I have heard they might not show this::: But that info was from a hard core Bush Fan..... remember I live in texas...

How can you tell the upcoming 9/11 miniseries is well-balanced? Clinton and Bush people are both whining like little biatches

quote:

Security & Terrorism - Analysis: Sept. 11 miniseries under fire By SHAUN WATERMAN UPI Homeland and National Security Editor WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 (UPI) -- An upcoming TV mini-series about the origins of the Sept. 11 plot is provoking angry complaints from Democrats about the portrayal of the Clinton administration's response to terrorism. "The Path to 9/11," a five-hour dramatization laying out the history of the Sept. 11 plot from the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, will be aired over two nights on the anniversary of the attack next week by ABC Television. The movie is billed as a dramatization based on the report of the U.S. commission that investigated the events of Sept. 11 and circumstances leading up to it. According to a disclaimer shown at the beginning of each episode, it "has composite and representative characters and incidents, and time compressions have been used for dramatic purposes." But a portion of the film showing an aborted effort to capture al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden before the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa has aroused the ire of some of the officials portrayed. A statement from Samuel "Sandy" Berger, who was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton at the time, calls the scenes involving him "complete fabrications." And Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., called on ABC to show disclaimers throughout each episode, not just at the beginning. "ABC has a responsibility to make clear that this film is not a documentary, and does not represent an official account of the facts surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks," she said. In one scene, CIA operatives working with Ahmed Shah Masud, the charismatic Afghan mujahedin leader who fought al-Qaida and their Taliban sponsors, are assembled on a hillside above bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms. "It's perfect for us," says "Kirk," a composite character representing several of the CIA operatives and analysts involved in the hunt for the terrorist leader. But the team is forced to abort the mission when Berger hangs up on them in the middle of a conference call, after telling them he cannot give the go ahead for the action. "I don't have that authority," he says. "Are there any men in Washington," Masud asks Kirk afterwards in the film, "or are they all cowards?" "The incidents depicted did not happen," said Berger in the statement. "They are not contained in the Sept. 11 Commission report, which is the most authoritative review of the events before and after the attack." Indeed, the commission's report -- although it reveals the Clinton White House was concerned about the possible repercussions of a failed capture effort -- says that it was CIA Director George Tenet who nixed the capture plan, which would never have involved U.S. personnel in the assault, and which was canceled before being put into operation. Officials from both the White House and the CIA have characterized the back-and-forth about the plan as a breakdown of communications. The White House believed that they were authorizing the killing of bin Laden, but those at the CIA charged with carrying out the operation itself saw their authority limited to a capture operation that might result in his death. "There were shouting matches" between senior officials about the plan, said one senior member of the Sept. 11 commission staff who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is now working in a sensitive government position. However, the staffer said, the scene at Tarnak Farms "didn't happen, and frankly it's silly." But former GOP Governor Thomas Kean of New Jersey, the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a consultant to the production, defended the film, saying it showed "a colossal failure of government. "If you portray that accurately," he added, "people from both (the Clinton and Bush) administrations will complain." "I would say it's balanced," Kean said. The film does paint a rather unflattering portrait of the incoming Bush administration -- showing how they demoted White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, and failed to act against al-Qaida even after their responsibility for the November 2000 attack on the USS Cole became clear. "The difference is, the stuff they show the Bush administration doing actually happened," said Jay Carson, a spokesman for former President Clinton.

SOURCE

Last edited by LazFX on Sep-07-2006 at 10:52

quote:

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation. The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. ... Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon. >source<

is that a f**king threat? did the Donks just threaten CBS because they can't take the heat after mountains of supporting evidence? looks like a veiled threat to me. idiots.

Last edited by Q5echo on Sep-08-2006 at 08:55

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo is that a f**king threat? did the Donks just threaten CBS because they can't take the heat after mountains of supporting evidence? looks like a veiled threat to me. idiots.

Damn straight! I hate those fucking whiny libruls myself who can't stand all that durn evidence you speak of. Libruls like John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor:

quote:

The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/o...n_podhoretz.htm

Or James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor:

quote:

The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.” http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008907

Or Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog:

quote:

One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so. http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/65...be-09e4db570437

Or Chris Wallace from Faux News:

quote:

When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/...eld-to-account/

Or conservative author and journalist Richard Miniter:

quote:

WOLF BLITZER (host): But Let me ask you about Sandy Berger specifically: Was he defamed by this scene as depicted -- as we've -- none of us, at least I haven't seen it, you haven't seen it. MINITER: Well, I've seen this scene and you've seen this scene too. This scene is based on an Internet myth. I did extensive reporting into the Clinton years, and as you say, I'm not afraid to take a few shots. BLITZER: Hold on one second. I -- we're not hearing you. So talk -- start again. Was Sandy Berger defamed in this scene? MINITER: Well, that's a legal question. But certainly if I was the producer, I wouldn't have gone with this scene, because there's no factual basis for it. It seems to be drawn from an Internet myth, from a profound misunderstanding of what actually happened. If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years, there's things they could have said, but the idea that someone had [Osama] bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and the -- Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there's zero factual basis for that. BLITZER: Because -- you've heard other 9-11 Commission members saying it wasn't Sandy Berger who pulled the trigger, it was George Tenet, the CIA director. Based on what you know, is that accurate? MINITER: Even that's not accurate. We just never had eyes on bin Laden at the -- in the pre-9-11 situation. The 9-11 Commission investigated this. The House and Senate Joint Committee investigated this and published a 1,000-page report. I looked into it extensively. Most of the sources for my book, Losing bin Laden [Regnery, 2003], are Clinton administration officials. There's just no basis for this at all, none. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI...sitroom.02.html

Or Bill Bennett on CNN Sept. 8th:

quote:

BENNETT: But the phones got flooded because I said I thought the Clintons had a point about this ABC miniseries. And my audience pretty dramatically -- SOLEDAD O'BRIEN (co-host): Oh, The Path to 9/11. BENNETT: Right. They pretty dramatically disagreed with me, yes. O'BRIEN: Really? Well, tell me both sides. First, what's your side on that? BENNETT: Well, maybe, having been a cabinet member, you know, you have some heightened concern about being quoted accurately and correctly. Look, this -- The Path to 9/11 is strewn with a lot of problems, and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that's no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people. And, you know, it just shouldn't happen. Conservatives now have to be consistent, Soledad. When The Reagans, that show about the Reagans, CBS show, came out, it had all sorts of distortions and misstatements. Conservatives went crazy and had it relegated somewhere -- I don't know. It never appeared on CBS. And so I think they should be consistent. And when ABC comes out and has conversations taking place among cabinet members on recent history, on matters that are still before us, I think they should correct those inaccuracies.

Ahh yes, damn libruls all of 'em! Why to these libruls pretend to be Conservatives and hate America and Bush so much? Pity.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo is that a f**king threat? did the Donks just threaten CBS because they can't take the heat after mountains of supporting evidence? looks like a veiled threat to me. idiots.

A bit hypocritical coming from ABC considering their comments on their refusal to air Fahrenheit 9/11 a few years ago. Not to mention this is on TV and that was a movie that you had to pay to see. I see to recall such things as:

quote:

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many. "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul