda they've backed off having any ads.

[stepnw1f]

55. It's Absolutely Disgusting That They Even Attempt to Air This

filth. The mini-series is full of lies. This is seriously irresp[onsible in trying to mold public opinion for the election. And it hurts our country's efforts in knowing the truth to move forward. A real sleezy move by the GOP.

[RamboLiberal]

57. Suggestion - send info to your local TV critic

I just sent this NYT Article and ThinkProgress article about them not providing a copy to Clinton, Albright and Berger to my local TV critic Rob Owen at Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Remember your local critic may be reviwing it for their paper so it couldn't hurt.

On edit - here's what I got back. Aaargh

I'm reviewing it as a piece of entertainment, not politics.

Rob Owen
TV Editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Lead TV writer, Scripps Howard News Service
President, Television Critics Association
34 Blvd. of the Allies
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
[phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
http://www.post-gazette.com/tv

[Cerridwen]

61. Psssst, did you know this post is DU's 25 millionth?

See Skinner's link to this post here

Congratulations!

:party: :toast: :bounce:

[peter anderson]

82. i finished the top 10 republican ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdl_Gbc-YY8

[maddezmom]

62. ****Congrats Rambo**************

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2061446#2061770

You were had the 25,000,000th post!!!

:toast:

[RamboLiberal]

64. Well my 15 minutes of fame

:rofl:

:toast: to all DU'ers

[liberal N proud]

63. Congrats - 25 millionth post

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[soup]

65. Congratulations RamboLiberal - 25 million!

Yowzah!

and a good post, too!

[RamboLiberal]

67. Well - that sure wasn't a good idea

Note - he's president of TV Critics association. And I sure didn't try to tell him his job.

Emails from him:

I'm not interested in getting into politics. I'm not an historian and won't pretend to be one. I'm writing about it as a piece of dramatic entertainment. Will mention the objections of some but have no interest in wading into the back biting fray.
Rob Owen
TV Editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Lead TV writer, Scripps Howard News Service
President, Television Critics Association
34 Blvd. of the Allies
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
[phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
http://www.post-gazette.com/tv


You can tell me what my job is until you're blue in the face, but that won't make it my job. My job is to write about TV as entertainment. Does it require context, yes, but I don't have time to spend hours researching something to verify its veracity. Frankly, I thought the miniseries made govt. officials of both administrations look like buffoons, so the complaints are a bit lost on me.
Rob Owen
TV Editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Lead TV writer, Scripps Howard News Service
President, Television Critics Association
34 Blvd. of the Allies
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
[phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
http://www.post-gazette.com/tv

[confludemocrat]

72. Guess he needed to be adressed like the gutless, over-sensitive baby he is

based on his words responding to a viewer and fellow citizen.
Prefacing the e-mail by some exaltation of his high and honorable office or some other form of catering to this immature prick might have worked. But i wouldn't bet on it.

[RamboLiberal]

78. And a subscriber to his newspaper

Since I rarely read the paper version anyway I'm of half a mind to cancel my subscription and just get the hard copy occassionally when I need something to read at the restaurant. Could save myself a couple hundred a year. If there's one more snarky reply in my inbox it will be done and I'll forward on his emails as my reason to cancel.

[pbartch]

73. BOYCOTT DISNEY. That is okay....I NEVER really wanted to go there

I can do without Disneyland. I can do without all the cute dvd's.

SEND LETTERS TO ABC NOW.

[ComerPerro]

75. I declare this thread OFFICIALLY hijacked. Happy 25 million

[datadiva]

77. 25,000,000! Congrats RamboLiberal!

[RamboLiberal]

60. New article UPI: Analysis: Sept. 11 miniseries under fire

http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20060905-111623-5746r

An upcoming TV mini-series about the origins of the Sept. 11 plot is provoking angry complaints from Democrats about the portrayal of the Clinton administration's response to terrorism.

<snip>

But a portion of the film showing an aborted effort to capture al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden before the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa has aroused the ire of some of the officials portrayed.

