The DNC comes out on the 9/11 slander movie being used by Disney/ABC to prop up Bush.
The ABC television network — a cog in the Walt Disney empire — unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new “docudrama” called “The Path to 9/11″. ABC has thrown its corporate might behind the two-night production, and bills it as a public service: a TV event, to quote the ABC tagline, “based on the 9/11 Commission Report”.
That’s false. “The Path to 9/11″ is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats and revise history right before Americans vote in a major election.
>> Open Letter to ABC: Don’t Airbrush 9/11
MORE: ABC is actually going out of their way to tell the right-wing that yes, they will smear President Clinton and that they have nothing to worry about. Welcome to the brave new world.
Ben Vineste was just on Olbermann saying that the producers are labeling this as a documentary.
Ben Vineste lied.
As I understand it, the docu-drama is lifted directly from testimony and events contained in the 9/11 Commission Report, which was pronounced inerrant, infallible, and divinely inspired by Democrats after its publication.
Oliver, if you are in a position to challenge the veracity of the testimony given in the 9/11 Commission Report, I would be interested to see your evidence.
Otherwise, let the events in this film be a lesson to you and everyone else that the Clinton administration, for all its supposed intellectual brilliance, had no idea how to pursue a “law enforcement” strategy against terrorists because they had no idea what to do with terrorists once they had captured them.
Of course thanks to Sandy Berger, we’ll never know a lot of what really went on inside the White House during those years, since those memos disappeared into Berger’s pants and then probably ended up in a shredder.
As I understand it, the docu-drama is lifted directly from testimony and events contained in the 9/11 Commission Report,
Thanks, Mike.
Point proven, everyone.
Lies. Presented to schoolkids as fact. Conservatives are being exposed for what they really are: amoral cowards.
First of all, as has been pointed out in numerous venues, the film is not factually accurate.
Secondly, only one American president has presided over the murder of 3,000 citizens on U.S. soil via terrorism. His name is not Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Harry Truman or Franklin Roosevelt.
Maybe Spike Lee can make a “movie based on the 9/11 commission report” that shows how Bush doesn’t think about OBL much, gave up the opportunity to capture him 3 times, and invaded an uninvolved 3rd country while American tax dollars are being shoveled to Pakistan, who is harboring OBL.
Oh, that would be the truth.
I wonder how much of the preznit’s Pet Goat reading will be in the “docu”drama.
First of all, as has been pointed out in numerous venues, the film is not factually accurate.
Name one movie based on a true story that is 100% entirely accurate.
Just name one.
Well, it had to happen.
The Democratic Party is like the Indianapolis Colts of the political world. They have everything going their way for the longest time and then….POW!! They implode.
All this is sure to do is give even more attention to the movie which means more people will watch it.
The Clintonistas have been very good at keeping a lid on the Clinton administration’s bungling of handling terrorism, which set the stage for 9/11 and now more people will know about it.
Also, this movie gives the Democrats a built in excuse if they don’t take over Congress this fall.
Once more from the top: this is being advertised as a dramatisation of actual events as documented in the 9/11 Commission Report and so people are going to believe, or at the very least are being led to believe, that what they see is what really happened, which is what propaganda is.
In addition, this is not just any film “based on a true story”. Something like Man on the Moon had more freedom to embellish things for dramatic purposes (and Andy warned you about that at the start of the film anyway) because it was about a comedian, not an enormous socio-political history of the United States.
Finally, I doubt that you will ever convince me that you’d have precisely the same attitude to this film were the tables turned, and it made shit up against the Bush regime. I know I’d still be upset.
So long Apollo 13. You were sold as a dramatization of actual events based upon the memoirs of Cmdr. Lovell, yet it had fictionalized scenes, so it must be banned!
Once more from the top: this is being advertised as a dramatisation of actual events as documented in the 9/11 Commission Report and so people are going to believe, or at the very least are being led to believe, that what they see is what really happened, which is what propaganda is.
And once again, dramatic or artistic license is almost always used in films and even television mini-series that are based on true stories and actual events. There are often composite characters and composite scenes, characters left out, scenes left out, etc. It is all done in an effort to control for time and to enhance the drama.
