Clinton Tries to Censor 'Path to 9/11'

Bottom Line Up Front:  If Bill Clinton had worked a little less on Monica Lewinsky and his legacy and a lot more on his presidency, he would have nothing to fear in this docudrama.

ABC will air the six hour long docudrama 'The Path to 9/11' on Sunday and Monday, and the Clinton Administration (no longer in power, by the way), buttressed by the usual suspects, is throwing a hissy fit of Executive proportions.  This is how the director of 'The Path to 9/11' describes the program on the website's blog:

A ranging, dramatic canvas sprawling eight and a half years, four continents, multiple attacks and a dogged crew of investigators and operatives who knew in 1993, when the World Trade Center was bombed by Islamic terrorists, that they would be back to finish the job. A gritty and compelling docudrama that examines the courage and cowardice, the insight and oversight, the politics, the players, the bell-ringers, the heroes and the terrorists as they all collided on their paths to 9/11.

Bill Clinton and his posse are calling for either major edits of the movie or for it to not be aired at all.  'The Path to 9/11' is based largely on the 9/11 Commission's report and well known facts that include Clinton's refusal to capture Osama Bin Laden many times before 9/11.   Clinton was preoccupied in the '90's with 'other' things (*wink).    Dissatisfied that his self-inflated legacy is being exposed by a typical ally, Clinton is personally pressuring ABC and the Disney CEO, Robert Iger, to drop or re-edit mini-series.

"The Path to 9/11" blog also has this from its director wrote:

Even Further Clarification

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. 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, Director of The Path to 9/11

"THE PATH TO 9/11" ABC
Sunday, September 10 @ 8/7c
Monday, September 11 @ 8/7c

The Democratic assault is all out to stop the "docudrama" from being aired as is.  The DNC website has this petition to stop 'The Path to 9/11':

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 bills the two-night production as a public service that is "based on the 9/11 Commission Report". That is false - it is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats.

"The Path to 9/11" is a conservative attempt to rewrite the history of September 11th to blame Democrats. 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."

That's not all.  Democratic Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer and Byron Dorgan are "reminding" ABC that: 

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.

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program.

Is that a threat? If Democrats are so concerned about the "factual record" and media "responsibilities", where were they when Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was released?  If only the Democrats cared half as much for National Security as they do their reputation.   The fact is that, while Osama bin Laden and his groupies are responsible for 9/11, Bill Clinton allowed Osama bin Laden to elude capture.  He could have been caught and 9/11 arguably might not have happened.  Bill Clinton showed al-Qaeda that there are no consequences to attacking the US by turning a blind eye after the first World Trade Center bombing of 1993 and the bombing of the USS Cole of 2000 in which 17 US sailors were murdered by Bin Laden's al-Qaeda.

The Clinton Administration and the Democrats really showed Osama how to treat us we cut and run from Somalia in 1993.  In fact, it was Dem. Congressman John Murtha who urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from Somalia.  Clinton did and today Somalia is an Al-Qaeda recruiting center. Murtha said in 1993;

 “There’s no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don’t agree with that.”

Sound familiar?  As Dr. Phil would say, "You teach people how to treat you."  As a result of this “cut and run”, Osama Bin Laden became emboldened and planned new attacks against the US:  “Our people realized more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows.”  From this example of weakness, Osama planned his 9/11 attack. 

BELOW is an NBC news video detailing the Clinton failure to catch Bin Laden...a drone captured Osama (below) in 2000.  Here is the transcript.  Hardly right wing propaganda.       (click on image below for video)

Don't Democrats believe in artistic freedom and freedom of speech?  Aren't they the party of the Constitution that reveres it so much as evidenced by their assassination of the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program on the grounds that it violates supposed Constitutional rights?  Don't they tell Conservatives and Christians offended by programming to "just turn the channel"? 

What does all this really mean?  If the American public sees 'The Path to 9/11', they may believe what Republicans have been saying all along: Democrats are weak on defending America.  Clinton repeatedly let the world's most notorious terrorist escape for years, and current Democrats try to thwart the war effort in Iraq and give terrorists Constitutional rights.  Clinton may not realize it but he is no longer in the White House and no longer has Executive Power, although even then censorship was not among his legal prerogatives.  If Clinton has worked a little less on Lewinsky and his legacy and a lot more on his presidency, he would have nothing to fear in this docudrama.

