KATU will air ABC/GOP 9/11 Propaganda movie unless we stop them NOW

[DesEtoiles]

I'VE BEEN SENDING THIS EMAIL TO KATU'S ADVERTISERS (linked from their website) all evening.

Then I went through the contacts at www.katu.com and let them know I was doing it.

www.katu.com

This is VERY IMPORTANT - Please read the information below and start contacting KATU's advertisers:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


I'm sorry to say that if you continue to adverstise with KATU - I will unfortunately be forced to boycott your business.


KATU insists on airing ABC's Path to 9/11 - On September 10 and 11, ABC Television is planning to run an inaccurate film depicting the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks. The film was written by an avowed conservative and it largely places the blame for failing to prevent the attacks on the Clinton administration while whitewashing the failures of the Bush administration. This "docuDRAMA" is full of inaccuracies. Its distorted version of history is inconsistent with the 9/11 Commission Report, upon which it claims to be based.

FOR EXAMPLE:

ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc /

---------------

ABC Docudrama Sparks 9/11 Spat
By Jeff Stein, CQ Staff
The docudrama that ABC will air next week commemorating the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks seems likely to revive some long-running disputes over whether the Clinton or Bush administration has more to answer for in neglecting indications of a pending al Qaeda attack on the United States.

“The Path to 9/11,” a five-hour, two-part depiction of events prior to the attacks, is to air Sept. 10 and 11. And early reviews among veterans of the Clinton White House are decidedly negative: They argue that the show downplays the Bush White House’s culpability while inventing some scenes out of whole cloth to dramatize the supposed negligence of Clinton officials.

That complaint came to the fore at a National Press Club screening of the show late last month, when Richard Ben-Veniste — one of the 10 members of the independent Sept. 11 commission, whose final report producer Marc Platt credits with supplying much of the mini-series’ detail and narrative structure — rose to denounce the veracity of a key scene involving Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. Berger.

Berger, portrayed as a pasty-faced time-server by Kevin Dunn (Col. Hicks in “Godzilla”) freezes in dithering apprehension when a manly and virtuous CIA agent played by Donnie Wahlberg radios in from the wilds of Afghanistan to say that he and his noble band of local tribesmen have Osama bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to terminate him with extreme prejudice. In the film, the line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.

The moment is clearly intended to encapsulate the notion of American inattentiveness to the terror threat in the 1990s — a point driven home when the camera pans back to show Berger surrounded by a supporting cast of fellow Clinton administration nervous Nellies, including Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Defense Secretary William S. Cohen.

So when the post-screening question-and-answer session began, Ben-Veniste stood to say that the Berger-bashing scene didn’t square with the research he and the other commissioners conducted. “There was no incident like that in the film that we came across. I am disturbed by that aspect of it,” Ben-Veniste, a loyal Democrat, told the panel, which included both the producer and the commission’s GOP chairman, former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey.

Berger, reached by phone after the screening, seconded Ben-Veniste’s criticism. “It’s a total fabrication,” he said tersely. “It did not happen.”

http://public.cq.com/public/20060905_homeland.html

---------

Upon learning Friday from ThinkProgress that Rush Limbaugh was shilling for the ABC docudrama, “The Path to 9/11,” which will air on ABC on September 10th and 11th, I smelled something rotten emanating from the Mickey Mouse Network. Having worked at Variety years back, I got out the old Rolodex and started making calls and sending emails. By mid-morning yesterday, I’d gotten the name of the exec-in-charge, Steve McPherson, his direct phone line and I’d sent email requests to two ABC flaks and three PR company flaks listed on the movie’s online press release. Later that afternoon, I sent a follow-up note to all five of these folks, repeating my request for a preview copy of the mini-series.

Apparently, it was impossible for all five of these people to answer me during business hours on either the East or West Coast, in order to get me the requested advance copy.

