Clinton Administration In Denial Mode.......Again

[MavKikiNYC]

Clinton White House Officials Object to 9/11 Drama
By Deepti Hajela, AP

(Sept. 7) - A "terribly wrong" miniseries about events leading to the Sept. 11 attacks blame President Clinton's policies, former Clinton administration officials said in letters demanding that ABC correct it or not air it.

But in a statement released Thursday afternoon in apparent response to the growing uproar, ABC said, "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."

Former Secretary of State Madeleine (editorialized) Half-bright, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, (editoralized) who was convicted of stealing classified documents from the National Archives in an attempt to cover up the failings of the Clinton administration's handling of international terrorism, and who subsequently was forced to surrender his security clearanc , Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey (editorialized) who had serveed as legal counsel while covering up various and sundry Clinton crimes and misdemeanors, and Clinton adviser Douglas Band wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's parent The Walt Disney Co., to express concern over "The Path to 9/11."

The two-part miniseries, scheduled to be broadcast on Sunday and Monday, is drawn from interviews and documents including the report of the Sept. 11 commission. ABC has described it as a "dramatization" as opposed to a documentary.

"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said in its statement. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."

The letter writers said the miniseries contained factual errors, and that their requests to see it had gone unanswered.

"By ABC's own standard, ABC has gotten it terribly wrong," Lindsey and Band said in their letter.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

The letters pointed out examples of scenes they had been told were in the miniseries, but which they said never happened. Albright objected to a scene that she was told showed her insisting on warning the Pakistani government before an airstrike on Afghanistan, and that she was the one who made the warning.

"The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory," she said.

Berger objected to a scene that he was told showed him refusing to authorize an attack on Osama bin Laden despite the request from CIA officials. "The fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license," he wrote.

Lindsey and Band objected to advertisements for the miniseries, which they said suggested that Clinton wasn't paying enough attention to the threat of terrorism.

"While ABC is promoting "The Path to 9/11" as a dramatization of historical fact, in truth it is a fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans," they said. "Given your stated obligation to 'get it right,' we urge you to do so by not airing this drama until the egregious factual errors are corrected, an endeavor we could easily assist you with given the opportunity to view the film."

The five-hour miniseries is set to run without commercial interruption. Director David Cunningham said it was a massive undertaking, with close to 250 speaking parts, more than 300 sets, and a budget of $40 million. Cunningham has said he shot 550 hours of film. The cast includes Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton and Donnie Wahlberg.

Madeline Half-bright was said to be particularly upset that she was portrayed by actress Estelle Harris (George Costanza's mother), while Condoleeza Rice as portrayed by Halle Berry.

9/7/2006 14:04:29

[dude1394]

Ha Ha... Couldn't happen to a more inconsequential president.

[MavsX]

garbage

[Usually Lurkin]

I particularly liked this line:

Madeline Half-bright was said to be particularly upset that she was portrayed by actress Estelle Harris (George Costanza's mother), while Condoleeza Rice as portrayed by Halle Berry.

I'm guessing that was yours, Mavskiki?

I kept expecting to read something about Berger trying to walk off with drafts of the script hidden in his pants.

It's funny how the shoe has switched feet since the Reagan biopic. Republicans protested enough to get that thing off the air. All kinds of liberals were moaning about facist censorship then.

[Usually Lurkin]

. . .
And ABC is making changes in response to the political pressure:
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-wk...cl-tv-features

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

. . .
And ABC is making changes in response to the political pressure:
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-wk...cl-tv-features

They may have a tough time making very substantial changes as many advance copies were provided I believe.

[Rhylan]

Donnie Wahlberg... hahahah...

I know he's made a little acting career for himself, but still dawg...

Donnie Wahlberg... still hangin' tough after all these years.

[dude1394]

I just don't believe I've ever seen a political party threaten the broadcast license of a news outlet like this.

Quite the little facists.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006...threatens.html

This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.

Read it, then read my analysis of it below:

The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.

This raises the stakes incredibly for Disney.

[FishForLunch]

I did see the democrats protesting Farenheit 911, I guess those factual errors were ok to be broadcasted. ABC will cave on this one for sure, we dont want Clinton's legacy to be tarnished, after all he did such a good job fighting terrorism.