A statement from Samuel "Sandy" Berger, who was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton at the time, calls the scenes involving him "complete fabrications."

<snip>

The film does paint a rather unflattering portrait of the incoming Bush administration -- showing how they demoted White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, and failed to act against al-Qaida even after their responsibility for the November 2000 attack on the USS Cole became clear.

"The difference is, the stuff they show the Bush administration doing actually happened," said Jay Carson, a spokesman for former President Clinton.

[democrank]

66. BRAVO!!!!

25,000,000!

[RamboLiberal]

68. Mentioned today in KO's Countdown Email today

From Countdown's Email 9-6-06

Days before its scheduled debut, the first major television miniseries about the Sept. 11 attacks was being criticized on Tuesday as biased and inaccurate by bloggers, terrorism experts and a member of the Sept. 11 commission, whose report makes up much of the film's source material. The six-hour miniseries, "The Path to 9/11," is to be shown on ABC on Sunday and Monday. The network has been advertising the program as a "historic broadcast" that uses the commission's report on the 2001 attacks as its "primary foundation." Richard A.Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar and 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." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06path.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

[kerry-is-my-prez]

70. I only hope this backfires and creates a discussion about 9/11

n/t

[AusTexDem]

81. ABC and the FCC

FCC Reconsiders Indecency Ruling Against "NYPD Blue"
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004703701

Court Says It Will Issue Profanity Decision Today
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6368572.html?display=Breaking+News

Court Comes Up Short on Profanity Ruling
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6368873.html

[RamboLiberal]

84. DNC has a petition up to sign

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/09/a_despicable_ir.php

Posted by Tracy Russo on September 6, 2006 at 05:10 PM
Email this Print this Blog this (DNC Executive Director, Tom McMahon, sent the following email to Democrats across the country today.)
Dear Fellow Democrat,


Does a major national broadcast network want to stain itself by presenting an irresponsible, slanderous, fraudulent, "docu-drama" to the American public?

Not if you and I have the last word -- but either way, we're about to find out.

The ABC television network -- a cog in the Walt Disney empire -- unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new "docudrama" called "The Path to 9/11". ABC has thrown its corporate might behind the two-night production, and bills it as a public service: a TV event, to quote the ABC tagline, "based on the 9/11 Commission Report".

That's false. "The Path to 9/11" is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats and revise history right before Americans vote in a major election.

The miniseries, which was put together by right-wing conservative writers, relies on the old GOP playbook of using terrorism to scare Americans. "The Path to 9/11" mocks the truth and dishonors the memory of 9/11 victims to serve a cheap, callous political agenda. It irresponsibly misrepresents the facts and completely distorts the truth.

ABC/Disney executives need to hear from the public and understand that their abuse of the public trust comes with a cost. Tell Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger to keep this right-wing propaganda off the air -- we'll deliver your message:

http://www.democrats.org/pathto911

This story is breaking quickly. The bias of the "docudrama" only became known when ABC began circulating previews recently. Less than two weeks ago, 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste confronted a lead writer of "The Path to 9/11" after watching the first half of the miniseries at a screening, but most of what we know amounts to bits and pieces because ABC chose to screen the miniseries to conservative bloggers and right-wing media outlets exclusively. Almost none of the Democrats portrayed in the film have even been asked for their thoughts.

But we still know enough, thanks to news accounts and crack research, to fact check "The Path to 9/11" as a biased, irresponsible mess. Here's what you need to know:

Richard Clarke -- the counterterrorism czar for the Clinton administration, now himself a consultant to ABC News -- describes a key scene in "The Path to 9/11" as "180 degrees from what happened." In the scene, a CIA field agent places a phone call to get the go ahead to kill Osama Bin Laden, then in his sights, only to have a senior Clinton administration official refuse and hang up the phone. Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor, called the same scene "a total fabrication. It did not happen." And Roger Cressey, a top Bush and Clinton counterterrorism official, said it was "something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It's factually wrong. And that's shameful."
Another scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder -- contrary to "The Path to 9/11" -- rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times.
The former National Security Council head of counterterrorism says that President Clinton "approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda," and the 9/11 report says the CIA had full authority from President Clinton to strike Bin Laden. Yet chief "Path to 9/11" scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh, a friend of Rush Limbaugh, says the miniseries shows how President Clinton had "frequent opportunities in the '90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so."
ABC asked only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, Sr., to advise the makers of "The Path to 9/11". The producers optioned two books, one written by a Bush administration political appointee, as the basis of the screenplay -- yet bill the miniseries as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report."
This is a picture of bias -- a conservative attempt to rewrite the history of September 11 to blame Democrats, just in time for the election.