If people choose to believe that everything in the movie is true, that is their problem. Their ignorance is not ABC’s propaganda.
In addition, this is not just any film “based on a true story”. Something like Man on the Moon had more freedom to embellish things for dramatic purposes (and Andy warned you about that at the start of the film anyway) because it was about a comedian, not an enormous socio-political history of the United States.
Oh, so now the type of movie it is makes all the difference? Give me a break.
Finally, I doubt that you will ever convince me that you’d have precisely the same attitude to this film were the tables turned, and it made shit up against the Bush regime. I know I’d still be upset.
Not so. I could have cared less for instance when conservatives went batshit over ‘The Reagans.’ It was a movie and I didn’t watch it.
And Nimrod, what of movies like, ‘JFK’, ‘Mississippi Burning’, ‘Missing’, and ‘All The Presidents Men?’
These are films that take huge liberties with what actually happened, are nowhere near in Oliver’s terms “factually accurate” and are often shown in high schools across the country in sociology, history and journalism classes.
I haven’t seen “The Path to 9/11,” but I hope it opens with the scene at Blair House, January 7, 2001 – 13 days before he was even Inaugurated – where the President-elect (and the Vice President-elect and Condoleeza Rice) were told that America faced a “tremendous,” “immediate” threat from Osama Bin Laden – and then ignored the threat, focusing on Iraq instead.
A nice place to end it would be with shots of the President clearing brush intercut with Secretary Rice trying to recall for the Senate the title of the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing. (“Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.”)
LOL! Go back to troll school Jay. If JFK had come out 8 weeks before the ‘64 election, maybe you’d have a point. Nobody’s saying this movie shouldn’t be made; it’s that this movie SHOULDN’T BE PROMOTED TO SCHOOLCHILDREN AS FACT.
From Scholastic’s propaganda piece, distributed to teachers nationwide:
“The Path to 9/11 offers your students and their families important information regarding the causes of and events leading to that tragic day. Encourage your students and their families to watch The Path to 9/11 and use the accompanying Resources and Discussion Guide pages to:
-Track the historical time line of events before, during, and after 9/11
-Lead critical discussions about these events
-Use critical-thinking skills and analysis in classroom debate”
Propaganda. Lies. Given to children.
Jimmmmmm, from the previews I’ve read, the 8/6/01 PDB IS in the movie. Just so you know…
LOL! Go back to troll school Jay. If JFK had come out 8 weeks before the ‘64 election, maybe you’d have a point. Nobody’s saying this movie shouldn’t be made;
I didn’t accuse anybody of saying they didn’t want the movie made.
Now we have another excuse as well. First we have Nimrod saying that it’s ok for filmmakers to take liberties depending upon what type of movie it is. Now we have the good Dr. telling everybody that since it is bad because it is going to be shown 8 weeks before an election.
Of course, he (like everybody else I have asked) ignores my question about those other movies, with Dr. citing something absurd about ‘JFK’ if it was in 1964.
And kdis in high school are not ‘children.’ They are at an age where critical thinking becomes important. If they choose to believe everything in the movie just because it was on TV, then that’s their problem and a problem for their parents.
So give me a huge break with the “for the children” nonsense.
JFK presents a theory, as a theory. Watch the film someday, it doesn’t suggest that Garrison’s ideas are the truth. Oliver Stone is very careful on that score. He has said himself that he doesn’t necessarily agree with all of Garrison’s conclusions? He only ever wanted to spark debate and make people think. About something that happened almost 30 years before the film was released.
Mississippi Burning isn’t based on a true story, it’s inspired by one. It follows the basic lines of the famosu incident with the dead civil rights workers, but the characters and such are fictional, which if nothing else gives the impression that it’s not supposed to be taken as gospel.
All The President’s Men is based on the book by the two main characters and stops just as the scandal breaks.
I’ve never heard of Missing before but Costa-Gavras isn’t usually one to make shit up for propaganda purposes.
The forensic marvel has reduced my logic to shambles. Why don’t you just say my mother wears army boots, if that’s all you’ve got?
I make that about the twelfth time that point has been made. They’ll just continue to ignore it because they can’t counter it.
Which it obviously is.
