ABC has a mini-series airing this weekend called the "The Path to 9/11." It does not paint the Clinton Administration in a good light so, of course, Billy wants it censored.
Yes, my beloved former governor really does want that movie edited or not shown at all because it paints him in a bad light.
Pix
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sweet Jebus, you lot aren't even trying for accuracy are you? Do you not expect people to read the stories you linked or what?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If they made a movie that used semi-fictional events to imply I was responsible for 9/11, giving the impression that it was factual, I'd probably not want it shown on network television either.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: A miniseries about the events leading to the Sept. 11 attacks is "terribly wrong" and ABC should correct it or not air it, former Clinton administration officials demanded in letters to the head of ABC's parent company.
You really think it's just his cronies or do you think he's got a hand in it?
Honestly now.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yeah, except that the bipartisan 9/11 Report contradicts the key scenes that Clinton is complaining about (in other words, Clinton is right), and that this "drama, not documentary" is going to be provided to schools as a "teaching aid". But hey, keep on with that old-timey Clinton-hatin'.
-Bok
EDIT: This is from the NYPost article in the opening post.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
tres: I believe the movie (based on the 9/11 commision report) shows that Clinton was Irresponsible and the 9/11 attack happened. Not quite the same thing.. but not much better either.
I'm glad these people raised a fuss. I probably wouldn't have heard of the movie otherwise.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mig,
If the movie is portraying as true and will be used as a teaching aid something that we know or believe to be untrue, such as what the 9-11 reports have found...
What the hell is your problem with this again?
You generally avoid direct questioning like this-such as on the whole Al Gore thing-but still, it'd be nice to have an answer.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Pix- Do you hope they show Fahrenheit 9/11 on ABC too? Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Honestly now.
Pix, I think you may have given up the right to use that word on this thread.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:I believe the movie (based on the 9/11 commision report) shows that Clinton was Irresponsible...
And as the articles point out, the parts of the movie that dramatize this 'irresponsibility' are factual departures from the 9/11 report.
In other words, wrong.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Bok: Got a link to some examples?
Clinton hatin'... Two kinds of Bush hatin'... Regan Hatin'... Legitimate Carter and Nixon hatin'... The fact that there is no leader that makes much more than 50% of the population happy is yet another reason to shrink the heavy foot of government.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tres: Doesn't ABC own showtime? Cuz I think they run Fahrenheit 9/11 24/7 there....
Squick, you're dangerously close to going 'round the bend here...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pix, Maybe you're not getting the point that people are making, that is transparently obvious on reading the articles linked.
The parts of the movie that people are saying shouldn't be in there are ones that never happened. They are fictional scenes that are in a movie that is purporting to deal with an actual event.
To some people, though apparently not you or Mig, there's a difference between "Hey, don't show that because it makes me look bad." and "Hey, don't show things that are lies."
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Example of what? I think the motive of this thread is clear from the title. I consider it Clinton-hatin' (bashing, whatever) of the type that is most corrosive, and honestly, identical in motive and process as much of the GWB-hatin' that goes on (and when GWB is 5/6 years out of office, and people are still trying to spring "gotchas" on him, it'll be old-timey GWB-hatin').
There are plenty of things to get Clinton on; you could even say that by not figuring out Tenet was incompetent and firing him, he shares some blame for 9/11, as Tenet's boss (EDIT: this is one, non-exhaustive example). That isn't what this mini-series is doing though, instead replacing the actual people in actual situations with OTHER people in these situations.
Everything I quoted came from the NY Post article linked in the opening post. some of it may be paraphrased, I admit.
quote:Clinton hatin'... Two kinds of Bush hatin'... Regan Hatin'... Legitimate Carter and Nixon hatin'... The fact that there is no leader that makes much more than 50% of the population happy is yet another reason to shrink the heavy foot of government.
Or, y'know, we could get civilized about it, and stop playing the Hatin' Game. No, not everyone will be so civilized, but then, I'd rather this sort of thing not continue to be as accepted by our civilization as it is.
-Bok
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Hmm.. ABC doesn't comment except to say it's a Dramatization. That means they use actors instead of actual footage, guess at one some of the dialog might have been and take dramatic liberties.
All we actually hear is denial... "That didn't happen." And the only side we hear is the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" people.
There might have been dramatic liberties taken with the Clinton administration. There probably were. But listening to known liars complain about it doesn't fill me with any sort sympathy.
Plus one of them is Sandy Berger who stole documents related to this very issue from the national archive.
Yeah. Gotta believe him. Yuh-huh.
Pix
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pixiest,
Pixiest, you're on pretty shaky-like, melting ice shaky-ground here.
quote:In the movie, FBI anti-terror agent John O'Neill, played by Harvey Keitel, and a composite CIA operative named Kirk grouse about bureaucratic red tape following a meeting with Berger and Albright.
"How do you win a law-and-orderly war?" Kirk asks.
"You don't," O'Neill snaps.
The movie then cuts immediately to a newsreel close-up of Clinton insisting he did "not have sex with that woman" - Monica Lewinsky.
Although the movie thrust Lewinsky into the mix as a White House distraction, the 9/11 commission's report found Clinton was "deeply concerned about bin Laden" and that he received daily reports "on bin Laden's reported location," Clinton's letter notes.
In another scene, CIA operatives working with Afghani anti-al Qaeda fighter Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance who was assassinated by bin Laden days before 9/11, gather on a hill near bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms - the terror thug easily in their grasp.
"It's perfect for us," says Kirk, a composite character played by Donnie Wahlberg. But the team aborts the mission when an actor portraying Berger tells them he can't authorize a strike.
"I don't have that authority," the Berger character says.
"Are there any men in Washington," Massoud asks Kirk later in the film, "or are they all cowards?"
The reps for an outraged Clinton wrote to Iger that "no such episode ever occurred - nor did anything like it."
The 9/11 commission report echoes his denial, and found that Clinton's Cabinet gave "its blessing" for a CIA plan to capture bin Laden and determined that ex-CIA Director George Tenet squashed the plan.
The third contested scene focuses on Albright, who is depicted alerting Pakistani officials in advance of a 1998 U.S. missile strike against bin Laden in Afghanistan - over the objections of the Pentagon. The movie claims the tip-off allowed bin Laden to escape.
But the 9/11 commission reported that it was a member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff - not Albright - who met with a senior Pakistani Army official prior to the strike to "assure him the missiles were not coming from India."
These things about this kind of series of events don't to me fit under the blanket of 'dramatic license'. Just because Bill Clinton was a lying scumbag does not give media companies license to portray him as a lying scumbag about everything, particularly when the best evidence we've got (9-11 Commission) indicates that doing so is a flat-out lie.
You should not be OK with this, Pixiest.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pixiest: according to the articles, the 9-11 commission's report also disagrees with the movie. As far as I can tell, this is just a matter of Bill & Co. wanting things to be accurate. Because Clinton and Albrecht are assigned blame for things that are as a matter of fact NOT their fault, they have a legitimate concern.