Tell Walt Disney president Robert Iger that you hold his company responsible -- and that this community demands that ABC tell the truth:

http://www.democrats.org/pathto911

ABC is trying to use of the airwaves -- airwaves owned by you and me, and loaned to broadcasters as a public trust -- to slander Democrats and sell a slanderous, irresponsible fraud to the American people, and they're shamefully doing it just weeks away from Election Day.

The Walt Disney Corporation could have given Americans an honest look at September 11. Instead, the company abandoned its duty to the truth -- and embraced the fiction known as "The Path to 9/11."

But ABC isn't the only company pushing this gross revision of history. ABC has enlisted the reputable education and children's entertainment company Scholastic, Inc. to send 100,000 letters to high school teachers, urging them to show students "The Path to 9/11". Scholastic has also created a discussion guide for teachers to use to encourage students and their families to watch this irresponsible fraud and then discuss it in school. The discussion guide does not in any way point out the concerns and criticisms that have been raised about the validity and accuracy of the film.

We've got to stop this now.

ABC/Disney must face an accountability moment. You can ratchet up the pressure on ABC by sending your own letter to Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger -- tell him to keep this propaganda off their air.

http://www.democrats.org/pathto911

We'll keep you up to date as this story evolves.

Thank you,
Tom

Tom McMahon
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee

[RamboLiberal]

86. For a Laugh here's Entertainment Weekly's Review

Reviewer gave it a D+. I am getting a chuckle that for the 2nd time Condi is played by Penny Johnson Jerald - the evil First Lady Mrs. Palmer on 24. Where's Jack Bauer or President Palmer when you need them.

The first night of The Path to 9/11 blames bin Laden's persistent freedom on the Clinton presidency, portrayed as distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal. On the second night, that blame shifts to the Bush administration, where Condoleezza Rice reads the intelligence report saying bin Laden was ''determined to strike in U.S.''...and then ignores it. This unwieldy opus is hamstrung by the very thing ABC is so proud of: using The 9/11 Commission Report as its source and the chairman of the commission, former governor Thomas Kean, as its ''senior consultant.'' The results strain so hard to be objective and evenhanded (see, the Democrats and the Republicans both made mistakes) that they're useless as drama.

It's also difficult to suppress a giggle seeing Rice being played by Penny Johnson Jerald, once an evil First Lady on 24. This is the problem with TV movies that don't sweep you up in their narrative — you get distracted by famous faces playing famous faces. (The guy doing CIA director George Tenet: He's what's-his-name, the dad from The Wonder Years...right, Dan Lauria!) I don't fault these actors — heck, the best scene in five hours is a brief one in which Everybody Loves Raymond's Patricia Heaton (as ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine) condescends magnificently to Keitel (''I think the people here might appreciate it if you could pronounce the name of their country properly'').

The performances are actually wonderful. That they're in the service of presenting a monumental horror so tediously is appalling, really. Grade: D+

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/review/tv/0,6115,1516013_3_0_,00.html

[KamaAina]

89. Who holds the copyright on the 9/11 Commission Report?

I suspect it must be some arm of Bush**co, but any normal copyright holder would object strenuously, with tough lawyers, to ABC claiming that this thinly disguised propaganda film is "based on the 9/11 Commission Report". Maybe the Dems on the commission are part holders?

[BadgerKid]

93. For boycott ideas, see Disney's Fact Book

Source: http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/fact_books.html

Mirror of PDF file (7.6 MB): http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TLGIO52D