If the Republicans said the sky was pink, you’d make out that it was ridiclous to think it was blue. And I still don’t believe you, you’d be up in arms about this if it was the other way around.
The real hypocricy is that wingnuts always whine about liberal teachers indoctrinating their students.
But when it’s a far right viewpoint? Not a problem for the wingnuts. Even if it takes lies to push that viewpoint.
JFK presents a theory, as a theory. Watch the film someday, it doesn’t suggest that Garrison’s ideas are the truth. Oliver Stone is very careful on that score. He has said himself that he doesn’t necessarily agree with all of Garrison’s conclusions? He only ever wanted to spark debate and make people think. About something that happened almost 30 years before the film was released.
I have seen the film. Many times. It is an outstanding movie. But this notion that Stone only wanted people to think is absurd. Oliver Stone has vigorously defended the film as factually accurate.
All The President’s Men is based on the book by the two main characters and stops just as the scandal breaks.
I didn’t ask you for synopsis of the movie. I have seen it. Quite a few times. It is also an excellent film, but one that takes quite a few liberties with the facts. Stuff is even made up.
I’ve never heard of Missing before but Costa-Gavras isn’t usually one to make shit up for propaganda purposes.
And there it is. Making something up in a film doesn’t automatically make it propaganda. What you Clintonistas see as propaganda, a filmmaker sees as dramatic license.
It’s like I’ve been saying all along. You people don’t give a rat’s ass about factual accuracy in films. You only care about strict 100% factual accuracy in a film that might portray your hero in a bad light. Horror of horrors.
At least you’re admitting it now.
No, you just asked me to agree blindly with everything you said.
You’re either mistaken, been reading different magazines from me, or lying.
Oh, I thought this was a thread on a blog. Sorry, I didn’t realise. I’ll leave you to your bullshit contest.
“You people don’t give a rat’s ass about factual accuracy in films.”
Sad that you continue to fight strawmen. Obviously factual accuracy in film has a certain value. It cannot be emphasized enough, however, that that value INCREASES EXPONENTIALLY WHEN LIES ARE PROMOTED TO SCHOOLCHILDREN AS FACT, AND ARE BROADCAST NATIONWIDE 8 WEEKS BEFORE AN ELECTION.
By the way, what makes you think Clinton is my hero? He was maybe marginally less venal and more effective than we might have hoped.
I’m going to repeat that one a few times so he can’t ignore it anymore:
How many of those “indoctrinated” schoolchildren are going to be voting in that election?
Still to scared to address the point, Farris? Even under an assumed name, it’s just too overwhelming? Sad.
No, you just asked me to agree blindly with everything you said.
No, I asked what your view was regarding showing such films in schools despite their factual inaccuracies.
You’re either mistaken, been reading different magazines from me, or lying.
Read here:
From the moment it was released, its director Oliver Stone has so passionately defended its factual accuracy that he became, for all practical purposes, the new Garrison. What could be more appropriate in the age of media than a crusading film-maker replacing a crusading District Attorney as the symbol of the truth-finder in society? In this capacity, Oliver Stone-Garrison played out his case on television news programs, talk shows, magazines and the op- ed pages of news papers. He held his own press conferences, with his attractive researcher at his side, met with Congressional leaders, and he, as the original Garrison had done a quarter of a century before, used this public platform to focus attention on the possibility that the government was hiding the truth about the Kennedy Assassination. In exploiting this torment of secrecy, Stone proved far more successful than his predecessor in rousing interest in releasing the classified files pertaining to the assassination.
Obviously factual accuracy in film has a certain value. It cannot be emphasized enough, however, that that value INCREASES EXPONENTIALLY WHEN LIES ARE PROMOTED TO SCHOOLCHILDREN AS FACT
And AGAIN I ask what is the opinion of showing movies that I have listed that also contain LIES (as you call them)?
As for when it is being shown, go tell the terrorists that these attacks should have occurred in December because now they’ve fucked up the Democrats chances of taking over Congress because the 5 year anniversary of the horror happens to be 8 weeks before an election and some movie is going to do them in.
Sell that shit to the tourists ok?