Lies aren't needed. And I think the movie IS lying, in this case.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, Clinton wants ABC to censor itself. None of the articles suggests he wants to use any form of force to stop ABC from showing the mini-series.
I've heard of some of the scenes, at least one of them is an outright fabrication of a hypothetical group of operatives awaiting the go order to take bin Laden then being told by a Clinton admin policy official he didn't have the authority to go ahead.
That is mentioned in the first article, and is also explicitly contradicted by the 9/11 commission report according to that article:
quote:The 9/11 commission report echoes his denial, and found that Clinton's Cabinet gave "its blessing" for a CIA plan to capture bin Laden and determined that ex-CIA Director George Tenet squashed the plan.
Also, if its now okay to make up things that didn't happen that put people who have lied in a bad light, I think the world just became a much worse place.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Clinton hatin'... Two kinds of Bush hatin'... Regan Hatin'... Legitimate Carter and Nixon hatin'... The fact that there is no leader that makes much more than 50% of the population happy is yet another reason to shrink the heavy foot of government.
I don't know that blaming your dishonesty and irresponsibility on big government either makes all that much sense or serves your libertarian goals.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pixiest hasn't been dishonest. She's actually just interpreted the actions of Clinton and Disney in a different (and IMO, not-wholly-logical) way than you, Squicky.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, I must be interpeting the misrepresentation of what the articles actually say differently than you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How odd.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I should say that movies based on historical events typically do have such inaccuracies. However, they are usually made further after the events, when people care less and there is less potential political impact. Clinton has a right to be pissed off about any inaccuracies, but he shouldn't be surprised.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
From a Fox news report today:
quote:ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan defended the miniseries, telling the Post, it is a "dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews."
"Many of the people who have expressed opinions about the film have yet to see it in its entirety or in its final broadcast form, " Hogan said. "We hope the viewers will watch the entire broadcast before forming their own opinion."
Executive producer Marc Platt reportedly told the Washington Post that he worked "very hard to be fair."
"If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously a concern," Platt said. "We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view."
It's unfair to the producers to focus just on the 9/11 Commission report and the denials of known liars and thieves like Clinton, Sandy Burglar, et al. It's also unfair to the American people for this gang to try to deny them this perspsctive on what happened, even if they don't agree with it or if they think it unfairly portrays their role. Sure it may exercise some creative license in order to portray "the essence of the truth." That sounds fair to me. A history this complex can't be constricted into one two-night minisereies without taking some creative liberties.
I especially think its funny that the Clinton Gang thinks that Monicagate didn't distract them from OBL. For anyone who believes that, I have a bridge for sale.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Apparently, the 9-11 commission found that Clinton was significantly focused on OBL.
The following is not just a "perspective." It's an error.
quote: The third contested scene focuses on Albright, who is depicted alerting Pakistani officials in advance of a 1998 U.S. missile strike against bin Laden in Afghanistan - over the objections of the Pentagon. The movie claims the tip-off allowed bin Laden to escape.
because
quote:...the 9/11 commission reported that it was a member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff - not Albright - who met with a senior Pakistani Army official prior to the strike to "assure him the missiles were not coming from India."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The dramatization doesn't just unfairly portray the roles of Clinton administration officials, it inaccurately portrays their role, as determined to the best of the ability of the United States Congress based on testimony from politicians and intelligence agents. It seems rather fair to me to expect a movie that worked 'very hard to be fair' to be consistent with facts; it may be archetypally appealing to have shifty politicians call off missions instead of seasoned intelligence agency heads making tough judgement calls, but it wasn't what happened.
I don't think that was malicious, though, I think they just liked the scene and were a little careless about the details. I think it would have been better had they waited a longer time from the event before making a dramatization of it, or if they made one now to pay better attention to the facts.
Also, if you're so focused on 'Monicagate' doing the distracting, you might ponder how long that investigation went on before Clinton made the lie that was the only thing he was impeached for. Its hardly surprising an investigation the Republicans kept pushing for new special prosecutors for when the previous one could find no evidence of wrongdoing was distracting.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Mig, this is going to be used as a teaching aid. I'd hope it'd be required to meet a higher standard than the "essence of the truth". Especially when some of the creative license is more creative fabrication, and concerning rather important events in the series. What if they put Tenet and the Joint Chief of Staff member in those situations the 9/11 report states they were in, are you saying that it wouldn't cause a rather important shift in perception in the viewer? If it is drama, it will appeal to emotion, not intellect, which makes it more dangerous, if people (as they inevitably will) take this as an accurate portrayal.
I'll buy thay bridge... Oh, wait, it isn't true that you have a bridge to sell. Surprising.
(There's distracted, and then there's paralyzed, Mig. Was Clinton and his immediate set of advisors distracted, no doubt. However there is NO EVIDENCE, as per the 9/11 report, that the immediate Clinton administration failed in any due diligence. The government isn't that monolithic.)
*Takes a step back*
Meanwhile, in a marketing factory deep beneath the Everglades, a PR flack giggles maniacally!
-Bok
EDIT: I'll add, it isn't even the Monica distraction that bothers me so much. It is indistinct in its aim, and at least a reasonable thing to speculate about. The rest, though, is bollocks, IMO.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mig,
quote:It's unfair to the producers to focus just on the 9/11 Commission report and the denials of known liars and thieves like Clinton, Sandy Burglar, et al. It's also unfair to the American people for this gang to try to deny them this perspsctive on what happened, even if they don't agree with it or if they think it unfairly portrays their role. Sure it may exercise some creative license in order to portray "the essence of the truth." That sounds fair to me. A history this complex can't be constricted into one two-night minisereies without taking some creative liberties.
Give me a break. You wouldn't tolerate this kind of 'creative license' if it wasn't against a non-conservative politician, and you know it. You're a partisan, and your statements on this issue generally indicate that it's the messenger and not the message you find important.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rakeesh: actually I expect there to be some truely horrible Bush bashing in the movie. It's just the clintonites are all focused on the earlier part of the story because, of course, "It's All About MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
Stuff like this happens to conservatives *ALL* the time. I'm pretty numb to it by now.
BTW, I heard from one of my readers that in his school, Fehrenheit 9/11 was used as a teaching aid. As well as OutFoxed.
So stop getting all worked up about it. It won't do a bit of good.
Pix
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, alright then. I won't discuss this with you anymore, if that's what you want.
I will say two more things, though, and be done with it as you asked. First of all, when we see some blatant game-playing with history for 'creative license' like this with either of the Bush Administrations, or even earlier Administrations, you can expect them to complain about it too...and not to much complain about the Clinton parts.
It's all about meeeeeeeeeeeeeee applies to them, too.