[Rhylan]

dude's post is why I'm reduced to making a Donnie Wahlberg joke.

[George Gervin]

maybe, just maybe there is concern because some of it's not true? I find it rather hypocritical that the same people who cry about the biased liberal media and how they lie yet now all of a sudden are staunch supporters of the same media. Republicans had no problem and showed their selecive outrage towards CBS and the Reagan miniseries on it's playing loose with the facts. We had republicans coming out of the woodwork claiming they were present during some of the preported events and they were untrue when respondign to CBS.. Yet we have the exact same situation with people coming out and stating that the vents shown were not accurate because they were present..etc.. and now they are in denial



STATEMENT from ABC Entertainment on "The Path to 9/11"
“The Path to 9/11” is not a documentary of the events leading to 9/11. It is a dramatization, drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report, other published materials, and personal interviews. As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression. No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible. The attacks of 9/11 were a pivotal moment in our history, and it is fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue. However, we hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it.

[dude1394]

I have no problem with lefties citizens and non-governmental folks raising cain trying to protect their man clinton, heck that's about all they do is bitch anyway.
-----------------------
But when sitting Democrat Leadership threaten the livelyhood and FCC license of a news outlet unless they CENSOR their material that is pretty fascist in nature.

I would think a good liberal like yourself wouldn't support the government censoring or threatening of the media? Guess not.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

. Republicans had no problem and showed their selecive outrage towards CBS and the Reagan miniseries on it's playing loose with the facts. We had republicans coming out of the woodwork claiming they were present during some of the preported events and they were untrue when respondign to CBS..

Daschle said of that, it "smacks of intimidation"

Here's a collection of accusations by the liberals at the time fo the Reagan brouhaha:
http://newsbusters.org/node/7477

"soviet style chill". heh, heh. That's a good one. I wonder what the NYTimes and Brian Williams will have to say about the Clinton attack on our free media?

Do ya'll remember Michael Moore sitting next to Carter? Do you remember the hugs he got from Democratic political leaders? Was his docu-drama more accurate, more valid, less deserving of government induced correction than the ABC tv miniseries?

Most conservative blogs and comments I've seen aren't accusing the Left of anything but hypocrisy. The early days of the Bush admin aren't going to look good in this miniseries, either. It sounds like C. Rice, in particular, will come out looking pretty bad. Republicans, though, are growing pretty thick skin over this sort of thing, and I think thanks to M. Moore and friends, people are starting to interpret "docu-dramas" as left leaning if not anti-right. This 9/11 - Clinton stuff, though, is just funny because we can see that the left just can't stand the taste of their own medicine.

[dude1394]

What is not funny in all of this however is seeing the left succumb to their roots of "soviet style" press manipulation.

Hopefully some of the less nutcases on the left side of the aisle will see the democrats for the extremists they are. Usually the media covers their backs for them, but even the media can't stop this tidal wave of hypocrisy.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Daschle said of that, it "smacks of intimidation"

Here's a collection of accusations by the liberals at the time fo the Reagan brouhaha:
http://newsbusters.org/node/7477

"soviet style chill". heh, heh. That's a good one. I wonder what the NYTimes and Brian Williams will have to say about the Clinton attack on our free media?

Do ya'll remember Michael Moore sitting next to Carter? Do you remember the hugs he got from Democratic political leaders? Was his docu-drama more accurate, more valid, less deserving of government induced correction than the ABC tv miniseries?

Most conservative blogs and comments I've seen aren't accusing the Left of anything but hypocrisy. The early days of the Bush admin aren't going to look good in this miniseries, either. It sounds like C. Rice, in particular, will come out looking pretty bad. Republicans, though, are growing pretty thick skin over this sort of thing, and I think thanks to M. Moore and friends, people are starting to interpret "docu-dramas" as left leaning if not anti-right. This 9/11 - Clinton stuff, though, is just funny because we can see that the left just can't stand the taste of their own medicine.

