Top Bush Counterterrorism Official: ABC’s Path to 9/11 Is ‘Shameful,’ ‘Straight Out of Disney and Fantasyland’
Top Bush Counterterrorism Official: ABC’s Path to 9/11 Is ‘Shameful,’ ‘Straight Out of Disney and Fantasyland’
Last night on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, Roger Cressey — a top counterterrorism official to Bush II and Clinton — blasted ABC’s docudrama “The Path to 9/11.” Cressy said “it’s amazing…how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong” and “then they got the big stuff wrong.” He added that a scene where the Clinton administration passes on a surefire opportunity to take out bin Laden is “something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.” Watch it:
Write ABC and tell them to tell the truth about 9/11.
Full transcript:
SCARBOROUGH: Roger, let me begin with you. There are points of this docudrama that are more drama than fact. But talk about Bill Clinton and the central premise by ABC that he should have done more to get Bin Laden.
CRESSY: Joe, it’s amazing, based on what I’ve seen so far is how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed instructing Ahmed Rassam to carry out the millenium attacks. Then they got the big stuff wrong, this fantasy about how we had a CIA officer and the Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Massoud looking at Bin Laden and they breathlessly call the White House to say we need to take him out and the White House said no. I mean it’s sheer fantasy. So, if they want to critique the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, based on fact, I think that’s fine. But what ABC has done here is something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.
SCARBOROUGH: But at the same time, doesn’t history show that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to go after bin Laden, but the President and his cabinet were afraid to do so because they may offend some people in the Arab world?
CRESSY: Actually, Joe, that had nothing to do with it. If you read the 9/11 Commission report, it makes it very clear. In most of those cases, George Tenet, the Director of the CIA, said because there was single source intelligence it was his recommendation to the President not to take the shot. There was never a case where we had a clear shot at Bin Laden and the decision to take it wasn’t made.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
You know while I think it is shameful, that they would run such an unabashed peice of propoganda, I am not to concerned about it. I think at this point most people have made up their minds about this issue. The ones who will watch this special, and cheer already feel that Clinton was responsible for 9/11, and those who think it is Bush’s fault won’t. I really don’t think this will change anyone’s mind.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:39 amCome on, guys! Don’t you know by now that EVERYTHING is Clinton’s fault? The current deficiet, AQ, 9-11, the war in Iraq, gay marriage….it’s all Bill’s fault. Of course.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:41 amIt’s fairly obvious now to everyone capable of rational thought that The Path to 9/11 is a completely partisan pack of lies.
That being said, what can be done to combat this, apart from writing in and expressing our dissatisfaction with the situation? Is there any legal recourse?
September 6th, 2006 at 9:41 amWhen is Disney / ABC going to be called out?
The Saudi Arabian Royal Family Owns a Major Share of Disney and ABC?
In Saudi Arabia, they teach their youth that Americans are Pigs.
Saudi Arabians Attacked the United States on 911.
Saudi Arabia cut off Oil to the United States in 1973 because they are RACISTS’.
It’s time to start calling them out for what they are… NOW!
September 6th, 2006 at 9:43 amI’ve been trying to decide whether or not to see this film. On the one hand, to critique it I think I should see it. On the other hand, when so many politicos who have screened it and find it lacking in truth I would hate to watch it and give it any support. I guess I am leaning toward boycotting it and let others much more in the know see and critique it.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:45 amHear tell Scoobydoo and the gang is coming out with their own 9/11 docudrama where they cruise the streets of NY in the Mystery Machine. The Harlem Gobetrotters and Bill Clinton guest-star.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:49 am..and I thought the well of knuckle-draggers willing to believe this fairy tale had a bottom, now they are going after the simple minded and the innocent children.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:54 amZombie horseshit never dies! Kill it once, its parts are reborn a few minutes later to stumble the earth and eat our children and pets.
Speaking of which, hey, wasn’t there a slightly dead look in Scarborough’s eyes…?