Stuff like this happens to liberals all the time as well, as evidenced by...well, this.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I love Clinton, but this movie is acknowledged to be fiction. How is airing it any worse than airing JFK or Pearl Harbor? Both of those movies depict real historical events using fictional scenes.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Rakeesh wrote:
quote:Give me a break. You wouldn't tolerate this kind of 'creative license' if it wasn't against a non-conservative politician, and you know it. You're a partisan, and your statements on this issue generally indicate that it's the messenger and not the message you find important.
I can't deny that I get a lot of enjoyment out of stories like this and seeing the left's leaders get the type of treatment that my people usually get. Most of the fun in this story rests in watching the Clintonistas squirm and get outraged. Yes, I was annoyed by that trash Michael Moore directed and by the CBS movie on Reagan. But forgive me if I'm wrong with some of you who are now defending Clinton on this, but did you also defend Bush with Fahrenhiet 9/11 and the more outrages lies and mistatements in that movie. Did Clinton and Sandy Burglar? Assuming for the moment that the Clinton Gang is right on this movie (something I'm not willing to accept), shouldn't the left give the producers of this movie the same type leeway to exercise their judgment as the left does with Michael Moore and his ilk. Or does the left too only choose to be outraged by lies and half-truths when it finds them inconvenient.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Destineer, for me it's because it is stated that this mini-series is going to be supplied as a teaching aid.
And Pixiest, two (three) wrongs don't make it right.
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But forgive me if I'm wrong with some of you who are now defending Clinton on this, but did you also defend Bush with Fahrenhiet 9/11 and the more outrages lies and mistatements in that movie.
Yeah, I did.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Umm, didn't the CBS Reagan movie get moved (to Cinemax?) because of complaints similar to this? Maybe it got moved back, I don't remember.
Mig, even if we said we did "defend" Bush in regards to Fahrenheit 911, would you really believe us?
(Me, I was neutral on it, in spite of my being, by all appearances, one of those dyed-in-the-wool arrogant New Englanders... Massachusetts even! I haven't actually seen it, or OutFoxed, largely because of the generally accepted propangandist nature of them.)
-Bok
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I sure as hell did too, Mig. It's indicative that you are hinting that those who aren't annoyed by this also aren't annoyed by that.
quote:Assuming for the moment that the Clinton Gang is right on this movie (something I'm not willing to accept), shouldn't the left give the producers of this movie the same type leeway to exercise their judgment as the left does with Michael Moore and his ilk. Or does the left too only choose to be outraged by lies and half-truths when it finds them inconvenient.
In other words, it is acceptable to castigate an entire loosely affiliated segment of American politics on the basis of their extreme, but not to do so against the other.
That is to say, yours.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Thanks Mig.
Everyone else is doing a superb job of calling you and anyone who agrees with you out on this one, so I'll stay away from that and just say thanks.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I guess that liberal media finally got it right this time, eh?
In any case, I don't really see the censorship here.
--j_k
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm nursing a paranoid suspicion that this is all just a stunt by the liberal media to fool people into thinking they're not really liberal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
OR it's a stunt by the conservative media to convince everyone that it's a stunt by a mythical liberal media so everyone THINKS they are trying too hard to convince us all they AREN'T liberals.
It's all so clear now!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here is a web site where you can add you name to object to this program: http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Can we at least agree that it's both vast and a conspiracy, likely involving wings of some sort?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd drop all objection if before the movie, and after every commercial break there was a disclaimer that said the entire thing was a work of fiction.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I want there to be spaceships.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And elves!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote: But forgive me if I'm wrong with some of you who are now defending Clinton on this, but did you also defend Bush with Fahrenhiet 9/11 and the more outrages lies and mistatements in that movie.
If Fahrenheit 911 was presented as a factual depiction of events rather than an opinion piece, and if it were shown on network television, then I think that would be inappropriate. As it is, though, it was shown to movie theater audiences and to limited television audiences, it was clearly presented as a work of (biased) opinion, and it did not directly change any facts or use actors to show people doing things that we know they didn't do.
quote:I can't deny that I get a lot of enjoyment out of stories like this and seeing the left's leaders get the type of treatment that my people usually get
Who are "your people"? Are they different from my people?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:it did not directly change any facts or use actors to show people doing things that we know they didn't do.
You're right. It indirectly changed facts and showed people doing things they didn't do. This is entirely different.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Who are "your people"? Are they different from my people?
Of course they are. Otherwise "his people" couldn't call "your people" to "do lunch." Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd drop all objection if before the movie, and after every commercial break there was a disclaimer that said the entire thing was a work of fiction.
Commercial breaks? What commercial breaks? As I understand it, the movie is going to be shown uninterrupted. Which will just add to the perception that it is something other than "just another movie", and will give it an air of authenticity that it doesn't sound like it really deserves, from everything I've heard so far.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Most of the fun in this story rests in watching the Clintonistas squirm and get outraged. Yes, I was annoyed by that trash Michael Moore directed and by the CBS movie on Reagan. But forgive me if I'm wrong with some of you who are now defending Clinton on this, but did you also defend Bush with Fahrenhiet 9/11 and the more outrages lies and mistatements in that movie.
Oh my god, it's absolutely brilliant: Because the show presents too good an opportunity to be indulgently petty, you're saying that "I get to excuse having ridiculously selective outrage, because I can point out that behavior in others!"
A miracle excuse, doubtlessly! And the best part is that you are avoiding being hypocritical, since you don't criticize selective outrage in others ..
oh wait Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I love Clinton, but this movie is acknowledged to be fiction. How is airing it any worse than airing JFK or Pearl Harbor? Both of those movies depict real historical events using fictional scenes.
To your examples: JFK: years after the fact, and while I'm not entirely familiar with what biases/truth-twisting is involved, it is at least about a subject matter that has become near-mythic in proportion. If you don't view even the most level-headed treatment of the JFK assassination story with about the same level of suspicion as a documentary on UFO sightings then I have to question your logical faculties.
Pearl Harbor: a bad summer blockbuster produced 50+years after the event in question... are you serious about using this as an example of what someone might take seriously? want to throw in Titanic while we're at it? how about Troy?
A movie coming out just a few years after an important event and being presented on network television in a way such that many people would think it is entirely based on the relatively well-known facts of the matter IS upsetting...
Ignoring facts from what is effectively THE authoritative source document on the subject is like claiming Colorado's prime export is SPAM because it was in a funny op-ed piece you read, even though the Encyclopedia Brittanica and the US Trade Department records say otherwise. If you fill in some unclear spots with heresay then it's a dramatazation (i.e. "well, I can't recall exactly what wording was used in this conversation") when you directly obscure/change objective facts then you are creating a work of fiction that is perhaps still "based on a true story".
As for comparing it to Michael Moore's works: there is a night and day difference between the independant release of a "documentary" by someone well-known to be extremely biased, loose with the facts, and willing to warp views to fit his thoughts on the matter, and a network television special/series/movie pushed as portraying an effectively factual recreation of a story...