When did a major network show F-911? Did they advertse it as being based on the 9/11 panel findings? What does M Moore have to do with anything? I am certainly not going to give Clinton a pass but to hear other conservatives using this miniseries as a reference to claim Clinton did nothing is weak. I have no problem with the GOP or the Dems wanting accurate info that refelects what happened. I give the people (GOP & Dems) who were present at the time the events took place the benefit of thew doubt as opposed to anything else. They may be lying but unless you have someone who was also present come out and claim they lied we will never know exactly what happened,

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by dude1394

What is not funny in all of this however is seeing the left succumb to their roots of "soviet style" press manipulation.

Hopefully some of the less nutcases on the left side of the aisle will see the democrats for the extremists they are. Usually the media covers their backs for them, but even the media can't stop this tidal wave of hypocrisy.

The GOP did the same thing so wouldn't that make them hypocrites as well?

[MavKikiNYC]

September 8, 2006
ABC Said to Re-Edit Key Parts of 9/11 Show

By PATRICK HEALY and JESSE McKINLEY
Under growing pressure from Democrats and aides to former President Bill Clinton, ABC is re-evaluating and in some cases re-editing crucial scenes in its new mini-series “The Path to 9/11” to soften its portrait of the Clinton administration’s pursuit of Osama bin Laden, according to people involved in the project.
Among the changes, ABC is altering one scene in which an actor playing Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser, abruptly hangs up on a C.I.A. officer during a critical moment in a military operation, according to Thomas H. Kean, a consultant on the ABC project and co-chairman of the federal Sept. 11 commission.
Mr. Berger has said that the scene is a fiction, and Mr. Kean, in an interview, said that he believed Mr. Berger was correct and that ABC was making appropriate changes.
The reassessment came as two Clinton aides mounted an unusual attack last night on the motives of Mr. Kean, a Republican and a former governor of New Jersey. In a letter to Mr. Kean, the two aides, Bruce R. Lindsey and Douglas Band, wrote that his defense of the mini-series “is destroying the bipartisan aura of the 9/11 Commission,” on whose findings the project is partly based. They asserted that Mr. Kean was driven by payments from ABC or his own partisan politics.
Mr. Kean, who called Mr. Clinton a good friend, said it was outrageous to suggest he was being swayed by money or politics, and added that any fee he received would be donated to charity. He said he stood by the film because he believed it would draw attention to the commission’s security recommendations, many of which have not been put into effect, and because the film did not pretend to be a documentary.
Yet Mr. Kean, as well as other members of the commission, did say they were concerned that their widely praised investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks might be diminished in some way by the mini-series.
“Mini-series often make things more dramatic by fictionalizing,” Mr. Kean said. “I don’t think the fictional moments reflect on the work of the commission, but I do hope that the controversy doesn’t tarnish it. ABC is trying to be as accurate as possible.”
Democrats and allies of Mr. Clinton unleashed full-throated appeals to ABC yesterday to cancel the broadcast, which is scheduled for Sunday and Monday nights. The Senate Democratic leadership sent a letter to Robert A. Iger, the chief executive of the Walt Disney Company, ABC’s parent, saying that broadcasting the film “would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility.”
The national Democratic Party drew more than 100,000 signatures in 24 hours to a petition of complaint that it plans to give to ABC today.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, one of 10 senators at a news conference yesterday where the mini-series came up, left before she could be asked about it. A small throng of reporters who followed her out of the building toward her office were kept at bay by her aides.
The changes to the mini-series are still being made inside an editing suite in Los Angeles, with a variety of creative staff members and executives, including Marc Platt, the executive producer, who has been monitoring the editing from London, and David L. Cunningham, the director, who is being consulted at his home in Hawaii.
Mr. Kean said that two other parts of the film are also under review. One is a scene where an actress playing former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright is apparently obstructing efforts to capture Mr. bin Laden. The other part suggests that Mr. Clinton was too distracted by impeachment and his marital problems to fully focus on Mr. bin Laden.
Mr. Platt said that he could not offer specifics about what scenes were being examined, but that editing was going on and “will continue to, if needed until we broadcast.”
“From Day 1, we’ve examined any issue or question that’s arisen,” he said. “And we’ll continue to do so until the last possible moment.”
Mr. Kean said he was surprised by the outcry, since most of the critics have not seen the film. He said Mr. Clinton had spoken directly to Mr. Iger last Friday; Clinton aides declined to comment.
Several 9/11 commission members said yesterday that they respected Mr. Kean immensely but that they were concerned about the ABC project and his role in it. One of them, Timothy J. Roemer, a Democrat, said he called Mr. Kean yesterday to urge ABC to make changes. Another, Jamie S. Gorelick, a former Clinton administration official, wrote Mr. Iger yesterday that the nation and schoolchildren would be poorly served if they drew lessons from the mini-series that were inaccurate.
Scholastic, the children’s publishing company, which had been working with ABC to use “The Path to 9/11” as a teaching tool, said yesterday that it was removing materials related to the film from its Web site. A spokeswoman said a new study guide was being prepared that would explain the difference between a docudrama and a documentary.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