Uh-uh. Don’t answer the question with another question we’ve already answered. You won’t shoo the elephant off the table that way.
Are you really too stupid to know the difference between a documentary about World War Two and a documentary all-but-blaming the largest terrorist attack on American soil on the administration immediately preceding the current one? Or are you just pretending because you know you have no case and can’t do anything about it except repeat yourself, beat strawmen and constantly ask the same irrelevant questions even after they’ve been, if not answered, then dealt with?
As for that big bold quote, why don’t you read it?
Sad that you find these facts so difficult to deal with. Sad and revealing.
I’ve got no problem with an unbiased, factual movie being “shown.” I do have a problem with rightwing propaganda being shown — TO CHILDREN — and immediately in advance of an election.
There are simple, basic lies in this film. It is not fit for presentation as balanced, claiming to be based on the 9/11 commission report and yet contradicting it. And it should not be promoted in our schools. That you cannot deal with this fact says it all. By all means, keep bringing up JFK, as if it were at all relevant. It shows the quality of your case quite nicely.
Are you really too stupid to know the difference between a documentary about World War Two and a documentary all-but-blaming the largest terrorist attack on American soil on the administration immediately preceding the current one?
Have you seen the movie? How can you possibly know that the movie all-but-blames the the largest attack on American soil on the administration immediately preceding the current one?
And are you too stupid to realize that the 9/11 attacks were in the works during the administration that preceded the current one? Are you too stupid to realize that people in the previous adminstration, from George Tenent, Janet Reno and Sandy Berger often quashed some efforts to go after Al Qaeda. Are you too stupid to realize that interagency fighting and the failure to share information (which was rectified by The Patriot Act) was largely responsible for many of the snafus that allowed these attacks to happen?
There were tons of errors, mistakes and miscalculations that occurred by the previous administration - THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. The samee errors, mistakes and miscalculations were made once the Bush administration took over.
There’s enough blame to go around. The problem is, the Bush administration was only in office for SEVEN MONTHS. It stands to reason that the PATH to 9/11 spent most of its time developing during the Clinton administration.
That’s what happened and it’s just too fucking bad. Deal with it.
Are you really too stupid to notice that the previews mention that the movie give special attention to the August PDB and takes Condoleeza Rice to task? To say this is a Bush whitewash and a Clinton hit job is … a lie.
I do have a problem with rightwing propaganda being shown — TO CHILDREN
What CHILDREN are being forced to sit in front of the television and watching it?
And what is with describing teenagers as CHILDREN?
Why is it okay for the film to claim to be based on the 9/11 commission report, and then to contradict it? Why were the producers, in their words “conciously” hiding this film from Clinton, while sending it to every right wing blogger in the swamp? Why do they feel the need to invent errors of the Clinton administration out of whole cloth? Errors that never occurred?
The simple answer is tho have an airing of Farenheit 911 on National TV. That at least uses real footage.
Why is it okay for the film to claim to be based on the 9/11 commission report, and then to contradict it?
Nowhere do the producers claim that the film is based ENTIRELY on the 9/11 report. If that were the case, you would have a point, but it isn’t. It is also based on personal interviews and John Miller’s book, ‘The Cell.’
Round and round and round and round and round and round we go.
You do realise you didn’t address my point? Good, just checking.
I think that once they say it’s “based on” the 9/11 report, then it becomes an act of dishonesty to turn around and contradict it. Why would you defend that manipulative, deceptive practice? I submit it is because you have sacrificed all your principles and even your personal honor on the altar of GOP power. Very, very sad, Jay.
I wonder what kind of copyroght protection Disney is trying to buy.
You do realise you didn’t address my point? Good, just checking.
Sure I did. You just don’t like what I have to say.
I think that once they say it’s “based on” the 9/11 report, then it becomes an act of dishonesty to turn around and contradict it.
What exactly happens in the film that is contradicted in the report? Stop giving me your faux sympathy and answer a fucking question for once.
Here is what it says:
ABC will present “The Path to 9/11,” a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event that will air with limited commercial interruption.
So. Again I ask. Exactly what in the movie CONTRADICTS what is in the report? Details please. And please. Something happening in the movie that isn’t in the report isn’t a contradiction. The 9/11 report is not gospel.