Yes, Michael Moore absolutely twists the truth, sometimes he may flat out lie to suit his whims, this is why I think it fairly proposterous to use his work as any kind of teaching aid unless heavily couched in warnings to take it with about 50 lbs of salt. Additionally, he catches all kinds of flak about what he does, so why should this piece be any different from his stuff?
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
Where was Bill Clinton to advocate censorship of the News Media when they were reporting fiction based on the actual event?
This is petty politicking.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, Clinton wants ABC to censor itself. None of the articles suggests he wants to use any form of force to stop ABC from showing the mini-series.
Thank you.
As far as I'm concerned, that's the most important thing to be said about this thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I actually want to watch it, because I'm intrigued by what kind of gripping action they're going to wring out of the telly!
General Mancore: Mister president! We have terrorism cornered! We need authorization to proceed with Operation Bomb Terrorism Dead!
President Clinton: Oh god, no! No! Think of the consequences! Authorization not granted!
General Mancore: BUT SIR, TERRORISM WILL GET AWAY
President Clinton: I can't hear you over the sound of my intern!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I have had enough of this bashing against free speech! These people have the same freedoms Moore does so it should air however they want. The press will come to Clinton's rescue just like they always do. BAH! I am going to try and watch my favorite show Hiatus which I heard is out on DVD....if I can just find a place online to order them....
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have had enough of this bashing against free speech!
*blink* I just don't get it. I really, really don't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd drop all objection if before the movie, and after every commercial break there was a disclaimer that said the entire thing was a work of fiction.
Commercial breaks? What commercial breaks? As I understand it, the movie is going to be shown uninterrupted. Which will just add to the perception that it is something other than "just another movie", and will give it an air of authenticity that it doesn't sound like it really deserves, from everything I've heard so far.
I must have misunderstood, I was under the impression that this was some sort of mini-series documentary that was going to be aired on ABC, and thus rife with commercials.
DK -
What bashing of free speech? If anyone here seriously thinks that ABC and Michael Moore are on the same level of ethical honesty, or that ABC should only be held to Michael Moore's standards (a man almost universally agreed on this board to be a giant windbag), then I seriously question your ethical standards.
It's one thing for Michael Moore or his crazier crackpot counterpart Ann Coulter to spout off, but when a major network, one that actually expects its views to be treated with respect and credibility, releases a documentary of this sort, I think we actually expect there to be some FACT CHECKING done. It's the job of individual pundits like Michael Moore and Coulter to spin half truths, or in Coulter's case especially, to downright like through her teeth just to say the most vile hate filled invective ever heard by man. But a major network is supposed to have standards.
If there's a suggestion being made that they don't need to have standards, or credibility, then all measure or illusion of journalistic integrity is gone. I know many here would say it already IS gone, but I'm a little less cynical than that. Papers and newscasts still issue retractions and still check facts before they go on air with rumors.
Clinton's former administration officials want ABC to not go to print with what they know to be lies, and I don't really see what the problem is with that, I don't see what the argument is there.
If someone made a movie about Iraq in which scenes were added that depicted Bush talking to Rumsfeld about how they knew Saddam had no weapons but hell, let's attack anyway just to see what happens, people would be crying bloody murder, and they'd be right to. Having suspicions is one thing, and holding beliefs about someone is another.
But when you create a documentary that you perport (sp?) to be truth, and someone is telling you flat out that it is NOT the truth, I think there's a moral and ethical obligation there to change it and get facts straight. Otherwise ABC is committing negligent dishonesty, which I think amounts to straight out lying and propaganda.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:when a major network, one that actually expects its views to be treated with respect and credibility, releases a documentary of this sort...
In all fairness, it's not a documentary. It's being sold as an "educational miniseries." Ideally, people will recognize that it's no more "educational" than Roots or The Thorn Birds or Shogun or Rudy or that Reagan miniseries we've mentioned a few times on this thread already. But like that Reagan miniseries, it's just chronologically too close to the subject matter; people will have trouble distinguishing the fictionalized elements from the real ones, and the proximity of events makes it tempting to form actual opinions from the warped and distorted "facts" presented.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Mig- Isn't the whole point supposed to be that you're better than the evil liberals? If you admit you're just as bad as they are, then why should anyone pick you over them?
Edit: I should mention, my party affiliation tends to change dramatically based on who is currently annoying me the most. Right now I'm feeling like a pretty solid Democrat.
[ September 07, 2006, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: blacwolve ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh yeah, I also wanted to pick on that part.
quote:Mig Wrote:
Assuming for the moment that the Clinton Gang is right on this movie (something I'm not willing to accept)
Great! Truth is a matter of what we like to believe. It is best to squash controversy in those places where it might actually start, e.g., internal contention over an issue.
For instance: you won't have to wonder about the rest of my post. Always easier.
*** ACTUAL SCENE FROM MOVIE ***
(this is as described by Rush Limbaugh, one individual to which the series was screened)
quote:So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.
So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed…Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”
Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.
Richard Clarke counteradvises.
GIVEN THAT:
No US Military or CIA persinnel were 'on the ground' in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden;
The head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL;
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 and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
.. would it not be wise to see merit in criticism of this 'docudrama?'
(this is merely a hypothetical question, of course, for those who have made the time and thought conserving move of closing off willingness to accept such merit, beforehand)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Great post, as usual lately.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Why can't a movie based on true events simply tell the truth?
I don't care who it's about or who it's written by or which side it favors. There is plenty of ignorance and misinformation out there naturally, how does it benefit anyone to increase that?
Let's make American dumber and less well informed about the facts. We've always been at war with East Asia.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: *blink* I just don't get it. I really, really don't.
I agree with you, you really, really don't get it
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
This reminds me of an interview with the chief of the 9/11 Commission (on C-SPAN I believe). He said that he was approached several times by many different people asking him to spin the findings to blame Clinton or Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. or whoever else that would aide their agendas.
I was just listening to a BBC broadcast and they were asking callers "have you had enough hearing about 9/11". Apparently some think that 9/11 should be treated as a crime and forgotten. I guess we should forget about the bombing of Pearl Harbor too. What I find disturbing is how shows like that manuver the question from an unbiased attempt at dialogue about global events, to forming a political opinion in their listeners. Most US news are guilty of this too. Most mass media seems to have taken a life of it's own, totally unconnected with reality, and yet convincing people that they are reality and getting them to believe and act on what they are told. The ordinary person is to blame too, since it is our responsibility to be educated enough to see through the spin (or at least that the spin is happening).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is possible to remember and honor the sacrifices and the loss of events such as 9/11 and Pearl Harber without supporting the agendas of those who would use those events for political gain. But our politicians make that a very difficut path to choose. Because 9/11 has been used to try to justify the war in Iraq, erosion of our civil liberties, and a host of other things, it makes it very hard to even grieve without giving the impression that you are supporting that agenda as well.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are not analogous, IMO.