September 6th, 2006 at 9:58 amThe 9-11 blog site still hasn’t added any new posts.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:00 amCowards.
Well, I wrote them again. (Didn’t use the form letter this time, but I promise I was nice.)
Looks like we have to just continue to write, everyday, twice a day, whatever it takes, until we’re heard.
May Scarborough is actually starting to enjoy the Bush Bash Party. Welcome! You’ve got a lot to make up for, so get moving.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:04 amAmerica’s Least Wanted
Here’s what Clinton really did:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml
September 6th, 2006 at 10:04 amYou know while I think it is shameful, that they would run such an unabashed peice of propoganda, I am not to concerned about it. I think at this point most people have made up their minds about this issue. The ones who will watch this special, and cheer already feel that Clinton was responsible for 9/11, and those who think it is Bush’s fault won’t. I really don’t think this will change anyone’s mind.
Comment by Krazny — September 6, 2006 @ 9:39 am
If you look at the “movie” for what it is, and only that, I would tend to agree with you. But this is much more than simply a “movie of the week.”
This “movie” is being offered to schools across America to show in their classes. And, as TP reported, ABC and Scholastic have pacted to produce an online study guide.
An online study guide?? For a movie??? Study guides are used in the teaching process. Do you really want schools teaching children the lies that are in this movie?
Other problems with this is that it was only offered to rightwingers in advance to review. Pointless as it may seem, we need to work to change the minds of the 35% who blindly support this president and his administration…not reinforce their beliefs.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:05 amRoger Cressey may be spending more time with his family soon.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:06 amthe path to 9/11…
the most interesting thing i see about this whole path to 9/11 miniseries controversy ……
September 6th, 2006 at 10:08 amI posted this on another thread, but it is appropriate here as well:
And the price tag to Disney shareholders (and workers, but not management)?
Why?
Yet, more and more, this 30 million dollar production is being unveiled as a work of fiction; a propaganda piece rewriting history in a fashion worthy of Winston Smith in 1984.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:10 amThe powers that be want to implant their version of history on the minds of the next generation of voters.
Unfortunately, the truth about 9/11 is much worse than either Dems or Reps will admit. It was an inside job. That is why the govt and corporate media keep putting out propaganda to prop up the official story.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:13 amABC must yank this garbage.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:13 amWasn’t (isn’t) Richard Clarke one of ABC News’ expert analysts? I seem to recall him showing up frequently on Nightline, at least prior to Koppel leaving.
I cannot imagine a network putting this kind of money into a major miniseries and not utilizing their inhouse expertise!
Unless they didn’t want someone’s input if that person had acquaintance with, you know, the facts. Reality only pertains to liberals…uh huh.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:14 amBet you the money for this film cameout of the %0 Billion Bush set aside to tell lies about Iran
How can the people stand for this propaganda , The 38% support Bush what so that gives him the right to brainwash the whole country ?????
September 6th, 2006 at 10:15 amMaybe we can hire the Gambino mob and get John Gotti’s crew to have John Miller take a long nap with the fishes.
He wrote most of this dreck for ABC anyway. That is how he made his mark isn’t it?…doing expose journalism on the NY Mob familia? I’m sure that they’d love a chance at some payback.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:15 amThe text of my letter to ABC, for anyone looking for some ideas on what issues should be raised.
I am writing today to tell you that I believe the history of the events that occured on 9/11/01 are far too serious to let fiction be interwoven into them. If what I’ve read about Path to 9/11 is true, it is absolutely irresponsible for ABC to be televising it to impressionable minds across the country. If you do go ahead with showing this movie, then please let your audience know frequently througouht the movie that it is partially a work of fiction.