September 8, 2006
ABC Said to Re-Edit Key Parts of 9/11 Show

By PATRICK HEALY and JESSE McKINLEY
Under growing pressure from Democrats and aides to former President Bill Clinton, ABC is re-evaluating and in some cases re-editing crucial scenes in its new mini-series “The Path to 9/11” to soften its portrait of the Clinton administration’s pursuit of Osama bin Laden, according to people involved in the project.
Among the changes, ABC is altering one scene in which an actor playing Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser, abruptly hangs up on a C.I.A. officer during a critical moment in a military operation, according to Thomas H. Kean, a consultant on the ABC project and co-chairman of the federal Sept. 11 commission.
Mr. Berger has said that the scene is a fiction, and Mr. Kean, in an interview, said that he believed Mr. Berger was correct and that ABC was making appropriate changes.
The reassessment came as two Clinton aides mounted an unusual attack last night on the motives of Mr. Kean, a Republican and a former governor of New Jersey. In a letter to Mr. Kean, the two aides, Bruce R. Lindsey and Douglas Band, wrote that his defense of the mini-series “is destroying the bipartisan aura of the 9/11 Commission,” on whose findings the project is partly based. They asserted that Mr. Kean was driven by payments from ABC or his own partisan politics.
Mr. Kean, who called Mr. Clinton a good friend, said it was outrageous to suggest he was being swayed by money or politics, and added that any fee he received would be donated to charity. He said he stood by the film because he believed it would draw attention to the commission’s security recommendations, many of which have not been put into effect, and because the film did not pretend to be a documentary.
Yet Mr. Kean, as well as other members of the commission, did say they were concerned that their widely praised investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks might be diminished in some way by the mini-series.
“Mini-series often make things more dramatic by fictionalizing,” Mr. Kean said. “I don’t think the fictional moments reflect on the work of the commission, but I do hope that the controversy doesn’t tarnish it. ABC is trying to be as accurate as possible.”
Democrats and allies of Mr. Clinton unleashed full-throated appeals to ABC yesterday to cancel the broadcast, which is scheduled for Sunday and Monday nights. The Senate Democratic leadership sent a letter to Robert A. Iger, the chief executive of the Walt Disney Company, ABC’s parent, saying that broadcasting the film “would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility.”
The national Democratic Party drew more than 100,000 signatures in 24 hours to a petition of complaint that it plans to give to ABC today.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, one of 10 senators at a news conference yesterday where the mini-series came up, left before she could be asked about it. A small throng of reporters who followed her out of the building toward her office were kept at bay by her aides.
The changes to the mini-series are still being made inside an editing suite in Los Angeles, with a variety of creative staff members and executives, including Marc Platt, the executive producer, who has been monitoring the editing from London, and David L. Cunningham, the director, who is being consulted at his home in Hawaii.
Mr. Kean said that two other parts of the film are also under review. One is a scene where an actress playing former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright is apparently obstructing efforts to capture Mr. bin Laden. The other part suggests that Mr. Clinton was too distracted by impeachment and his marital problems to fully focus on Mr. bin Laden.
Mr. Platt said that he could not offer specifics about what scenes were being examined, but that editing was going on and “will continue to, if needed until we broadcast.”
“From Day 1, we’ve examined any issue or question that’s arisen,” he said. “And we’ll continue to do so until the last possible moment.”
Mr. Kean said he was surprised by the outcry, since most of the critics have not seen the film. He said Mr. Clinton had spoken directly to Mr. Iger last Friday; Clinton aides declined to comment.
Several 9/11 commission members said yesterday that they respected Mr. Kean immensely but that they were concerned about the ABC project and his role in it. One of them, Timothy J. Roemer, a Democrat, said he called Mr. Kean yesterday to urge ABC to make changes. Another, Jamie S. Gorelick, a former Clinton administration official, wrote Mr. Iger yesterday that the nation and schoolchildren would be poorly served if they drew lessons from the mini-series that were inaccurate.
Scholastic, the children’s publishing company, which had been working with ABC to use “The Path to 9/11” as a teaching tool, said yesterday that it was removing materials related to the film from its Web site. A spokeswoman said a new study guide was being prepared that would explain the difference between a docudrama and a documentary.