Oklahoma City, Atlanta Olympics, and 9/11 are much more comparable, IMO.
None should be forgotten, but the latter 3 should not be provided the same rhetoric as the former.
(Of course, I'm not a huge fan of Executive Orders, and even less the extent to which the War Powers Act has been stretched and contorted. Anyone with me to lobby congress to legislate a limitation on the War Powers Act? I'd propose that congress must, at the time they provide the president the permission to start battle, publish a legally binding date by which they must provide a full declaration of war, or else military action must cease. I'd stick a max deliberation time of 2 years from the day of giving the president temporary war powers.)
-Bok
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
This is from an interview that director Nowrasteh gave to National Review Online:
quote:The Berger scene is a fusing and melding of at least a dozen capture opportunities. The sequence is true, but it’s a conflation. This is a docu-drama. We collapse, condense, and create composite characters. But within the rules of docu-drama, we’re well documented.
Just a curious question. If the Pres was given war powers, which he claims he doesn't even need to be afforded from Congress, and 2 years passed and no decision was made, would the troops legally automatically come home? What would happen in Iraq if that had been the case last yaer? The whole dichotomy of temporary/permanent war powers given to the president worries me too much. Temporary powers can get us into just as much trouble as permanent, and even more if those permanent powers DON'T follow the temporary powers.
It's a giant headache. I think you're right about the difference between Pearl Harbor, 9/11 etc.
Mig -
Funny, the article you link says Bush did the same thing you're slamming Clinton for. And you have to appreciate the irony, that when Clinton DID order strikes on terrorist camps in the Middle East, everyone said it was only because he was trying to deflect attention away from political problems. But when he DOESN'T order an attack (which is a sketchy accuasation from what I've seen), it's because of political problems. I guess "your people" just like to have it both ways. Comments?
[ September 08, 2006, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Why don't you think Sept. 11th and Dec. 7th are in the same catagory? About the same amount of people died, both were unprovoked, and both attacks destroyed vital US infratructure.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
State vs. Stateless shadowy splinter group
Civilian vs. Military
Maybe they are in the same category, but they certainly fall under different subcategories.
Edit to add: I think part of the distinction also falls under the fact that after Pearl Harbor there was a clear enemy, with clear targets to attack. We knew EXACTLY who did this to us, what their purpose was, and exactly where to find them.
That is most certainly not the case with 9/11. Those who attacked us represent no nationality, no single race, citizenry or religion. That they are all of a single religion does not mean they represent it. The differences are enough for me to place them in different categories of some sort.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mig: even if its a conflation, it was false in original version for this simple quotation above:
quote: Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Also, the 'within the rules of a docu-drama' basically means there are no rules. Docu-dramas regularly take absurd liberties with the facts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Mig, while you're busy ignoring all of our most salient points, would you at least in the meantime afford us the courtesy of formatted link tags that do not stretch the page?
thx in advance
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Lyr:
Well, that'll make an interesting decision, no won't it? The whole point is to put back some teeth in Congress's duty to draw up acts of war. As opposed to the perpetual "we are at war, but not really officially" stuff we have today. If our elected officials can't figure out in 2 years what our purpose/grievance is for a military action, maybe we aren't supposed to be there? My whole proposal would definitely have caused a whole different situation, not just last year, but in the months leading up to granting the president the permission to attack Iraq. I think it would require some more foresight, while still allowing immediate cut-and-dried events (like Pearl Harbor) to be quickly acted on.
I find the fact that the president can be granted essentially on-going carte-blanche military powers the most worrying. ---
Telp, Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack with military weapons from a recognized nation state.
With the others (particularly 9/11 and Oklahoma) you had a small set of people bringing to bear an inordinate amount of force against civilians. These people were not acting as agents of a recognized nation, they were acting out of an aggressive philosophy, supported by a rather decentralized organization.
I guess the flip side is, why didn't we declare military action against those people who had similar ideals (and may have helped support McVeigh and possibly others)? Because it wasn't a military action, it was an act of mass murder. Just like, in my opinion, 9/11.
Despite the rhetoric, it really does appear to be apples and oranges.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd propose that congress must, at the time they provide the president the permission to start battle, publish a legally binding date by which they must provide a full declaration of war, or else military action must cease. I'd stick a max deliberation time of 2 years from the day of giving the president temporary war powers.
This will require a constitutional amendment (to make it a "must").
Not a pro or con, just a comment on the difficulty of passing it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It can't be done via the existing framework of the War Powers Act and whatever legislative nugget legitimized executive orders? Bummer.
What do you think about the substance itself?
-Bok
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mig,
By refusing to address the many relevant criticisms that have been made towards your position, you are behaving in a cowardly and childish fashion.
Please stop. This is just an Internet forum, man. You can at least have the guts to directly tackle the more difficult opposition online, can't you? Or are you just, as you have appeared so far, a coward when it comes to defending your opinions?
J4
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
But isn't that the whole argument for going to war? That global terrorism cannot function without state support...and thus those states that have funded/helped the terrorists have essentially adopted them as their military?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Maybe, but I don't get what you mean... Whose argument for what war?
I suppose you can make the argument, but then it becomes rather easy to claim every nation on earth aids and supports some form of terrorism against someone. I don't know who has stated that the terrorists are now those nation's military though. I can see it from certain perspectives... But the same kind of perspective changing can lend creedence to all sorts of different interesting, yet fruitless ideas.
Do you agree, at least that 9/11 and Pearl Harbor are substantively different? This quick peppering of questions without addressing my posts directly is a bit confusing to me, I have to say.
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Telp: it couldn't have been a justification for going to war in Iraq, of course; take a look at this recent report by the Senate Intel committee:
quote:
1. Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Aq'ida to provide material or operationa support.
2. Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa'ida and saddam Hussein's regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative.
3. . . .Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provded two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000. . . .No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war.
4. Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq.
5. . . . .Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.
6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Ira, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.
7. Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike. . .
8. No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
And of course, if that's our justification, lets take on some of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the past decade or so, instead of states with no particular ties to terrorism such as Iraq -- Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, among others.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Well, that'll make an interesting decision, no won't it? The whole point is to put back some teeth in Congress's duty to draw up acts of war. As opposed to the perpetual "we are at war, but not really officially" stuff we have today. If our elected officials can't figure out in 2 years what our purpose/grievance is for a military action, maybe we aren't supposed to be there? My whole proposal would definitely have caused a whole different situation, not just last year, but in the months leading up to granting the president the permission to attack Iraq. I think it would require some more foresight, while still allowing immediate cut-and-dried events (like Pearl Harbor) to be quickly acted on.
I find the fact that the president can be granted essentially on-going carte-blanche military powers the most worrying. ---
Don't get me wrong Bok, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with you. The present system of presidential abuse is unacceptable. We're just quibbling over the details.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I'm watching it. President Palmer's evil wife is playing Condoleezza Rice.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I could never see her as anything but Kassidy Yates from Star Trek DS9.