But I’d like to put this into a greater context. The creators of this movie are calling it a ‘docudrama,’ and simply an alternate way of presenting the events that occured before 9/11. The notion of trying to appear ‘fair and balanced’ by presenting all viewpoints is simply rubbish, and lazy journalism. There are some viewpoints that are simply false, and even a member of the Clinton and Bush administration is saying that parts of this movie are fictional, and probably shouldn’t be placed into the conversation of our democracy.
To present this film is like presenting 9/11 conspiracy videos that say the Bush administration had an inside part of the destruction of the World Trade Center. Conspiracy theories are viewpoints, and, according to the ‘fair and balanced’ model, you should put a conspiracy theory video on right after Path to 911. I’m not asking you to do that, because I think conspiracy theories about 9/11 are a joke. But I also think placing the brunt of the blame for 9/11 on the Clinton administration is also a joke.
Please reconsider your responsibility to our democracy and make the necessary changes to your presentation.
-Dave
September 6th, 2006 at 10:16 amTo be totally petty, Entertainment Weekly gave it a D+.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:19 amABC is trying to rewrite history. They are putting out one of the BIG LIES that always is spewed whenever the Neocons get cornered. ITS CLINTON’S FAULT!
This has to have a rebuttal and ABC needs to know about it. Try callnig this guy, and telling him what you think.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:20 amKevin Brockman
ABC Vice President for Publicity
(818) 460 6655
Back in 2003, CBS was forced to pull its miniseries “The Reagans,” after conservative groups lambasted the network for crossing the line into advocacy against the Reagan administration. A similar effort should perhaps be undertaken to compel ABC to pull “The Path to 9/11.” At no time should a conservative producer with an anti-Clinton axe to grind be allowed to use public airwaves to broadcast a rank distortion of the truth, especially on the anniversary of the worst day in our history.
Hear hear!
September 6th, 2006 at 10:22 amProps to #11 ishkabibble
I need to repeat this quote in bold, as I think it is very pertinent
September 6th, 2006 at 10:25 amAt no time should a conservative producer with an anti-Clinton axe to grind be allowed to use public airwaves to broadcast a rank distortion of the truth, especially on the anniversary of the worst day in our history.
BTW, way back when I was a high school English teacher, the Scholastic TV guides were a godsend, a way to have a lesson plan without all the research and, in my rather poor school, typing out short stories to run off on the get this, mimeograph. (Copywright be damned, those kids didn’t have text books and sure couldn’t afford them.)
Anyway, I vaguely recall a TV docucrama about some Russian sailor who sought asylum while in a US port. I did not know the reported facts other than what Scholastic included in its teaching guide. Now, I’m wondering if I inadvertently exposed my students to lies and misstatements about that incident….
Most teachers, with 30+ kids in each of 5 English classes, with writing to be corrected or at least read a miniumum of three days a week, are overwhelmed. I can’t imagine how many English teachers have the time to do the necessary research to find out how badly this “docudrama” rends and bends the facts.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:25 amI just contacted my local ABC channel in Dallas. This Bush propaganda must be yanked. Period.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:28 amLOL I really LOVE the way you LLL Mo0nb@+5 froth at the mouth at the very insistence that maybe the Clintonistas should share in some of the blame for the rise in Islamofacism. He didn’t foment this policy it was just the way this nation thought it ought to respond, based on the previous administrations template. Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton never had an aggressive OFFENSE against Islamofacists and all went out of their way to appease so called moderate leaders. I know it doesn’t fit neatly into you “I hate Bush file” but he was the person that ended appeasement and took the fight to the bad guys. Since the previous policy didn’t seem to work (see World Trade Center crater) it was probably a smart move to change the policy.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:31 amPoll: Europeans See US as Threat to Global Stability
Look at what you Bush supporters have done to your country
September 6th, 2006 at 10:34 amI can’t imagine how many English teachers have the time to do the necessary research to find out how badly this “docudrama†rends and bends the facts.
Comment by jawbone — September 6, 2006 @ 10:25 am
I agree with jawbone — if given these “study guides” by ABC, most of the English and History teachers in our schools will use them if they’re planning to show ABC’s propa-drama to our kids.