A good way for ABC to balance their Disneyland 9/11 wankfest with an an equal number of commercial-free minutes of Fahrenheit 911.
Well, this thread has been entertaining, to say the least.
As for me, I’m eagerly waiting for the DNC to perhaps take a second look at the generously documented fakery and distortions that ended up in “Fahrenheit 911.” I mean, it’s all about “truth,” isn’t it?
No problem mikey, just give us uninterrupted airtime on ABC to air F9/11, right before an election, and we’ll get right on it.
Let us know so we can print up the lesson plans to distribute to the schools.
(By the way, F9/11 is 100% documented and backed up
http://www.michaelmoore.com)
No, you didn’t. You changed the subject completely.
Farenheit 9/11 has been brought up and dealt with over and over already.
jay says that bush’s seven months of ignoring alQaida is all Clinton’s fault and we should ‘deal with it’. Does he blame the 1993 WTC bombing on GHWB or on Clinton?
Well Mike, it appears to me that those who advocate showing ‘Fahrenheit 911′ as a ‘balance’ to TPT 9/11 are conceding that Moore’s film contains lies and untruths.
What’s really amusing is to see our liberal friends, who celebrated The West Wing, the television drama designed to make Bill Clinton look good, and Commander-in-Chief, which some saw as designed to get America ready for a female president, just in time for Senatrix Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and all sorts of celebrities coming out and telling us what great people the Democrats were, but get one thing that might reflect negatively on President Clinton’s policies, and they’re squealing like the guy in Deliverance.
jay says that bush’s seven months of ignoring alQaida is all Clinton’s fault
Learn to read bub. This is what I wrote:
There were tons of errors, mistakes and miscalculations that occurred by the previous administration - THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. The same errors, mistakes and miscalculations were made once the Bush administration took over.
No, you didn’t. You changed the subject completely.
I did no such thing. You seem unable to comprehend that a movie called ‘The Path To 9/11′ has to start prior to take place prior to January 20, 2001.
“Something happening in the movie that isn’t in the report isn’t a contradiction.”
Sure it is. Inventing a confrontation in which Bin Laden is “let go” by U.S. troops at the behest of sinister, evil liberals is quite clearly CONTRARY to the report, CONTRARY to reality, and CONTRARY to everything except the dishonest GOP narrative you’re peddling.
On pages 199 & 508-509 of the 9/11 Report: George Tenet directed by Sandy Berger and Pres. Clinton to take out Bin Laden.
Rightwing masturbatory “docudrama”: Sandy Berger tells CIA not to take out Bin Laden.
A contradiction.
Anyone with a moral compass would acknowledge this. Which are you, Jay? Did your parents teach these twisted “morals”?
Well Mike, it appears to me that those who advocate showing ‘Fahrenheit 911′ as a ‘balance’ to TPT 9/11 are conceding that Moore’s film contains lies and untruths.
No such concession is stated or implied.
What are you talking about? You went off on one about not seeing the film.
Yeah, all of those schoolchildren are now going to vote Republican.
Jay,
The outrage is over a scene that depicts Special Ops troops who have been deployed in Afghanistan, ready to swoop down on OBL and capture him. When the Spec Ops leader radios Washington for final approval, the bureaucrats stall, then tell the field commander that he is on his own, then supposedly Sandy Berger hangs up on the field commander.
The 9/11 Commission report details a 1997 CIA plan to capture OBL at his hideout at Tarnak Farms in Afghanistan, but this plan never got past the planning and rehearsal stage.
And in his book published a few years ago, “Dereliction of Duty,” Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson alleges that the CIA did actually have operatives on the ground in position to capture Bin Laden, (though I can’t remember if it was at Tarnak Farms) but Bill Clinton was busy golfing and Sandy Berger could not get him to give a final executive go-ahead for the plan.
It seems like the screenwriters created a composite of those two events, which is something that is done all the time in works of fiction. It’s called “creative license.”
What really happened? My best guess is that the documents that could either disprove or (more likely) corroborate these events disappeared down Sandy Berger’s pants.
Perhaps the moral of the story is, hide the truth and you become prey for the fiction writers in Hollywood.