So, let’s review. This very high-profile movie is airing next weekend, and all five of the listed contacts were out all day yesterday, making it impossible to get advance copies? This, after ABC made the mini-series available to a plethora of wing-nut bloggers and media personalities like Mr. Limbaugh? How very, very odd.

These are the exact words that ABC’s Alison Row (not sure that’s the correct spelling, but pronunciation rhymes with “cow”) left on my voicemail at 5:07 pm PT:

"We are certainly happy to send to you. It’s a…there’s no, you know…we’re not sending it to only specific partisan groups, or…um…bloggers who lean a certain political way. We would love to get it to you as well. Unfortunately, everyone is gone today, but we can get it out to you Tuesday for Wednesday."

I’m sure advance copies are currently sitting with reviewers at major MSM outlets, and that they are timing their pieces to run and air closer to the air dates for “Path to 9/11. But with the early advance materials going exclusively to "friendly" right-wing partisan media, ABC was certain to get a first wave of favorable, sycophantic coverage from Limbaugh and the right-wing blogs, to perhaps—wink, wink—influence other reviewers.

ABC claims this is a non-partisan project, but according to Sheldon Rampton over at www.prwatch.org, the screenwriter is an avowed conservative and personal friend of Rush Limbaugh, and the project is fronted by only the Republican chair of the 9/11 Commission.

I ask you, ABC: Where are the Democratic contributors to this “non-partisan” project?

And whose idea was it to send preview copies to right-wing partisan bloggers, while excluding leftist partisans from viewing this “public service” project? Was it your network, or mPRm, the firm you hired to execute the outreach campaign? If it is indeed so non-partisan, why is the Democratic co-chair of the 9/11 Commission not out in front of this thing, giving it his official oky-doky?

And one more question: Is Kean a paid consultant? If so, how much is he now making by trading off his work as a former 9/11 Commission co-chair?

We’ll know more Tuesday, after ABC offers up Thomas Kean in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. I hope the reporters on that call have the guts to ask the tough questions about ABC’s docudrama

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/03/4305/#more-4305

-------------

Ask ABC to Come Clean on Its 9-11 'Docudrama'
by Rep Louise Slaughter
Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:16:31 AM PDT


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/5/131631/8639

Hello folks. As Congress gets back in session tomorrow after a five week recess, I wanted to let you all know that I have been following the story on ABC's plan to air a so called "Docudrama" on 9/11 written by a right wing activist.

Today we sent out a release to all our contacts in the traditional media, calling on the ABC to make clear to viewers that its upcoming television mini-series The Path to 9/11 is not a documentary account of the events and political decisions that preceeded the attacks.

ABC has a responsibility to make clear that this film is not a documentary, and does not present an official account of the facts surrounding the September 11th attacks.

Rep Louise Slaughter's diary :: ::
We think the ABC should at least run disclaimers noting that The Path to 9/11 is a docudrama throughout its airing. The American people need to know that the people behind it and the incendiary claims it advances are questionable in their impartiality and accuracy.

I am also extremely concerned over the timing of the mini-series, as well as recent reckless Administration rhetoric on the issue of national security and its connection to the war in Iraq.

The anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on my home state is an emotional time, and it is wrong for anyone to play on those emotions and use them to advance a political agenda.

This is, regrettably, what top Republican Administration officials are doing with the rhetoric we have heard of late. We have been told we are in a fight against a new kind of fascism, and that those who question our current path in Iraq are morally equivalent to Nazi appeasers and those who would justify slavery.

Such claims are not just morally reprehensible and deeply irresponsible. They are also damaging to our nation, making it difficult, if not impossible, to have a serious and non-partisan discussion about how best to protect our country.

We Democrats have always worked to promote a more peaceful and secure world, and we will continue to do so, regardless of this divisive Republican rhetoric.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we stand for real security: real implementation of the 9-11 Commission's recommendations, a real commitment to securing threats against the homeland, and a real plan for the future American commitment in Iraq - not just more wishful thinking and empty justifications, which are what this Administration has been content to offer us.