Which is exactly why I’ve contacted the principal and chairs of the English and History departments at my son’s high school to ask them not to use this drivel in their lessons on or about 9/11, as there’s no place in our schools for idealogue propaganda masquerading as history. I’d urge all of you to do the same — at the very least, we owe it to our kids to ensure that they’re not being indoctrinated in our schools. I can certainly take care of that in my own home, but I’d venture to bet that not everyone is going to be able to do the same in their homes.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:35 amUsing This film as a study guide in schools is like having the movie deep throat for a guide in sex ed…Give us all in america a break…Stop the pre election bull shit and keep the crap out of our school’s…..We must not allow propaganda crap to lock step march our kids over this bush cliff…..Geessssss I am sick of all this crap…..Follow the money, probably our own tax dollars siphoned away by the reich to use against us….Like alway’s…..Blessings..Peace
September 6th, 2006 at 10:36 amSince the previous policy didn’t seem to work (see World Trade Center crater) it was probably a smart move to change the policy.
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier
You are correct, sir. Bush continued his Operation Ignore through the first 6 months of his term. It was on 9/12 when he changed HIS policy.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:36 amYou, my friend, are one smart and observant soldier!
I guess the next logical thing to watch for is the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse show bashing evil villains with turbans.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:36 amDisgusting, ABC has been V-Chipped out of my existence.
This is political pornography!
September 6th, 2006 at 10:37 amUsing This film as a study guide in schools is like having the movie deep throat for a guide in sex ed
Comment by Sharon Cox — September 6, 2006 @ 10:36 am
Okay, that made me laugh (cue cheesy jazz soundtrack)
September 6th, 2006 at 10:38 amThank you Sharon
Hmmm. Instead of teaching poli-sci any more we’ll be teaching poli-porn.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:39 amHey, retired reichstag soldier — if the “previous policy” was what you and your Bush ass-kissing colleagues are so sure needed to be reversed, then why wasn’t it reversed by BushCo before 9/11? Remember, it was you republo-fascists who were in charge of the entire government for 8 months prior to 9/11 — why do you hate America and Americans so much that you waited until after we were attacked and so many of our fellow citizens died before you decided “gee, maybe we oughta change the policy”???
More loser drivel, just like I thought. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time…
September 6th, 2006 at 10:39 amConcerns over news accuracy surfaced when Disney aquired ABC in the mid-nineties. Disney has a well earned reputation for altering (Disneyfying) both literature and history to create a more palatable/profitable product. Those concerns have proved damn well valid.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:42 amRR Soldier,
The Commission did find fault with Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. But according to all the previews, ABC is telling a lie both in the movie and in their advertising.
Why is that OK with you?
September 6th, 2006 at 10:47 amActually, anyone more than 5 minutes old remembers the Clinton years. I do. I remember that the GOP could give a rats ass about security or terrorism. They cared about Monica giving him a blow job. That was it. Nothing else.
I clearly remember that whenever Clinton did anything on the foreign front militarily, they said “wag the dog.” And not just figuratively, they LITERALLY said he was wagging the dog just like in the movie by sending missles to the middle east.
Why is this not ever mentioned? It’s like it never happened. But it’s the response that should be given to every GOP talking head thug when they ask about Clinton.
“Well, Joe, actually back then you guys were critcizing Clinton for military action in the middle east. When did you change your mind about that?”
And while he’s at it, he can bring up Bush Sr who literally let Hussein get away. Why is that never talked about if Iraq was such a hotbed of terrorism? If it was so bad, why didn’t he go in and get him while our army was on the ground?
Why are these two facts,…Clinton’s military action and Bush’s non-action, never mentioned?
September 6th, 2006 at 10:50 amhe was the person that ended appeasement and took the fight to the bad guys
I’m tired of “appeasing” this grease fire. It’s time to “take the fight to it” with this bucket of water!