Sisko for Pres!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I could never see her as anything but Kassidy Yates from Star Trek DS9.
Sisko for Pres!
I bet Sisko would be an awesome President.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd vote for him.
Years of military service against an implacable foe that stood for tyranny and oppression. Devoted family man and widower, top graduate of an elite school, decorated time and again for his actions during the war.
I'd say he's pretty damned electable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not to mention he can cook Cajun style.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It doesn't hurt to have god-like powers, either.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah I forgot!
Unlike Bush, Sisko LITERALLY has been chosen by godlike figures to accomplish their master plan. Sisko would nail down the evangelical vote.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Do you agree, at least that 9/11 and Pearl Harbor are substantively different? This quick peppering of questions without addressing my posts directly is a bit confusing to me, I have to say.
Sorry 'bout that. Don't mean to be confusing. I guess I'm playing devil's advocate (that and I haven't had alot of time for detailed replies ). But as for the difference between the two events, I still think that they are similar, especially since the Pentagon was hit and the 4th plane was heading for the capital as well. So it wasn't just an attack on civilians but on our military command center.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Ah I forgot!
Unlike Bush, Sisko LITERALLY has been chosen by godlike figures to accomplish their master plan. Sisko would nail down the evangelical vote.
Well I mean he was PART GOD after all. His mom was a prophet possessing a human body, so yah, he get's the religious vote. Was I the only one who thought DS9 went a little too far with that storyline??
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
But even those events (and averted events) were done for a symbolic purpose. Japan was hoping to (and very nearly succeeded in) completely disabling the US Pacific Fleet, so that it could take over large swaths of the Pacific/Asia, and perhaps force a US peace treaty. That's a huge difference.
And remember, one used military issue equipment and support (the Zeros came from Japanese carriers). Very different from 9/11.
I just don't see much in common except that similar amounts of people died... Which doesn't seem enough to link the two. Otherwise Oklahoma City counts (since it was a federal building that was blown up), which few would agree with.
-Bok
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The backlash did the scene in.
quote:ABC is frantically recutting its $40 million miniseries about 9/11 amid a blistering backlash over fictional scenes that lay the blame on the Clinton administration.
Also feeling the heat was Scholastic, which yanked a classroom guide tie-in to the program.
Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, the former head of the 9/11 commission and a paid consultant on the ABC miniseries, told the Daily News yesterday that some controversial scenes in "The Path to 9/11" were being removed or changed.
"ABC is telling me that the final version I'll be pleased with," said Kean, softening his own previous defense of the movie.
Unmollified, Democrats continued to demand that ABC yank the two-night docudrama that former President Bill Clinton's spokesman called "despicable." It is scheduled to start airing Sunday.
And Clinton's lawyer sent Kean a chiding letter expressing "shock" that a man so dedicated to accuracy had worked on a movie "that has been widely criticized for its libelous historical inaccuracies."
The chorus of outrage - ranging from Clinton cabinet members to liberal bloggers to 9/11 families to ordinary moms canceling trips to Disneyland - put ABC and parent company Disney under tremendous pressure just days before the movie's premiere.
First to go was a made-up scene showing Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger hanging up on CIA operatives who were moments away from killing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. "You will not see that in that way in the final edition," Kean said.
The Clinton White House did scotch several opportunities to kill Al Qaeda's founder because intelligence was sketchy. But unlike in the film, the CIA was never steps away from Bin Laden, nor did Berger hang up on agents in the field, Kean admitted.
Driven by the Internet's main liberal Web sites, the outrage over ABC's dramatization was reminiscent of the 2003 conservative furor that forced CBS to pull an unflattering Ronald Reagan biopic. Phones rang off the hook and e-mail boxes were clogged all day at Scholastic Inc., ABC and Disney. "We're getting slammed," said one frazzled ABC staffer.
Scholastic caved quickly, yanking educational materials tied to the movie that critics said linked Iraq to 9/11 and glossed over the grim situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues," Scholastic Chairman Dick Robinson said.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm just waiting for Mig to crow about liberal control over Hollywood and the media causing this overshadowing of the (well, historically inaccurate, but the message is OK) TRUTH about Clinton!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The liberal media did beat ABC into submission. They certainly were all in favor of Moore's docu-drama because it bashed Bush. Lies about Bush are OK, any negative critiscm about Clinton is not.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's important to note that the article quoted above does NOT indicate that the liberal media had a hand in the edits.
quote:The chorus of outrage - ranging from Clinton cabinet members to liberal bloggers to 9/11 families to ordinary moms canceling trips to Disneyland - put ABC and parent company Disney under tremendous pressure just days before the movie's premiere.
quote:Driven by the Internet's main liberal Web sites, the outrage over ABC's dramatization was reminiscent of the 2003 conservative furor that forced CBS to pull an unflattering Ronald Reagan biopic.
And so what? A lie is a lie.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Thank you, DarkKnight, for pointing out that two wrongs make a right.
The 'liberal media' was not 'all in favor' of Moore's tripe, although it's certainly beneficial to your point of view to be able to state their opinions without, you know, having to ask them as a group or anything like that. I like your efficiency, dude: cut out the middle-man!
Lies about Dubya are not OK. Lies about Clinton, as were repeatedly included in this 'docu-drama'-I loathe that term, I know of no place I've seen it used where it couldn't be better and more truthfully served by the term 'propaganda'-are not OK, either.
If you were Bill Clinton, you would've been freaking pissed too and written a letter trying to get them to stop. If you were a liberal politician, you'd be raising hell.
Freaking partisans, I swear.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: The liberal media did beat ABC into submission. They certainly were all in favor of Moore's docu-drama because it bashed Bush. Lies about Bush are OK, any negative critiscm about Clinton is not.
Do you really fail to understand the difference between a film that one goes to see knowing who made it and why and a network presentation claiming to be a truthful portrayal of events and that uses the public airwaves? Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Rakeesh, who in the liberal media was against Moore's tripe? Please cite a source. Do you honestly believe Clinton was very concerned about terrorism? Do you believe he did everything he could to stop terrorism? Do you believe that Monica Lewinsky did not distract Clinton? If I were Clinton I would try to honor the tradition of not bashing the next President, and not have had sexual relations with an intern and lied about it for months, or not sent tanks into Waco, and on and on. I also would not have responded to this docu-drama either. What would the point be since I would have done the best job I could as President?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Do you really fail to understand the difference between a film that one goes to see knowing who made it and why and a network presentation claiming to be a truthful portrayal of events and that uses the public airwaves?
KMB, it is because I do understand the difference that I think this should have been let go and ran however ABC wanted to. Moore's piece is called a documentary. It is not marketed as an opinion piece or anything like that. Moore was given credibility to F911 because his version is a documentary which tends to make people believe it is truthful work. A drama does not fall under the same criteria at all. ABC has said all along what their drama is and never attempted to make it anything it wasn't. They ran disclaimers and promoted it as a drama. Do you see the difference?