What America needs is real security based on an honest view of the world and the threats against us, not more divisive, pre-election rhetoric that slanders political opponents while doing nothing to make our nation more secure.

So please join me asking ABC to come clean on 9/11. - LMS

BACKGROUND FROM OUR RELEASE:

A FILM OF QUESTIONABLE INTEGRITY



DIRECTOR OF THE PATH TO 9/11, BILLED AS "AN OBJECTIVE TELLING OF THE EVENTS OF 9/11," ADMITS THAT FILM IS "NOT A DOCUMENTARY": The director of the film, David Cunningham, posted on the show's official blog that his work was "not a documentary..." For unexplained reasons ABC has already taken down its blog promoting the show.

THE PATH TO 9/11 MAKES NUMEROUS QUESTIONABLE CLAIMS - SUCH AS THAT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION PASSED ON SUREFIRE CHANCE TO KILL OR CAPTURE BIN LADEN - THAT HAVE ALREADY DRAWN CRITICISM: Reviews of the film reportedly have shown it to be full of questionable claims. According the reviewers of the film, which include Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and now counterterrorism advisor to ABC -- the film's distorted version of history is inconsistent with the 9/11 Commission Report, upon which it claims to be based.

FILM'S WRITER IS A NOTED CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST: The writer of The Path to 9/11 is an unabashed conservative named Cyrus Nowrasteh. Last year, Nowrasteh spoke on a panel titled "Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift." He has described Michael Moore as "an out of control socialist weasel," and conducted interviews with right-wing websites like FrontPageMag.



THE TIMING OF THE PATH TO 9/11 IS TROUBLING GIVEN VITRIOLIC AND IRRESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATION RHETORIC ON "WAR ON TERROR"



SECRETARY OF DEFENSE RUMSFELD COMPARES WAR CRITICS TO NAZI APPEASERS: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has compared critics of the Bush administration to Nazi appeasers before World War II, warning that the nation is confronting "a new type of fascism." Speaking at the American Legion convention in Salt Lake City, Utah, Rumsfeld compared the skeptics of the Bush administration's foreign policy critics to American officials who had hoped to negotiate with Adolf Hitler.

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE EQUATES IRAQ WAR CRITICS TO SLAVERY SUPPORTERS: Secretary of State Rice compared the Iraq war with the American Civil War, telling a magazine that slavery might have lasted longer in this country if the North had decided to end the fight early. "I'm sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold," Rice said in the new issue of Essence magazine.



A FAILED HISTORY OF NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY: HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE REVEALS THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE REPEATEDLY LOCKED UP DEMOCRATIC PROPOSALS (BASED 9/11 COMMISSION PROPOSALS) FOR HOMELAND SECURITY IN THE HOUSE BASEMENT.

Numerous common-sense Democratic amendments based on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that would have heightened American national security have been blocked by Republican members of the House Rules Committee. The following is a partial list of amendments which were offered in the Rules Committee last year by Democrats to various Homeland Security related bills. They were all prohibited from even being debated or considered on the House floor by the Republican leadership.

13 of these measures were Democratic amendments based directly on 9/11 Commission recommendations or were designed to increase our Homeland Security, and were prevented from being considered, debated or voted on by the full House by the Republican leadership.

Democratic Amendments Based on 9/11 Commission Recommendations that Republicans Voted to Ban from the House floor:

Rule for H.R. 418, REAL ID Act of 2005-February 9, 2005:

Ruppersberger - support and enact section 5202 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 calling for the addition of 2000 new border patrol personnel each year for the next five years and includes proposed budget funding for 2010.

Rule for H. R. 2360-Department of Homeland Security Appropriations May 16, 2005:

Obey - funds the additional border agents, immigration investigators, and detention beds Congress and the President called for in last year's 9/11 bill. It also provides states $100 million to implement the federal mandates in the REAL ID bill. The Obey amendment offsets these expenditures by capping the tax cut people making over $1 million this year will receive at $138,176.