[CRACKLE, HISS, COUGH, COUGH, CHOKE]
September 6th, 2006 at 10:50 amBush Republicans are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of Republican and Democratic Americans. They’ve never been shy about lying to hide their incompetence. Now, all they have left to offer us is lies. And they’re so desperate, they’re actually lying about the circumstances and events of a national tragedy to maintain power to perpeturate their ineffective negligence and illegal actions. The unbridled evil and dishonorable corruption in the hearts and minds of Bush, Rove and Mehlman is just as abominable as the unbridled hatred and insanity in the hearts and minds of America’s most malicious foreign enemies. The Bush administration represents America’s greatest threat. They are nothing more than parasites feeding on American decency for personal political gain. There intentions, actions and deciet have damaged America more thoroughly than all the world’s terrorists combined.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:50 amKrazny, I apologize in advance if your reputation is tarnished and your invitations by progs drop off…but I have to agree with you. The polarization of the country regarding the War in Iraq, Presidents Clinton and Bush, etc. will not shift due to a mini-series on ABC. Extremists on both sides of the debate will continue to despise EVERYTHING about President Bush and blame EVERYTHING on President Clinton. They are beyond reason.
I am surprised that TP did not take a collective bow with their “we-hate-George Bush-to-the-core” crowd after the President alluded to the manipulations and concert of certain Leftists and anarchists groups. Nedra Pickler of the AP wrote(09-06-06), “The White House also unveiled a letter from bin Laden to Taliban leader Mullah Omar in which he wrote about plans for a ‘media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government’ so the people will pressure leaders to retreat in the fight.” Regarding Iraq, bin Laden continued, “The most serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war that is raging in Iraq…The whole world is watching this war and it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”
Well said, binny.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:51 amComment by Retired Republican Soldier — September 6, 2006 @ 10:31 am
So you don’t object to false information being planted into our national conversation about what happened on 9/11?
It’s cliche to say “typical conservative”, but I guess that’s exactly what you are. Conservatives don’t have facts or fiction, they have messages they have to get to the public to maintain their power. The democratic conversation is theirs to distort, just as it always has been throughout history, because confused democracies make complicit democracies. You simply see democracy as “mob rule,” and so see no problem in trashing what democrats see as its most treasured element: its ability to decide, based on facts, what direction the country is to head in.
When I read about some distortion of events in Moore’s books and films, I immediately rejected his works, but you come here to tell us how thrilled you are with liberals gnashing their teeth over false information being spread on national television. It’s because you desire for some sort of faux-monarchy, where the public is too confused to make real decisions.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:51 amSince the previous policy didn’t seem to work (see World Trade Center crater) it was probably a smart move to change the policy.
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier
Yes, the Islamic Fundamentalists leaped with joy when W was inaugurated. “Here is someone who will engage in a fight, and who will be an excellent - if unaware - recruiting tool for our cause,” the extremists gushed.
Just as the Iranians returned the hostages after Reagan was inaugurated, so the Islamic Fundamentalists engaged America after W was inaugurated. The first was done out of fear (or some behind-the-scenes deal) and the second was done out of eager anticipation.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:52 amWhy is that never talked about if Iraq was such a hotbed of terrorism?
Comment by WagtheDog
I just want to ask: What did Iraq has to do with 9/11?
September 6th, 2006 at 10:53 amI don’t get it, don’t democratic voters have enough man power, that would, with for example boycotting shows, purchases etc,… pressure ABC. Walmart and the rest of Republican econ. powerhouses, to stop producing such S..T and supporting republican insane policies
September 6th, 2006 at 10:54 amIn my view: SHAME ON DEMOCRATS for not opposing those louder. The one who is silent in crime is almost as guilty as the one doing it..