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: If I were Clinton... I also would not have responded to this docu-drama either. What would the point be since I would have done the best job I could as President?
Really? If anybody tried to pin something horrendous on me in the public mind, I would react. Even with disclaimers and the standard "everybody knows TV isn't reality", can you really blame him for reacting? The fact is without all the stink raised by Clinton and others about this, how would people have known which parts of this docudrama were "based on real events" and which were simply made up?
I know that politicians have to expect a certain amount of poo flung at them as part of their jobs, but I think a docu-drama using false information to paint Clinton as the reason why one of the greatest national tragedies happened is probably too much poo for him to ignore. They might as well have made a movie where he was a child molester and then said, in fine print "oh yeah, but there's no evidence he molested a child".
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Oh, my God!!! Clinton molested a child! That's horrible.
I have to go tell my friends...
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: but I think a docu-drama using false information to paint Clinton as the reason why one of the greatest national tragedies happened is probably too much poo for him to ignore.
Except that the docu-drama does not paint Clinton as the reason, the docu-drama correctly blames many many people in many many different organizations over a lengthy period of time. Clinton is the one who cried about how he was portrayed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Clinton is the one who cried about how he was portrayed.
Do we know how anyone else in the docu-drama is portrayed?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Do we know how anyone else in the docu-drama is portrayed?
To know for sure you would have to watch tonight and see. But for a quote... "Both Clinton and Bush officials come under fire, and if it seems more anti-Clinton, that's only because they were in office a lot longer than Team Bush before 9/11," said L. Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, who saw a preview of the miniseries. "The film doesn't play favorites and the Bush administration takes its lumps as well." From eonline... Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did they make stuff up about Bush, too?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think they should package it with the Reagan mini-series as a two-pack and sell it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Do you honestly believe Clinton was very concerned about terrorism? Do you believe he did everything he could to stop terrorism?
Read the 9/11 Commission Report.
Feel stupid for saying that.
Posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Member # 9384) on :
quote:Do you honestly believe Clinton was very concerned about terrorism? Do you believe he did everything he could to stop terrorism? Do you believe that Monica Lewinsky did not distract Clinton?
Nice try. The Bush administration spent quite a bit of the first 9 months of their term criticizing Clinton for being too focused on terrorism.
And Clinton probably would have done a much better job of fighting terrorism if Newt Gingrich and friends hadn't spent so much of his time on Monica Lewinsky.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Among other things.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: And Clinton probably would have done a much better job of fighting terrorism if Newt Gingrich and friends hadn't spent so much of his time on Monica Lewinsky.
Don't you mean if Clinton hadn't spent so much of his time on Monica Lewinsky?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes, I'm sure he blocked off whole days that should have been spent doing other things just screwing away.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Well he did have to prepare that speech where he looked the American people right in the eye and lied to all of us. Or was it several speeches? and several press conferences?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, he didn't. He did lie to the American people, no question.
Doesn't mean it's right for people to lie about his actions and the actions of the people under him regarding Bin Laden, though. It's unjust to heap more blame on someone just because you don't like them. If the commission did not flatly contradict the issues mentioned, I'd let it run. If the docudrama made up new, fictional characters to use as composites and did not have living people saying things they did not say, I'd let it run. If they hadn't made such a big deal about this series being taught to schoolkids, I'd think about it. As it is, this was a huge mistake on the part of ABC.
When the Reagan miniseries was pressured off the main channels, one of the disputed lines had him saying, in effect, that AIDS patients deserved what they got. One could look at the Reagan adminstration's remarkable lack of response to the AIDS epidemic and infer that he held such a belief, and if you didn't like Reagan (I didn't) it might seem like plausible dialogue for him. But to assign it to him without proof was unjust, and the movie was wrong to do so.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You made the claim first, Darkknight. Not that I expect you to back it up with anything except, "Everyone knows it's true," but why don't you provide some evidence aside from your word that 'all' the 'liberal media' supported Moore's work as fact.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"The upside: Clinton signed four executive orders aimed at assassinating Osama bin Laden, raised counterterrorism spending over several years from $5.7 billion to $11.1 billion, gave major speeches on the terrorist threat, sought (unsuccessfully) to create a Domestic Terrorist Team and to ratchet up the FBI's domestic surveillance tools. Also, according to the best available evidence, at least a dozen terrorist plots were apparently foiled on his watch. Paul Pillar, a career CIA man, has said that 'many American lives' were saved during that period. And Richard Clarke, the Clinton national security man who was demoted by the Bush administration, has repeatedly said that the Clintonites were more focused on al Qaeda than their successors were during the first nine months of 2001.
"But here's the downside: Clinton never even bothered to meet with his first CIA chief, James Woolsey; the Lewinsky scandal was a major distraction at the time when bin Laden was gaining strength; he didn't oppose the Taliban's efforts to seize power in Afghanistan; he may have muffed a major opportunity in 1996, when Sudan offered to hand over bin Laden to U.S. authorities. (Five years ago, a Clinton friend who tried to broker that deal wrote: 'Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity . . . represents one of the most serious policy failures in American history.') . . .
"Even though Clinton looked weak in 1998 after firing a missile at bin Laden and missing, there wasn't exactly a major clamor from the Republicans for a more hawkish military response. In fact, the evidence shows, the congressional GOP was no more focused on al Qaeda than Clinton was -- and maybe less, given their suspicion of all Clintonian actions."
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: You made the claim first, Darkknight. Not that I expect you to back it up with anything except, "Everyone knows it's true," but why don't you provide some evidence aside from your word that 'all' the 'liberal media' supported Moore's work as fact.
OK, you said 'the', not 'all' if I'm not mistaken. The spirit of the statement remains the same.
The fact is, you've provided what...five samples os how 'the liberal media' lauded Moore's work. Which is hardly the whole of liberal media, for one thing.
And for another, it is hardly justification for lying about 9-11, something you as a conservative should be against and not so blindly partisan about.
Exactly whose favor do you think that works in, anyway? Here's a hint: it's not the GOP.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The fact is, you've provided what...five samples os how 'the liberal media' lauded Moore's work. Which is hardly the whole of liberal media, for one thing.
I think five is enough to show the trend. Although I am sure if I provided 25 that would be not be enough for you.
quote: And for another, it is hardly justification for lying about 9-11, something you as a conservative should be against and not so blindly partisan about.
Where did I say lying is justified? You are very quick to label me as blind partisan but I do expect that to happen. All I said is that ABC should be able to run their drama as they see fit, just like Moore was. I do think Clinton should not have called and written letters. Democrats who had talks about pulling Igers license is really wrong, in my opinion. Clinton can go on talk shows to defend himself, but trying to supress someone else's work is wrong. See what I mean? I don't think I am the one being blinded by anything.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I do think Clinton should not have called and written letters.