Rule for H. R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act-May 24, 2005:

Spratt - Adds $80 million to Odd and DoE nonproliferation programs to secure and dispose of vulnerable nuclear material. Offset by modest decreases to future silo construction of ground-based missile defense over and above missiles already scheduled for deployment.

Tauscher - Creates an Office for Combating the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction at the White House to better coordinate and budget for nonproliferation efforts resident in multiple agencies.

Woolsey - Requires the Secretary of Defense to replicate with Libya and Pakistan the Cooperative Threat Reduction program in which the U.S. works with the Russian Federation and states of the former Soviet Union to dismantle nuclear warheads, reduce nuclear stockpiles, and secure nuclear weapons and materials.

Rule for H.R. 2601 - Foreign Relations Authorization Act FY06-07-July 18, 2005:

Markey -prohibits nuclear cooperation with or exports or transfers of controlled nuclear goods with any state that is not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and which has exploded a nuclear device, or with any state sponsor of terrorism.

Other Democratic Amendments to increase Homeland Security that Republicans voted to ban from the House Floor:

Rule for H..R. 1279, Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005-May 10, 2005:

Jackson Lee- makes it illegal to transfer a firearm to any individual that the federal government has designated as a suspected or known gang member or terrorist.

Crowley- prohibits those on the Violent Gang and Terrorist Organizations File from purchasing firearms, ammunition, and explosives by means other than in person and to require records to be kept of the means by which the purchases are made

Rule for H.R. 1817-Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2006 - May 17, 2005:

Barrow and Markey - directing DHS to upgrade the security associated with transporting extremely hazardous materials;

Oberstar - authorizing funds to develop and implement a railroad security assessment, a railroad security plan, and prioritized recommendations for improving railroad security.

Markey - Requires the Secretary of DHS to establish, not later than 3 years after enactment of the bill, a system to physically inspect 100% of the cargo carried on passenger planes. The system shall, at a minimum, require that the equipment, technology, and personnel used to inspect the cargo meet the same standards established to inspect passenger baggage: 35% of cargo on passenger aircraft must be inspected by the end of FY 2006; 65% by FY 2007; and 100% by FY 2008.

Markey - Requires DHS to establish regulations to upgrade security of chemical facilities at which a worst-case terrorist attack or accident could harm more than 15,000 people. Includes whistleblower protections for those who are retaliated against for disclosing chemical security flaws.

Markey - Provides whistleblower protections for any government, contractor, or private sector employee who is retaliated against for disclosing national or homeland security flaws to Congress, the Federal government, or their employer.


So, this is a clear evidence that the legislative process in the people's House is broken. These critical reforms were not even allowed to be considered on the House Floor by this Republican Leadership. It is no surprise Republicans have received a failing grade on Homeland Security from the 9/11 Commission.

We can not afford any more of this Republican corruption and strong-arming of the democratic process.

[grasswire]

1. do you have a list of the advertisers?

I might like to make some phone calls tomorrow.

[DesEtoiles]

2. just go to www.katu.com and start clicking on banner ads

[vincent_vega_lives]

3. This is what's posted on the website...

This movie is well-supported and well-documented. But everyone should be aware, and we say so upfront in a long legend -- "The following dramatization...has composite and representative characters and incidents, and time compressions have been used for dramatic purposes."

We cover the failures and mistakes of two administrations -- as well as the successes i.e the capture of Ramzi Yousef, thwarting of the Millenium plot (both under the Clinton administration) etc. People need to watch both nights of the miniseries before drawing conclusions.

Also, we have talked to numerous media outlets from the New York Times to the Washington Post, Congressional Quarterly, Reuters, The Washington Times etc. Whoever wants to write and talk about this movie is free to do so, and we've been very open in talking to them. We can't control who writes what...