OTHERS BLOGGING:

California Conservative  Michelle Malkin  Hot Air  Stop the ACLU  Conservababes   Cop the Truth  BlackFive  SocialPundit  Rhymes with Right 

Trackback URL: 
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/674858

 

Update on Saturday, September 9, 2006 at 10:02AM by Amy Proctor

For all the criticism that the ABC docudrama is inaccurate (HELLO it's a docudrama!) to the extreme that Dems are threatening ABC's television license, there are two questions: 1) Since no Democrats nor Clinton have seen the movie, on what basis can they dispute the facts?

2) Why are Democrats totally silent on the British documdrama ‘Death of a President’ which portrays the assassination of Pres. Bush? (photo of the independent film to air at the Toronto Film Festival below)

Death of a President

Thomas Kean was the 9/11 Commission Chairman who was also the 9/11 Commission consultant to the ABC docudrama 'The Path to 9/11'.  He claims the docudrama is quite accurate.  Below is an interview with Fox News on Friday (click picture below)

 

Great comprehensive Video Report on the story by Fox News. 

NewsBusters has an excellent post about the 9/11 Commission Report.

Comments

[Jose Antunez]

I just hope here in Spain, someone has the courage to uncover the whole truth about March 11th Madrid bombings so those political responsible go to jail in dishonor as they deserve.

[Trent]

When Michael Moore butchers the facts concerning real people using real news footage under the banner of a documentary, he has free reign.

A "drama", of sorts, with paid, professional actors which is critical of President Clinton, however, must be edited or, better yet, supressed completely.

No need for a double standard guys, one will do nicely.

[Dim Bulb]

I hate to go off topic in a combox but I don't think what I have to say is to far past the current subject. THE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER has up a good report on just how shabby and slanted the lamestream media coverage of the war on terror has been. It's a disturbing read.
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2006/report090806_p1.asp

[CalPatriot]

Censorship is against anything liberal[ism] – wow, what ‘’Irresponsibility,'’ going against their own tenants.

“In the period when the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again, they released [bin Laden to me ( Bill Clinton)]. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him - though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

“So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.” - Bill Clinton’s comments after 9/11/ 2001.

[Johnny]

It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy for ANY democrat to decry this docudrama which is at least based on actual events and the record of history in the public domain. They actually invited Michael Moore to speak at the DNC (if I recall correctly) and he fabricated his 'documentary' from whole cloth with fictions like an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and other preposterous fictions. (BTW, the terrorists and anti-American forces are getting GREAT mileage out of Moore's treasonous, lying slanderthon).

You can't have it both ways, democrats. You can't rely on MM smear campaigns to boost your polls and drive down trust in a decent and Godly man like George W. Bush and then cry "foul!" when a REAL network (not a hack political huckster) airs an unbiased docudrama that may portray President Clinton's administration unfavorably. Hipocrisy! Lord, PLEASE let the American voters see this blatant, dishonest hypocrisy.

OK, if this movie is cut/edited/dumbed down, it will be time to roll out the democrats' most feared adversary: The Swift Boat Veterans.

[Leticia]

I may just have to tune in. I think it is rather funny about Clinton having a hissy fit.

[Aimz]

Same here! I wasn't aware that he had refused to go after Bin Laden.

[Old Soldier]

Is it Oct '04 all over again? I seem to recall that a Democrat running for president intimidated one Sinclair Broadcasting Co that was going to air Stolen Honor at 40 local TV stations. The intimidation took the same form of the current intimidation - the threat of loosing an FCC license. Very effective censors, those Democrats. The only free speech they are in favor of is their own.

[Amy P]

Jose', what do you think the "whole truth" is?

[Mwalimu Daudi]

I have to disagree with you on this one Amy.

Originally, I thought that this was a blatant case of government intimidation. But on second thought - that is impossible.

After all, ABC as well as CBS, NBC, al-CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, al-AP, al-Reuters, etc. are nothing more than the Publicity Committee for the Democratic Party. They are paid to lie - not to think!