So democrats BOYCOTT the goods, boycott the shows, boycott the schools, be loud, be visible, or you ain’t any better…
Johnny, you do realize your asking a republican if it’s ok to lie, don’t you?
I made that mistake yesterday, asking one of the republican trolls if it was ok for ABC to lie to the nation, he never got back to me.
They support lies and misinformation because it furthers their agenda and they enjoy making fools out of Americans.
It’s just that simple.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:54 amReagen built the “Islamofascist” threat you accuse Clinton of coddling. If you want to blame anyone for 9-11 other than Osama, blame St. Ronnie.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:57 amWagtheDog brings up an excellent point:
September 6th, 2006 at 10:58 amIf Iraq was harboring terrorists and WMD’s, shouldn’t the original blame go to dubya’s father, for not getting this SOB in the first place? And wasn’t OBL attack originated due to US troops in Saudia Arabia, and thus occupying Islams holy land, Mecca? Which war was that, I forget….Oh right, Gulf War, which was under which presidency?
Blame Clinton? Hell, let’s go further back and blame Kennedy!
Blame Clinton? Hell, let’s go further back and blame Kennedy!
Sorry if that tangent sounded like a M.A. post without all the ……………..
September 6th, 2006 at 11:00 amAgain, my apologies
Ignoring it isn’t going to make it go away. Ignoring it is what the right-wingers want you to do while they keep galvanizing their base. We’ve got to frame the message instead of letting Rove and his army decide what their message is.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:01 amSven, what YOU don’t get is that the lunatic fringe of the Democrat Party is perhaps 30% of the Party faithful (apologies to Party atheists) - on a good day. They have 99% of the Socialist leftard Parties - but those membership numbers are well below the well-oiled machine of the National Democrat Party. Let’s assume they have 35% of extreme left voters - out of an oppositon numbering 49%, they do not have as much economic muscle as you seem to assume. (Also, please note the great purchasing power of “limo-latte liberals” is tempered by the welfare recipients who despise President Bush.)
Hate to “Beat and Run”…..
September 6th, 2006 at 11:03 am“The White House also unveiled a letter from bin Laden to Taliban leader Mullah Omar in which he wrote about plans for a ‘media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government’ so the people will pressure leaders to retreat in the fight.â€
Summary: A group of politicians known for using hand-picked facts, half-truths, and lies, releases a statement claiming that a shadowy terrorist group is responsible for the voters being dissatisfied with the politicians, almost exactly three months before midterm elections.
Go peddle it somewhere else, we don’t buy stupid here.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:04 amI’m still confused why so many people actually believe that television affects their lives. The remote control stazi unit hasn’t stopped by my house yet and informed me of my duty to watch anything. To think that one single medium is responsible for shoring up the truth about anything is abhorrent. ABC admitted that this was not a documentary. Sorry if people want to have some level of security about a corporate media giant being unbiased. To paraphrase Marx, TV it’s the opiate of the masses. I don’t know which is more of a travesty people who think Jon Stewart is funny without understanding why or people who believe Rush Limbaugh delivers the real news.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:04 amBoycott Desperate Housewifes, Lost and everything ABC/Disney.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:04 am“Hate to “Beat and Runâ€â€¦.. ”
but your good at it.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:05 ammighty,
September 6th, 2006 at 11:05 amOnly you could marry discontent with politicians and terror plots. Keep playing that “we’re being manipulated by Muslims” card.
There really is little doubt now on my end that you are a paid shill. Your days are numbered, whore.
MA keep up the good fight, they’ve resorted to name calling, that means they’re more than afraid that you are right!
September 6th, 2006 at 11:08 amWell … I have to give Scarborough some credit for having Casey on and letting him speak. Maybe Joe is getting a little fed up with the Bushwhacker …
And the point, Republican Soldier and Mighty A, is not that Clinton is blameless … it’s that no one should be LYING about what happened. As Cressey said, if anyone wants to critique Bill Clinton or George Bush FAIRLY, based on, ya know, actual evidence ‘n stuff, that’s just fine. What we’re hearing over and over again - by Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger, and now Richard Cressey - is that this “docu-drama” contains not only inaccuracies but material falsehoods. That serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever.