“And in his book published a few years ago, “Dereliction of Duty,” Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson alleges …..”
You do know that 100% of that book has been discredited, right? What sheeple.
So what you’re saying is that they made a composite out of a) a balanced, non partisan report, and b) a right wing attack screed — and then hid behind the 9/11 Commission report to pretend they were balanced?
I think that’s the point we’ve been trying to make all along. The work was made to promote a right-wing agenda. I’m glad we agree about that. Because of that agenda, it’s not fit to be presented as “balanced”; and until it is either corrected or presented honestly as a right wing screed, it should not be shown.
And since it has a right-wing agenda, it should definitely not be presented to students as “fact.”
Looks like we all agree! Hooray!
It’s sort of like if a movie denying the holocaust was made, then claimed to be a “composite” of Eli Wiesel’s Night, Schindler’s List, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
“But it’s based on Schindler’s List!”
Dr., once again you seem to misunderstand what ‘dramatic license’ is all about.
The aborted raid on Tarnak Farms in 1998 is the basis for the scene in question. It was George Tenet that ultimately called it off, after having conferred with Sandy Berger and the Delta Force team.
Did the whole thing go down as dramatically as told in the film? No. But so what? The fact of the matter is, there was a plan in place with people on the ground ready to take action and people in the highest levels of our government didn’t want to go through with it because of concerns about civilian casualties and whether or not a conviction could be secured against bin Laden. There was a CIA field officer in charge of the operation.
Then again, you people need to be told over and over again, that that this is not a documentary and that creative license like this taken all the time.
Yeah, I know. BUT IT’S NOT GIVEN OUT TO THE CHILLLLLLLLDREN!! AND NOT BEFORE AN ELECTION!!!
“there was a plan in place with people on the ground ready to take action”
This is not a fact, and your wishes and masturbatory fantasies will not make it so. Dramatic license based on a lie is also a lie. Scholastic is already backing off of this scurrilous, deceptive, right wing trash — good for them! Why do you support the corrosion of a decent company with right wing propaganda, Jay?
This is not a fact
Fix.
Sorry. Try Again.
Oh, well, if Mooreexposed.com thinks F9/11 is WHO ARE YOU KIDDING
Oh, well, if Michael Moore thinks F9/11 is WHO ARE YOU KIDDING
You are a satirical genius. Or a moron, one or the other.
At least Bill has some bollocks:
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/bubba_goes_ballistic_on_abc_about_its_damning_9_11_movie_nationalnews_ian_bishop_________post_correspondent.htm
I have one question: if this film isn’t propaganda intended to harm the Democratic party, why is it that previews were only provided to right-wing media?
Re: Tarnak Farms: This would be one of those operations Bush derided as “swatting at flies,” right? But contrary to your unsourced, undocumented claims, it was the CIA who called off the raid, not anyone in the White House. From the WP: “Tenet never formally presented the raid plan for Clinton’s approval”. Not to mention the fact that the reason it was shelved was because it was a risky plan, not due to liberal conspiracies.
Clearly, using the Tarnak Farms story as a basis for “we had bin Laden surrounded, but liberals let him get away” is a straight LIE. Calling it a “composite” reveals either your ignorance, or your desire to deceive for political gain. Keep trying, Jay.
This has been some of the best lunchtime entertainment I’ve read in a long time. Funny how one movie that possibly tilts to the right (for a change) can bring out the crybaby in those on the left.
Amazing.
After all the constant smears and slams on Republicans and the right in movies, on TV, and in music and comedy, you all have your panties in a bunch over this one movie that none of you have seen.
It’ quite funny how panicked the Clinton people are on this one.
Great for me, but not for thee…
In order for your question to be truthful, Richard Ben Veniste would have to be a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Sad to say, the Right Wing isn’t THAT vast.
Re: Tarnak Farms: This would be one of those operations Bush derided as “swatting at flies,” right? But contrary to your unsourced, undocumented claims, it was the CIA who called off the raid, not anyone in the White House.
Actually, I wrote that it was called off by George Tenet. However, Sandy Berger was involved in those conversations.
Not to mention the fact that the reason it was shelved was because it was a risky plan, not due to liberal conspiracies.