This seems to me to be a case of Democratic leaders upset with their disobedient flunkies in the lapdog media rather than a case of intimidating a free press.

[Amy Proctor]

Mwalimu, I wrote this in my original entry:

"Dissatisfied that his self-inflated legacy is being exposed by a typical ally, Clinton is personally pressuring ABC and the Disney CEO, Robert Iger, to drop or re-edit mini-series."

The "typical ALLY" is ABC. So I think we agree!

[Mwalimu Daudi]

Amy,

Undoubtedly I am splitting hairs. But I don't agree with ABC being called an "ally" of Clinton. The word "ally" implies a certain degree of independence and separation from the Democratic Party that ABC (along with others in the MSM) has not displayed in my lifetime. In fact - can anyone name one Democratic Party faction that has been more loyal, subservient, and docile than the MSM?

Perhaps it is time to call something by its real name. The MSM *is* the Democratic Party - period.

Thus I see the Clinton-ABC feud as nothing more than an inter-party feud involving a bunch of Stalin wannabes rather than a case of “free speech vs. censorship”. Where there is no freedom, there is no free speech – even for the rulers.

[Syntax]

DELETED

[Shane Stryker]

And what are the legitimize conservative writers saying about "Path to 9-11"?
--------------
John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor:

The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint. [NYPost, 9/8/06]
----------------
James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor:

The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch "The Reagans". [OpinionJournal, 9/7/06]
--------------
Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog:

One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so. [Hugh Hewitt blog, 9/6/06]
---------------
Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:

When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account. [Fox, 9/8/06]
------------
Captain’s Quarters blog:

If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it and in this case, they had a point. [Captain Quarter’s blog, 9/7/06]
------------
Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:

Look,"The Path to 9/11″ is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen. [CNN, 9/8/06]
-----------------
Seth Liebsohn, Claremont Institute fellow and produce of Bill Bennett’s radio show:

I oppose this miniseries as well if it is fiction dressed up as fact, creates caricatures of real persons and events that are inaccurate, and inserts quotes that were not uttered, especially to make a point that was not intended. [Glenn Greewald’s blog, 9/7/06]
------------
Richard Miniter, conservative author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror":

If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that. [CNN, 9/7/06]
---------------
Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center:

I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes, important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit them, I think they should edit them. [MSNBC, 9/6/06]

----------
Bill O’Reilly, Fox News pundit:

Ok, we’re talking about the run up to 9-11 and this movie that they’re re-cutting now and they should because it puts words in the mouth of real people, actors playing real people that they didn’t say and its wrong. [O’Reilly radio show, 9/8/06]

[Gawfer]

Excellent post Amy.

Clearly, the democrats understand that even though this is a "docu-drama", the impact of the movie will be devistating to the cause of liberalism because the they have employed tactics that resemble truth for years in relative ambiguity, and have had great success.

Likely however, the MSM, (ABC specifically), will cave to to the Democratic pressure, as they are bed-fellows, and don't believe in a "kiss and tell" policy.

Yesterday, while listening to the radio and former President Clinton say he didn't think it was appropiate for untruths to be told, I wondered if that was what he was thinking when he told the American people "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewensky, now I have to get back to preparing the state of the union address".

In my opinion, he lost ALL credibility with that bold faced lie. And, as far as I'm concerned, he can go pound sand.

[Amy Proctor]

Syntax,

Too bad you spent so long on that post. Your crude vulgarity and name calling forced me to delete it. My Rules of Engagement state:

These are the basic rules for this blog:

-No profany or obscenity

-No proxies

-No name calling

-All meanspirited and unproductive comments are subject to deletion.

[Amy Proctor]

I'd like to know why the Democrats have been so silent about defamatory and violence aimed at the Bush administration if they're so concerned fairness?

Art show in Chicago:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/010150.php



Kill Bush line:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002059.htm



And especially the docudrama featuring Bush's assassination:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365246-details/President+Bush+assassinated+in+new+TV+docudrama/article.do

[Timmer]

AMY -

This is why you happen to be my favorite blogger. Great article, comprehensive research and plenty of facts to back up your criticisms of these completely disingenuous two-faced morons.

I especially like what you found on the Democratic Party website...that is just too rich!