I thought you folks on the right had figured it out by now: Lying = bad; telling the truth = good. Jeez, my kids know better than you …
September 6th, 2006 at 11:08 amOoops; I meant “Cressey” in the first paragraph (No. 60).
September 6th, 2006 at 11:09 am#55
Where is ABC’s admission that the “dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources” is not a documentary?
Oh, I got you, they’re calling it a ‘docudrama’ in order that the semantics may confuse the viewers.
It should be called ‘fiction, and not being marketed as a clarified docudrama.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:10 amSomeone correct me if I’m wrong, i just want to know, didn’t Michael Moore change the description of his movie from “documentary” to something else because he interjected his opinion? Like I said, maybe I’m wrong, I just thought I remembered hearing that.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:13 amPoor mighty-
September 6th, 2006 at 11:13 amWent to fight the big bad enemy and found herself fighting patriots at Think Progress instead. What a confused person! How misdirected! Enemies of “Freedom” don’t sit in blogs! The boogeyman isn’t at Think Progress! The boogeyman is in Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan and Palestine and the deep recesses of mighty’s mind! Oh my god the enemy described by mighty surely is so insurmountable it’s not worth a fight so she tries to make friends with us! Such flattery, concern and good intent!
Mighty Fraudite don’t run off just yet, please answer who you think takes responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of a country. If it’s not the person who is in charge at the time, then what are they doing there to begin with?
That’s really nothing to do with “hating Bush” but it’s about you and similar trolls ideas of RESPONSIBILITY. Let’s say a crime actually occurs during the shift of a security guard. That guard maybe was asleep and derelecting his duty. What kind of law school did you graduate from that says “well he can use the ‘i didn’t do it! the guy before me is responsible!’ line” I’d really like to know. The FACT is the incident occurred during the guys watch and he just doesn’t have the integrity to admit he failed in his duty.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:16 amWhy isn’t coach jason walking the streets of Baghdad? You a chickenhawk?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:16 amMoore calls his film an op-ed piece.
Let me know when ABC does the same for theirs.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:16 amDRxJ (No. 50) - Actually, Bush 41 helped engineer the solution to Hussein’s WMD (which is only fair, since he and RR - and Don Rumsfeld - facilitated Saddam’s acquisition of WMD even though they new he had used chemical weapons on the Kurds and on Iran … over the objections of DEMOCRATS in Congress). Under Bush 41, the U.N.-brokered peace deal that ended the Gulf War included the requirement that Iraq dismantle its WMD programs, eliminate certain long-range missiles, and permit U.N. inspectors to oversee the process. Despite the road blocks Saddam put up, the weapons inspections scheme actually WORKED - a fact that none of Bush 43’s supporters are yet willing to accept.
Not that that has anything whatsoever to do with 9/11, mind you … but since we’re all so keen on th’ truth ‘n stuff, I thought I’d point that out.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:19 amcoachjason
Prime difference: Michael Moore’s “Documentary” was based on facts and jumped to conclusions. He didn’t just make shit up, the stuff in his documentary happened, just a certain amount of it was just a wee bit meaningless. His facts were right, his conclusions, were a bit far-fetched.
ABC’s “Docudrama” has thus far appeared to be nothing but a pack of lies. It falsifies the facts in order to come to its conclusion, that Bill Clinton was to blame for 9/11.
One is an honest, albeit minority, opinion. The other is a direct attempt to lie to the public.