I never said anything about liberalism or conservatism. YOU keep bringing that up. All I said is that there was a plan in place. There were people on the ground already. The logistics had been taken care of. The CIA agent in charge wanted to go forward despite the chance of success being 40%.
Clearly, using the Tarnak Farms story as a basis for “we had bin Laden surrounded, but liberals let him get away” is a straight LIE.
There you go again with the liberalism nonsense. The fact of the matter is a mission was planned, everything was in place and was called off. A couple of months later, the embassy bombings took place. The only thing that has changed here is that the movie has Berger calling it off instead of Tenet and composite CIA officer (played by Wahlberg) on the phone with him.
“The only thing that has changed here is that the movie has Berger…
..is that the filmakers want to blame the Clinton White House. They NEED to blame Clinton, saying he was distracted by Lewinsky, and misled by shady, hook-nosed conspirators into betraying our national security. (I’m just surprised Streisand and Soros don’t make an appearance along with Lewinsky.) They then heavily promote this pack of lies to the right wing blogs, and sending screening copies to Rush Limbaugh while preventing ex-Clinton officials from seeing it. As the producers say, blaming Clinton is “in the DNA” of the show. God knows what else they think is “in the DNA.” They then promote their deceptions and false tales as unbiased truth, sending it to our schools to pass along their lies.
And now, the fact that you’re defending it so desperately is just the icing on the cake. You can’t win elections by blaming Clinton anymore, Jay. You members of the blame-anyone-but-Bush crowd are being marginalized more every day, whether it’s for Katrina, for bin Laden’s continuing freedom, the stagnating middle class economy, etc. Don’t blame us for the fact that your movement’s out of ideas, out of uncorrupted leaders, and soon to be out of power. It’s your own mendacity that’s done you in.
LOLOLOLOL….
Normally, I don’t use chat room abbreviations, but wow. Reading Anatole’s unhinged rant above made me truly laugh out loud.
I am not defending the movie. I haven’t seen it. I am defending a process that is used by filmmakers all the time and questioning how people who haven’t seen the movie can know so much about it to know that it blames everything on Clinton and gives Bush a total pass.
Dude, go have a beer or something. Crikey. It’s a movie for crying out loud and here you are saying that it is an attempt by ABC to undermine
Didn’t get to finish…
…attempt by ABC to undermine the “real truth” by spreading propaganda through the airwaves and indoctrinating the children!
Good grief.
“The only thing that has changed here …”
What the good Doctor said.
And come on, Jay, it’s a little disingenuous to suggest that there’s no difference between swapping out Tenet for Berger, even for the sake of dramatic license. Even if Berger was “involved in the conversation” to depict him as THE GUY who made the decision, or rather in this case, failed to make any decision, it appears, can only be read as a deliberate attempt to shift responsibility from one player to another and all that entails.
After all, why bring Berger from the background to the foregrond when it is more factually accurate to keep Tenet at the center? What extra “drama” does the shift bring to the scene especially when most of the American public probably has no clue who Berger actually is? You have to admit that George Tenet, Medal of Freedom Winner, has far greater name recognition that Sandy “Who the fuck is that?” Berger. What good dramatic point is served by recasting the truth this way? I’ll tell you: zero. It’s purely politics.
Oh come on Frame. In one sentence you’re talking about how nobody knows who Berger is and in the next you’re saying the only reason they changed it from Tenent to Berger is because of politics.
Clinton is no longer in office and neither is Berger. What political gain does anybody get out of doing that? I can’t say for sure exactly why they had Berger on the phone instead of Tenet. Again, I haven’t seen the movie, nor have I seen the script.
You haven’t either, but you’ve already concluded that the scene in question is nothing but a political hatchet job?
Sorry, but I can’t help but think this has more to do with people concerned more with the fact that the public is going to get a closer look at the mistakes that were made by agencies such as the CIA and FBI while Bill Clinton was President and mistakes made by the Clinton administration.
Since that terrible day, that administration has basically been shielded from that kind of exposure simply because Bush is President and 9/11 occurred while he was in office. This movie won’t allow them to duck any more. Unlike all the other news shows, hearings, books and newspaper series, this is on television and lots of people are going to watch. And I sincerely doubt that even if these scenes were changed, opinions would change much either.