Your example of Michael Moore's "Fattened-Hype-9/11" (okay, that's not EXACLTY how you put it ;-) was a good one, but one of sooooo many. The completely screwy movies on Nixon and JFK come to mind...not to mention Al Bore's highly acclaimed (pseudo-factual) propoganda piece.

Great job, as always! Timmer...

[Amy Proctor]

Timmer,

Thanks. Back atcha!

What's really stupid is how people are speaking authoritatively about a film that hasn't even been aired yet! The only screening was 2 weeks ago and I know Rush Limbaugh was there and saw the unedited version, which is not the version that will be aired. The Clinton's are struggling to preserve their mirage of a legacy to the point that they are willing to implore CENSORSHIP because they disagree with the supposed content. How thin skinned! Grow up, man!

Shane, unless the quotes you gave are IN CONTEXT and by people who have viewed the version to be aired, they are totally inconsequential. The real issue here is.... why are people so eager to defend an indefensible Clinton who let bin Laden get away? The answer: this is just another example of how weak Dems are on national security.

[Syntax]

Hmmmm....I was unaware of your rules and I see no examples of where I violated these rules with the exception of "Clinton's ****" which I agree, I could've worded that differently. Still....avoiding the debate is avoiding the debate. No sources, just hiding behind rules.

[Amy Proctor]

Syntax, I have the original. You:

1) took the name of Christ in vain.
2) called me weak minded.
3) were disgusting. The entire last paragraph was smutty and filthy.

Too bad, too, because your points were interesting. I have no patience in my life for filthy people, so please let the door hit you on the way out.

[Karen]

Wow, Amy. I'm not surprised at the Dhimmicrat reaction to this documentary. And you wrote what I was thinking when I first starting reading this-- where were they when Michael Moore's lie-u-mentary about 9/11 came out? At least this one is based on fact.

What wimps the liberals are.

[Syntax]

Ok..so here we go again:

Many have claimed that "Farenheit 9/11" was packed full of lies but when people are asked to give examples, the best that can be offered is insults to those who ask for proof of the lies. So....please provide non-partisan, credible and verifiable sources of those lies that alledgedly exist in that movie. No extremist Right-wing blog feeding me Right-wing propaganda (as also true of the extremist Left), no mainstream media (including Fox News) and no "I know it because **insert anti-Liberal insult here**. Just plain proof please. And as stated before, the Marine who claims "If I had known, I wouldn't have agreed" doesn't count. He signed a release form and his content was still true despite the agenda of the film. Many claims based upon opinion without fact. Please provide fact.

As stated, a great documentary on 9/11 was National Geographic's "Inside 9/11". This is a documentary and NOT a docudrama thats takes creative liberties like the CBS docudrama on Ronald Reagan that Conservatives demanded to be censored and subsequently was pulled from broadcast (friendly reminder of the obvious there). This documentary does not favor a political agenda but does point out failures on behalf of numerous Presidents as far back as Reagan who emboldened these terrorists. Hezbollah kills and captures Americans including US Marines and what does Reagan do about it? The Iran/Contra Affair (here, have a bunch of weapons buddy). Bin Laden's Mujahadeen taking on the Soviets in Afghanistan? Here, have money, weapons and CIA training Mr. Bin Laden. Reagan's top advisors warned Reagan that he may be creating an enemy worse than the Soviets but he did not listen. OK, stuff happens! Bush 41 completely ignored them all together. Clinton viewed them as a threat but stumbled upon himself in dealing with it and not taking the threat serious enough. When Clinton did attack the Al Qaeda, everybody on the Right accused Clinton of pulling a political stunt to draw attention away from Lewinski and Clinton buckled to the criticism. THAT was Clinton's mistake! Please name one Republican prior to 2001 that was claiming the impending doom from the Al Qaeda and lobbying for our Nation's security against terrorism? I watched a televised debate where Al Gore claimed that the Al Qaeda was an imminent threat that needed to be addressed and I also watched GW laugh it off. Point being: Both parties dropped the ball!!! We all dropped the ball. We simply weren't paying attention. We are so occupied with Liberal Moonbat this and Conservative Drone that as if the enemy really cares. That's our childishness and it was used against us and it will be used against us again. Do you honestly feel more secure? You're not!