STATEMENT from ABC Entertainment on "The Path to 9/11"
“The Path to 9/11” is not a documentary of the events leading to 9/11. It is a dramatization, drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report, other published materials, and personal interviews. As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression. No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible. The attacks of 9/11 were a pivotal moment in our history, and it is fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue. However, we hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it.

[MavsX]

hey dude, check your messages!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

The GOP did the same thing so wouldn't that make them hypocrites as well?

Please show me where Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, etc. sent a letter to a private company threatening to remove their license sir.

[FishForLunch]

First the dems wanted Rummy to resign because he hurt their feeling, now they threaten ABC, what next when they are back in power, every conservative talk show should be balanced with a liberal talk show?

[capitalcity]

The Left espouses free speech and artistic license... except when they don't agree with the art or speech.

"Piss Christ" - super.
"Death of a President" - interesting.
"Clinton lied, 2,973 died" - reprehesible.

Typical lib bullshit.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

First the dems wanted Rummy to resign because he hurt their feeling, now they threaten ABC, what next when they are back in power, every conservative talk show should be balanced with a liberal talk show?

You are very sly fellow..

It's called the Fairness Doctrine.

[George Gervin]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

First the dems wanted Rummy to resign because he hurt their feeling, now they threaten ABC, what next when they are back in power, every conservative talk show should be balanced with a liberal talk show?

I hate to break the news to you but it's not only democrats who think Rummy has failed miserably.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by George Gervin

I hate to break the news to you but it's not only democrats who think Rummy has failed miserably.

It's over your head son.

[capitalcity]

Cue DailyKosGervin...

[Mavdog]

every media company that uses the public airwaves has an obligation to be accurate in what they broadcast.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

every media company that uses the public airwaves has an obligation to be accurate in what they broadcast.

Even dramatizations? Man.... there are alot of shows in trouble then.....

[Mavdog]

yes U2, if the "dramatization" (I had read this was a "docudrama"...) is about a news event...

[u2sarajevo]

Where's the uproar over United 93?

[Mavdog]

I haven't seen united 93, are you saying that it is not accurate?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

every media company that uses the public airwaves has an obligation to be accurate in what they broadcast.

And the Clintons should be in charge of deciding what is accurate!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

And the Clintons should be in charge of deciding what is accurate!

What a fine observation UL. The market decides who is accurate or not. The FCC decides what is obscene.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

every media company that uses the public airwaves has an obligation to be accurate in what they broadcast.

You mean like C BS?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The market decides who is accurate or not

no dude, "the market" doesn't decide, although there is the old maxim that that it is the victor is who dictates the history.

Originally Posted by dude1394

You mean like C BS?

if you recall, it was the fact that rather was not accurate that cost him his job...

[Darth Ape]

so much for the Dem's support for freedom of expression.

a fascist by any other name...

[dude1394]

he market decides who is accurate or not

This was ill-typed. It was with respect to "who" determines if a media outlet is being truthful or not.

Certainly not a bunch of elected politicians, but the "market" as in the digesters of that media.

[FishForLunch]

When will the Clinton Lawyers strike, after we dont want anyone messing with his Legacy

[FishForLunch]

In case the clintonoids are successful in cancelling the show, here are a few clips

http://www.redstate.com/911clips

[dude1394]

So with all of the clinton apologists running around.

This makes me wonder...what Sandy Burgler was stuffing down his pants.