I mean, look at what is going on already. It is a FIVE HOUR mini-series, and yet a lot of people want this yanked because of a couple of scenes.
“…. this has more to do with people concerned more with the fact that the public is going to get a closer look at the mistakes that were made by agencies such as the CIA and FBI while Bill Clinton was President and mistakes made by the Clinton administration.”
Hilarious. Nobody knows who the hell Berger is but they know’ll from the film that he was Clinton’s man. That’s the whole point, Berger becomes a cioher for Clinton because no one knows anything about the guy except that he worked for Clinton. Now let’s not forget that Tenet worked for Clintona dn Bush and was on the job the on 9-11. Tenet is far more associated with Bush in the public’s mind at present because Tenet was front stage center in the initial phases of the war on terror.
If you want to suggest that the CIA made mistakes you put Tenet at the center. If you want to suggest that the Clinon Administration made mistakes you put Berger at the center. But in this particular instance, Berger is put front and center in place of Tenet when it was the CIA actually calling the shots. That’s prett big creative license there, don’t you think Jay?
Remember when conservatives got that Reagan documentary yanked? Maybe not.
But at least you’ve conceded that this documentary is factually false, and should not be taught in classrooms. I mean, you’ve admitted that the “drama” with which they’ve taken so much “licence” is their priority anyway. Further, having not seen it, it is clear that the filmmakers have an ideological axe to grind given that they made it available to Rush, Hugh Hewitt, Malkin, and Stormfront while refusing even to let Bill Clinton screen it. So we’re just niggling over details at this point, Jay.
Did the whole thing go down as dramatically as told in the film? No. But so what?
So what? Here’s what.
Both Rush Limbaugh and Cliff Kincaid have already singled that scene out for special mention as indicative of what the movie reveals about the errors of the Clinton administration.
They’re trumpeting this to listeners and readers who have NO CLUE that the event was entirely made up.
Once established, these little bits of misinformation never go away. Have you heard the one about Sudan offering to turn over bin Laden? It’s baloney, but it was bruited about right here last week.
How about, “Al Gore says he invented the Internet!” Totally false. Doesn’t stop the Washington press corps from dredging it up time after time.
It’s important, Jay, because it’s false. And falsehoods take root when we let them.
“It is a FIVE HOUR mini-series, and yet a lot of people want this yanked because of a couple of scenes.”
Oh and tell this to the idiots on the right who got The Reagans mini-series yanked off CBS.
“Once established, these little bits of misinformation never go away.”
Especially on the right. I can’t wait for the first time Save Farris posts about how Sandy Berger personally caused 9-11 because he refused to kill Osama Bin Laden while the two of them shared a Carribean cruise together.
A defeat for the right-wing noise machine! One less piece of rabid, rightwing, anti-Clinton propaganda in our schools!
From TPM Muckraker:
Educational media giant Scholastic, Inc. announced it’s dropping its original classroom companion guides to a controversial new docudrama, and replacing them with materials stressing critical thinking and media literacy.
“After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues,” said Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic, in a press release.
The Baby-Sitters Club is a subversive organisation!
Here, Jay, read this and shut up.
And don’t pass me off with the line that you didn’t care about “The Reagans”. Read what your people said. And compare.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/bush-supporters-condemn-fictionalized.html
This is why lies can’t be allowed to appear unchallenged on public airwaves.
These lies in this “drama” will be passed around for years among wingnuts-and some unsuspecting people will believe them.
Ever hear that Al Gore invented the Internet? Lie.
That Clinton was handed OBL on a silver platter 3 times? Lie.
That the Florida vote, all the votes, were counted several times? Lie.
Just like Goebbels, the cons have mastered the big lie. This is why ABC cannot air this “docudrama” Monday.
“I don’t know the facts here but …” said Gaffney. Hilarious. Is that not the perfect example of right wing debate?
Classic right wing debate, there are MANY instances on this thread. The trouble is, they don’t care about the facts, only spin.
Hilarious. Nobody knows who the hell Berger is but they know’ll from the film th