"If only the Democrats cared half as much for National Security as they do their reputation. The fact is that, while Osama bin Laden and his groupies are responsible for 9/11, Bill Clinton allowed Osama bin Laden to elude capture. " -- And now that we know that Bin Laden and his groupies were definately responsible for 9/11, George W. Bush STILL allows Bin Laden to elude capture. You are aware that Bin Laden is still free right? No mugshots, no dead body at the hands of our troops in Iraq (1800 miles away from the Al Qaeda leader's comfortable hiding spot). I mean, we all know he is still being allowed to elude capture, correct? He sure as heck ain't in Iraq!

" Bill Clinton showed al-Qaeda that there are no consequences to attacking the US by turning a blind eye after the first World Trade Center bombing of 1993 " -- And how many blind eyes are being turned 5 years after attack number 2 which killed 2800 people on 9/11? The worst attack in American history and George W. Bush is doing what differently? By all means, please prove me wrong by providing the sources where George W. Bush did what you claim Clinton didn't do and show the proof where Bin Laden has been brought to justice. Where this leader's threat has been eliminated. Bin Laden released 2 new videos this week. If these videos were released from Gitmo, please provide proof. Prove me wrong where this threat is still allowed to go unanswered with the current adminstration just like the previous administration. Where is the justice we were promised? It ain't in Iraq!

In a post-9/11 world, if Clinton was President and Bin Laden was still free as a bird five years later, those on the Right would redefine "unhinged" and would be demanding impeachment over it and sadly but definately, you know it! If Clinton was President in the post-9/11 world and your husband was serving in Iraq while Bin Laden was being given a free pass in Pakistan, you'd be irate to the point of derangement and you would have every right to be that irate. Too bad partisan politics is more important as if you believe Bin Laden really cares about Democrat/Republican nonsense.

On a lighter note, this obsession over Clinton's (*wink) after eight years is perverted. The guy screwed up but the American people didn't look at it as a major deal and he wasn't impeached. You are aware that he wasn't impeached right? Don't ya think its about time people build a bridge and get over it! This perverted obsession over Clinton's (*wink) is vulgar and truly not important.

I hope this comment adheres to the rules as I mean no disrespect.

[Timmer]

Syntax -

You are reminding me of someone who visits my blog frequently with epic novels for comments. Your "PROVE ME WRONG!" outcry suggests (to me, anyway) that you should make your lengthy assertions on your own blog, so we can visit you there and do so.

Not that you don't make your points, but with time like this on your hands, why not host your own site? As you well know, Amy backs up her assertions with plenty of evidence...and in some cases, I see that you do not.

"George W. Bush STILL allows Bin Laden to elude capture. You are aware that Bin Laden is still free right? No mugshots, no dead body at the hands of our troops in Iraq (1800 miles away from the Al Qaeda leader's comfortable hiding spot). I mean, we all know he is still being allowed to elude capture, correct? He sure as heck ain't in Iraq!"

Given the lucidity of most of your commentary, this paragraph is ridiculous. Bin Laden as yet "uncaptured" is not the same as his being "ALLOWED to elude capture"...you mentioned "childish" earlier? Well, you obviously don't think realistically about the difficulties in capturing or killing a rich man with local hero status in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan. But ask Zarqawi and the several thousands of other terrorists about that.

Oh that's right, you can't. Ah well..

Hosting a blog takes hutzpah...you obviously have passion and some writing skill, but do you have this? If so, where is the blog??? Come on, we are waiting...

[J Rob]

He. like Andrew Johnson, was impeached. Like Andrew Johnson, he was not removed from office. The impeachment proceedings took place and continued to their completion. BUt ig you wish to quibble, fine. He was disbarred because of the perjury that led to his impeachment. There is NO equivocation in that.

[Gayle]

Kudos on most excellent coverage of this, Amy. It's obvious to all of us that "freedom of speech" only pertains to the left. Why are we surprised? You said it all, and there's not much more to add, other than this is truly disturbing and sickening.

