posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I must be interpeting the misrepresentation of what the articles actually say differently than you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.)
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we at least agree that it's both vast and a conspiracy, likely involving wings of some sort?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