--Cyrus Nowrasteh






It seems that people keep referring to this movie as a "documentary". A documentary is a journalistic format that gives facts and information through interviews and news footage. This is a movie or more specifically a docudrama. Meaning, it is a narrative movie based on facts and dramatized with actors.
The team of filmmakers, actors and executives responsible for this movie have a wide range of political perspectives. I would say that most of those perspectives (which is the vast majority in Hollywood) would be considered "liberal" or "left". Some of the very people who are being villified by the left as having a 'right wing agenda' are the very people who are traditionally castigated by the right as being 'liberal dupes' in other projects they have presented. To make a movie of this size and budget requires many people to sign off on it. One person's "agenda" (if anyone should have one) is not enough to influence a movie to one's individual politics when a far broader creative and political consensus is an inherent part of the process. And the consensus that emerged over and over during development, production and post production is that we tried, as best we can, based on 9/11 Commission Report and numerous other sources and advisors, to present an accurate and honest account of the events leading to 9/11.
The redundant statement about Clinton and the emphasis to protect his legacy instead of trying to learn from the failures of BOTH administrations smells of "agenda". You may feel we "bash" Clinton and/or you may feel we "bash" Bush but the facts are that the eight years from the first WTC bombing to the day of 9/11 involved two administrations with plenty of culpability all around. Something needs to explain how that happened.

Watch the movie! Then let's talk. If you haven't seen the movie with your very own eyes - don't castigate the movie out of ignorance.
-David Cunningham

http://blogs.abc.com/thepathto911/

[DesEtoiles]

4. sample letter to send to KATU

1. As of this writing, ABC has distributed advanced
copies of the miniseries only to rightwing blogs and
pundits (Rush Limbaugh and others) while not providing
it to progressive blogs and media sources that
requested access to it. This appears to have been
deliberate.

2. You claim the film to be an accurate reflection of
the 9/11 Commission Report and nonpartisan in nature;
yet it was revealed in news today that at least
one key scene of the work was entirely fabricated.

In the scene, the character representing Sandy Berger
freezes when a CIA agent radios in from Afghanistan to
say that he and his band of local tribesmen have Osama
bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to
terminate him with extreme prejudice. In the film, the
line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.

THIS EVENT IS SIMPLY MADE UP!

News reports today stated that during a post-screening
question-and-answer session, Richard Ben-Veniste, a
9/11 Commission member, stood up to say that the
Berger-bashing scene didn't square with the research
he and the other commissioners had conducted.

"There was no incident like that that we came across.
I am disturbed by that aspect of it," Ben-Veniste, a
Democrat, told the panel, which included both the
producer and the commission's GOP chairman, former
Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey. Lee Hamilton, the
Democratic co-chair did not participate in any
capacity with the production of the movie.

Former NSC-head Berger, reached by phone after the
screening, seconded Ben-Veniste's criticism. "It's a
total fabrication," he said tersely. "It did not
happen."

Richard Clarke, who served as head of counterterrorism
under four presidents, also has stated that no such
event took place.

3. In another section of the film, a leak of
classified information regarding OBL's habitual use of
telephone and computer communications is attributed to
the Washington Post. It was, in fact, the rightwing
newspaper the Washington Times that published the
leaked information.

4. The official ABC/Disney defense of the miniseries
is that it has strived for "reasonable accuracy." What
does that mean? It sounds like a slick way of saying that
it isn't really accurate, period. The statement smacks of
PR spin and lawyerly (read, weasely) wording.

5. Notwithstanding the alleged inaccuracies and bias
of its avowedly conservative director and producer,
ABC has undertaken an aggressive marketing program to
distribute the miniseries to the nation's schools
under the guise of the program being historically
valid.

Why?

That ABC and WLS-TV are participating in a highly
controversial portrayal of the events surrounding the
9/11 attack 60 days before the midterm elections is a
misuse of the public airways.

As NYT reporter and bestselling author William Rivers
Pitt wrote in a recent article critical of "The Path
to 9/11″: "At no time should a conservative producer
with an anti-Clinton axe to grind be allowed to use
public airwaves to broadcast a rank distortion of the
truth, especially on the anniversary of the worst day
in our history."

A fairminded person should be able to agree with
that position.