[Old Soldier]

Syntax, I want you to don hand cuffs that bind your arms behind you, put on leg irons and a blindfold. Now I want you to jump rope on an eight foot square platform slung below a helicopter flying at 100 Knots. Sounds next to impossible, right? Well so is your demand for refutation of the Michael Moore Fahrenheit 911 inaccuracies. But if you’re interested try: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm.

There is a distinct difference between the way the conservatives went about rebutting the Reagan film release and the path the liberal Democrats have taken to stop “The Path to 9/11”. That difference is no GOP Senators or Representatives threatened the network with loss of their FCC license. The Democrat Elite Five did just that to Iger and Disney (ABC). That is an abuse of power that should be censured. The ethics committee should have those Congressmen on the carpet as we write. This is an unabashed attempt at censorship clear and simple.

I’m told that night two is quite unfavorable toward the Bush administration. So where is the Democrats’ outrage about those yet unseen scenes? If the left is so danged outraged over the “lies” and “inaccuracies” relative to “The Path to 9/11”, where is their outrage with Joe Wilson and Fitzgerald’s persecution of Libby and Rove over a leak that they were not at fault for. Where is the left’s outrage at Fitzgerald’s initial knowledge that Armitage was the source, but told him to keep quiet? All this 9/11 “outrage” by the left is purely selective and quite embarrassing to the rest of America.

[Syntax]

"Given the lucidity of most of your commentary, this paragraph is ridiculous. Bin Laden as yet "uncaptured" is not the same as his being "ALLOWED to elude capture"...you mentioned "childish" earlier? Well, you obviously don't think realistically about the difficulties in capturing or killing a rich man with local hero status in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan." -- So in other words, Republicans can make excuses for the exact same failures that you condemn Democrats for? Point gotten and yes, I've been entertaining the idea of starting a blog but I don't want to fall into the anti-Left, anti-Right trap which is very easy to do as Amy could tell you from my deleted comments. My apologies.

Old Soldier, the link isn't working but I did go to the website and found it quite interesting. I'll fish around for the article. In all fareness, Michael Moore wasn't kind to the Democrats neither. They dropped the ball too but not alone.

I don't agree with threatening a FCC license but I certainly don't agree with fabricating lies and exploiting our nation's tragedy for political reasons neither. If anybody read the 9/11 Commission Report than they know that there are blatant lies in this film and for what purpose do they serve.

[Trent]

Syntax (if indeed that *is* your real name),

Moore is talented in giving viewers false impressions. By combining and/or juxtaposing images, he leads you to the conclusion he wants you to have without his outright stating it. One such example would be the KKK mutating into the NRA in 'Bowling For Columbine'. From what I remember, he never actually comes right out and says that is what happened, but he uses a cartoon to lead you to that very conclusion. Did Moore lie? Technically no... but that entire sequence -- in keeping with Moore's style -- was designed to suggest something that is what happened, even though it wasn't.

Frankly, Michael Moore is no credit to the left... and many on the left have no illusions about that.

[Mark Krauss]

One would think, after all this time that Iger and ABC would know how easily distracted slick willy is and make use of that knowledge, jeez, surely ABC has a pretty young intern on hand who would like to meet the former prez., his complaints would be forgotten in minutes.

[Zim]

Trent,
It's somewhat of a logical falacy to compare this with Fahrenheit 911. Moore's "documentary", as biased as it is, does not claim to be impartial and does not re-enact scenes in a dramatic fashion. It was also never broadcast on any national TV and I can only image the kind of reaction you guys would have if it had. Of course Moore's intention was to make a political point and influence viewers. However, there was no major network that put it out commercial free saying that the movie is a factual account for the lead up to the Iraq war. If a conservative filmmaker wants to do the same and put out his movie at the theatres, that's fine with me. And of course ABC has the right to air whatever it pleases - but they're seriosuly damaging their credibility for the sake of ideology.

If these guys want to say, "look, our drama is not 100% accurate, but we think it's good entertainment", than fine. But they can't have it both ways. The fact that plenty of conservatives has questioned its crediblity as well, speaks volumes.

[CalPatriot]

Great Article here Amy,

It dispels rumors that there were no experts on the movie set, which was a fabricated lie, indicating the people jumping on the Bill Clinton & Democratic bandwagon for inaccuracy.