*blink* Why? Are you familiar with defamation? It doesn't usually involve going on talk shows to defend oneself.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I still see a difference between a privately funded, privately distributed, PERSONAL film being made, regardless of what its purpose is, and a film made by a national news organization.
If I want to go on the air and make false claims about someone, I am easily ignored, and have no trust to live up to, or obligations to anyone. Michael Moore fits that profile. ABC is a respected news organization, and has trust with the community of this nation. When they lie, it might be believed just based on that trust, and I call that a worse crime than an inflammatory partisan out to score party hack points. I'd be just as angry if I saw a movie made by NBC that called Bush an occultist baby eater.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:On Friday, September 8, just forty-eight hours before ABC planned to air its so-called "docudrama," The Path to 9/11, Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Company, was presented with incontrovertible evidence outlining the involvement of that film's screenwriter and director in a concerted right-wing effort to blame former President Bill Clinton for allowing the 9/11 attacks to take place. Iger told a source close to ABC that he was "deeply troubled" by the information and claimed he had no previous knowledge of the institutional right-wing ties of The Path to 9/11's creators. He reportedly said that he has commenced an internal investigation to verify the role of the film's creators in deliberately advancing disinformation through ABC.
quote:Iger conceded in a September 5 press release that key scenes in The Path to 9/11 were indeed fabricated, calling the film "a dramatization, not a documentary." Behind the scenes, Iger reportedly made personal assurances to some of the film's most prominent critics that those scenes would be edited out. But even though some deceptive footage was cut from the original, much of its falsified version of events leading up to 9/11 remains.
So let's get this right. ABC has admitted that the story they are telling was fabricated by a right wing interest with a political agenda to shift the blame for 911 to the Clinton administration.
Given that, how could anyone criticize Clinton for objecting to the film.
What if the ABC "docudrama" had included scenes with the Bush administration capriciously dismissing warnings about the attack? What if it had included scenes with Bush call off the air force?
I'm quite certain that republicans would be crying about "conspiracy theories" if ABC had fabricated scenes based on anyone of the accusations that have been made against Bush. How can they then criticize Clinton without being total hypocrits?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I'm quite certain that republicans would be crying about "conspiracy theories" if ABC had fabricated scenes based on anyone of the accusations that have been made against Bush. How can they then criticize Clinton without being total hypocrits?
Did Republicans threaten to pull CBS executives broadcast licenses when they knowingly ran a story using false documents? Could you imagine the press headlines had Republicans done the same thing? Think about it.
quote: Are you familiar with defamation? It doesn't usually involve going on talk shows to defend oneself.
*blink* another one liner from TD. How typical.... So Clinton has no recourse? Clinton is a typical American? Do you seriously think that Clinton could not hold a press conference about this and have most, if not all, major news outlets cover it? Clinton speaks, the press reports what he says. He can call a press conference and get his side of the story out. He does not need to try and stop other people's work from being produced. Did Bush call Dan Rather about the forged documents? Did Bush send letters to Moore? If Bush had done the same thing Clinton did he would be blasted for 'pressuing' others to keep quiet and supress the truth that he is evil and this is really a Karl Rove (evil madman who is evil 50% of the time even when sleeping) plot to make sure no one knows the truth! See the difference? Remember the forged CBS documents? Remember the CBS statements? "CBS News President Andrew Heyward staunchly defended the piece. "I have full confidence in our reporting on this story and in every reporter on both sides of the camera," he said last night. "This is going to hold up. This was thoroughly vetted." How about the Dan Rather defense of why didn't Burkett come forward sooner? "The question is, why didn't you do it sooner? The story is true. I believed in the story. . . . What kind of reporter would I be -- what kind of person would I be -- if I put something on the air that I believed and then didn't stand behind it? At the first sign of pressure, you run, you cave, you fold? I don't do that."
quote: Given that, how could anyone criticize Clinton for objecting to the film.
I have not criticized Clinton for objecting to the film, but I do object to him trying to pressure people to not produce what they want to. I object to Democrats having discussions about pulling Iger's broadcast license.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you seriously think that Clinton could not hold a press conference about this and have most, if not all, major news outlets cover it?
Um. Just to clarify: you think a more proportionate response to factual errors in a docu-drama is to call a presidential press conference, rather than ask that specific scenes be changed or the documentary not be aired (or erred, as the case may be)?
I don't quite understand why.
quote:I have not criticized Clinton for objecting to the film, but I do object to him trying to pressure people to not produce what they want to.
This is specifically why I mentioned defamation. Are you familiar with defamation law? People are not free to produce anything they want to.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Just to clarify: you think a more proportionate response to factual errors in a docu-drama is to call a presidential press conference, rather than ask that specific scenes be changed or the documentary not be aired (or erred, as the case may be)?
From Clinton, yes I do.
quote: This is specifically why I mentioned defamation. Are you familiar with defamation law? People are not free to produce anything they want to.
To an extent that is true, just like you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Although I am sure if they simply called it a documentary it would be OK, right? Or if they called Rove evil then it is OK?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Calling Karl Rove evil is a matter of opinion. The statements the piece made about Clinton are quite different, portraying many things which literally did not happen.
It's not 'an interpretation', it's not an amalgamation, it's not some kind of semi-history. The scenes he (Clinton) objected to either simply didn't happen, or happened very differently than they are portrayed.
Man, it is so annoying sticking up for that schmuck.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually, saying you thought Rove was evil would be a matter of opinion. Saying he was, in fact, evil, could be libelous. Making a docudrama that displayed him committing evil acts, without basis in fact, would be defamation and he'd have a case.
Clinton could have waited till after the shows aired and then sued for defamation -- and still could, with justification, I think -- but I'm guessing he and other people falsely represented preferred it not show at all, since people's opinions will be formed from the show and not the news stories afterwards. I agree that threatening the network's license was the wrong move, and heavyhanded. Threats of lawsuits would have been just as good and possibly more effective.
Edited to add: for the record, I have not seen the shows in question. Nor have I seen the Reagan biopic, or anything at all by Michael Moore, or any of Oliver Stone's political movies. Spin bores me, when it doesn't piss me off.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Defamation law is also different as applied to public figures as well. Clinton, Rove, Bush are all public figures so that figures in it as well.
Posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Member # 9384) on :
quote:Defamation law is also different as applied to public figures as well. Clinton, Rove, Bush are all public figures so that figures in it as well.
From my understanding, publishing something defamatory that one knows to be false constitutes actual malice. Since nobody is disputing that the director and screenwriter knew the scenes in question are false, the difference in the law for public figures is moot.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
). But as for the difference between the two events, I still think that they are similar, especially since the Pentagon was hit and the 4th plane was heading for the capital as well. So it wasn't just an attack on civilians but on our military command center.