During a TCA session on Path to 9/11 in July, Cunningham said in addition to Kean, during filming of the movie, there were "an army of consultants that were there…from CIA, FBI, Secret Service, White House, many of those funnelling up to Gov. Kean."

In addition there were two people on the set from the 9/11 commission, one dem and one repub, the report further states.

http://mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003118271&&&&&imw=Y

People want this to seem as it was all made up. ABC did announce they cut 30 minuets of the movie and in a paragraph close to this comment tell of Clinton’s lawyers threatening ABC like they were some type of Commy thugs mad at ABC’s democratic right to tell history.

I just hope they do not white-wash those areas taken out and make Bill Look like a person who is innocent of all procrastination to fighting the terrorists.

More article: “Among the inaccuracies alleged by Clinton is that while the 9/11 Commission was not critical of his efforts to apprehend al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the movie insinuates that he was preoccuppied with fighting his impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky situation.”

Heay - but that is true. He was bombing Kosovo ( For nothing – he killed over 12,000 innocent people by his decision) , attacking Saddam for harboring WMD ( See historical statements to Desert Fox Operation, Dec. 1998) and was threatening every repub on the planet about him not lying under oath ( which he did) . I do not think he was concentrating on the terrorists. Hahah…

[Trent]

Zim,

Your point is completely weak and utterly without merit.

I'm sorry, but there's no nice way to say it.

[Amy P]

Just watched the first night of the show and it was EXCELLENT!! Can't wait to see tomorrow night's..

[J Rob]

When Moore called his films "documentaries" he lost the ability to claim "artistic license". He either documents what happens or not. He did not.
As I recall, Road to 9/11 was called a "docudrama". While I hate docudramas, at least it does not carry the implicit claim that a documentary carries. It tells you up front that certain liberties are going to be taken. That said. it does not excuse the Senate Minority Censorship Caucus for threatening ABC's license. Do they have a right to express outrage? Absolutely. Do they have a right to engage in calling for mass economic sanctions against sponsors? Absolutely. Do they have a right to threaten the network's license? absolutely NOT! Their blatant disregard for the First Ammendment should not only earn them scorn but also censure.

[Fix4RSO]

You're right Amy, it was great. It did, however, fall short of what I was expecting to see. I fear that ABC did edit some key points out of this particular airing of the material, if all the hub-bub is true. The intensity of the want to stop the airing tells me there was more there ...

I'm sure tomorrow on Rush, we'll hear just how much was missing, if any.

[Trent]

Ya know, we've heard about the Clinton cronies' outrage about this... but how much of the miniseries criticisms of them is actually true?

[J Rob]

Thanks to Sandy Berger's search and destroy outing at the Archives, we will only be able to speculate as to how much is true (the desired effect of sneaking the documents out in the first place). They can alway respond, "where's the evidence?" Of course the most that critics will be able to respond wil be ,"Ask Sandy Berger". Neat set up, huh?

[Tim]

The fact that anyone would even attempt to argue the "points" made in Michael Moore's pukementary leaves me thinking that perhaps humanity is a lost cause. In any event, the point is the BLATANT hypocrisy of any left wing nut job getting worked up over FACTUAL claims (Clinton DID commit adultery and perjury at the same time, and DID allow Bin Laden to roam free 4 times) I suggest you libs get to refuting those facts, or maybe, (God forbid) hold your precious leaders accountable, before trying to point the finger back at your enemy in a vain attempt at diverting people from the truth.

[Syntax]

Thats the point Tim, nobody on the Right have argued the points of the Moore film with facts. Rhetoric, spin and lies...you bet! But no facts. Nobody took Michael Moore to court over slander charges. Nobody on the Right challenged Moore's claims with credible facts that contradict the claims of the movie publicly. No dramatizations that take "creative liberty" that expand way beyond the scope of the document it claims its based upon like the "Path to 9/11" claiming it is based upon the 9/11 Commission Report. Yes, undoubtedly Moore's movie had an agenda BUT...to this day, it has not been credibly challenged. The only challenge was the 13 flights transporting the Bin Laden family and other Saudis back to Saudi Arabia in which in 2004, the FBI admitted that these flights did in fact take place. That was the only credible challenge and the Right lied. Go figure.

Yes, Clinton did commit adultery and perejury. He wasn't outed. Who cares! This obsession over Clinton's (*wink) is twisted. Tim, are you aware that Bin Laden is STILL roaming free today under the watch of this current President and he is NOT roaming free in Iraq? Hate like heck to point out the obvious but you are aware of that right? Is that Clinton's fault too? If another 9/11 was to happen within the next year, who's fault would it be? Clinton's? He's been gone for 6 years now and he was allowed to finish out his term, whats the excuse now?

I hold all "precious leaders" accountable as far back as Reagan. I hold both parties responsible because name one Republican and/or one Democrat that was sounding the alarms before 9/11? I'll answer it for you...ZERO! Zip, bumpkis, nada! The entire system and both parties failed us.

The movie didn't matter. The ratings show that the Giants game and the non-partisan and non-exploiting CBS 9/11 film got most of the viewers. ABC spent $40 million on a film that most of America didn't appreciate. It bombed with the exception of a minority who seem to think it is OK to molest the memories of 2,996 dead people and exploit our nation's greatest tragedy for a political agenda in an election year. And now the President calls for unity? He had a 96% approval rating after 9/11. He had unity! All Americans were on the same page from the Left and the Right! He had the enire World in the palm of his hand and he blew it. Bin Laden is roaming free, again.

[Tim]

"Tim, are you aware that Bin Laden is STILL roaming free today under the watch of this current President and he is NOT roaming free in Iraq? Hate like heck to point out the obvious but you are aware of that right? Is that Clinton's fault too? If another 9/11 was to happen within the next year, who's fault would it be? Clinton's? He's been gone for 6 years now and he was allowed to finish out his term, whats the excuse now?"

Are you aware that while UBL is free he is in no position to attack us again, thanks to Bush? Are you aware that Clinton had the chance to prevent 9/11 4 times and didn't?

[Syntax]

What proof do you have that he is in no position to attack us? The proof that he is in no position to attack us again is to have Bin Laden dead or at least, in jail and not allowing Bush to pull a "Clinton" and let him roam free. He is more powerful now than he ever was. Heck, Pakistan just granted him sanctuary. Bush is an idiot and I don't trust him to guard a lemonade stand. Does Iraq ring any bells for anyone?
This administration is a bunch of draft-dodging, pink team pansies who have not seen one single second of combat or credible military experience in their entire collective lives. I'm supposed to trust these idiots with my security? Thanks but no thanks.

[Amy Proctor]

Syntax,

Actually..... The entire Bush family has a FAR greater military record than the former democratic presidents I can think of.

Why is it that the military is made up of mostly Republicans?


http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics/ActiveDutyArmyThenNow83-03.ppt#257,1,Then and Now

RACE:
White: 59%
Black: 24%
Hispanic: 10%
etc...

SEX:
Female: 15.2%
Male: 84.8%

MARRIED: 67%
SINGLE WITH CHILDREN: 7.7%

VOTE IN 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION:
Bush: 73%
Kerry: 18%

POLITICAL MAKE UP
Republicans: 59%
Independents: 20%
Democrat: 13%

(According to the Army Times, Air Force Times, Marine Corps Times, Navy Times poll in USA Today)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm

[Tim]

Nicely put Amy.

"He is more powerful now than he ever was."

Seeing as how most/all of his people have been killed, I'll need some proof, not rhetoric, to verify that.

[Amy Proctor]

Osama is now more powerful than he ever was? Then why is he crapping in caves? Not exactly the epitome of "power" he's going for, I'd bet.

[Amy Proctor]

test

[Syntax]

An illusion...the exact same illusion as we had in the 90's. It will take another 9/11 before this country finally gets its head out of its you-know-what. Plain and simple.

If you look at the quality of videos lately from the Al Qaeda, he isn't in a cave. They're not phenominal quality videos but they're not exactly cave videos neither. There is a $25 million bounty on Bin Laden's head and nobody is taking that bait. Nobody! He's protected, he's worshipped, he's idolized and he's supported. 9/11 was a battle cry and he has no plans on making that his legacy. His legacy is yet to come.