Oh yeah, and calling MA a whore is not exactly name calling. Type “Mighty Aphrodite” in Google some time.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:22 amAlso BACK ON TOPIC, this is a top counterrorism official to the current regime and even he is saying the “docudrama” is woefully inaccurate and like a disney fantasy. I bet that just really annoys the fanatical cheerleaders that someone responsible actually has the balls to admit this is basically a load of crap.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:22 amMoore’s piece, which I don’t personally care for, is a narration. Not a goddamn dramatization.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:22 amDLC Been there done that, and it needs not be a part of any arguement that we may have. As soon as I begin to tell one of you libs about my service, I’m attacked and called everything from liar to baby-killer, so lets not go there again. Let’s stay on topic! You call yourself a patriot, what have you done to prove it? I consider a patriot someone who protects his country from it’s government. Seems like you want to protect your government from republicans. Again, maybe i’m wrong, but that’s how you come across.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:23 amAnAmerican Thank you for correcting me, and I believe ABC has already said it’s a docudrama. Drama’s usualy tend to take poetic license and base their stories on facts. Like the Amityville Horror movies.
Since the neo-con Republicans have no qualms about risking the lives of our military, and no seeming compunction about the deaths of innocent Iraqui citizens, it is ludicrous to think that they suffer pangs of conciense in shifting the responsibility for their failures. This is the only thing these people are good at. They rearrange facts and causes as events render old facts and causes obsolete. The “PLAN”, is not to solve the problems facing our government in the Middle East. The “PLAN” is to be able to hold onto power.
As more Americans become aware of the governmen’ts gross incompetence, the efforts to refute fact will become more brazen. This is what is known as a cover up. We will witness scapegoating. How much longer they can hide behind this veil of mis-information, or how much longer the majority American people will tolerate it is unanswered. As things begin to unravel, expect to see ever more diablolical posturing and finger pointing. But be consoled, for what’s done in the dark will be revealed in the day. That day is coming soon, and along with the administration there will be media outlets with much to answer for. Do not forget who the truth tellers are. Do not forget who the propagandists are. Do not beg for the truth…….make them pay for their lies.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:25 amcoachjason
I for one would never once accuse you of being a baby killer. That is, unless you killed babies. Did you kill babies coachjason?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:25 amWhy isn’t coach jason walking the streets of Baghdad? You a chickenhawk?
(a) How do you know he’s not in Iraq?
(b) It’s irrelevant anyway.
Now, re: the stupid program — I don’t think we can or should ignore it. It’s being billed as a dramatization of the 9/11 report, and most viewers will assume it’s factually correct — unless they get informed otherwise. Raising a howl is probably the best way to raise awareness. Even if ABC airs it, if we get enough coverage of its shortcomings (a polite word for “lies and inaccuracies”), the effect will be muted.
Don’t know what to do about those Scholastic study guides, though. Any teachers out there want to comment on the efficacy of contacting our kids’ educators and voicing our concerns?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:25 amBruce… Since I own stock in Google, I’d appreciate it if you’d keep typing stuff into it!
September 6th, 2006 at 11:26 am#65, the boogeyman is actually under MA’s bed. In 1948 it was a Red Army soldier, in 1950 a North Korean and Chinese soldier, then in 1953 back to just Fifth Column Communists in general. 1961-2 it was a Cuban (not the cigar), then the rest of the 60s it was a Viet Cong. Then back to Soviets in time for Prague Spring. Next it was the Ayatollahs, then Gaddafi, then Saddam, Saddam, Saddam, then …. well you get the picture. Americans define themselves by who they demonize, rather than look at themselves. But that is so Animal Farm…
September 6th, 2006 at 11:27 am“and I believe ABC has already said it’s a docudrama. ”
That’s the whole point, it’s not a docudrama, it’s a work of fiction.
If anyone thinks ABC is doing some sort of patriotic service to the country by making lies a part the 911 memory, then they need to do some meditating on what this country was and what it’s become.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:30 am#75 Please tell me that’s a rhetorical question Bruce. But I guess the answer is “No”, I’ve never made my girlfriend have an abortion.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:30 amThe more I read the posts from known trolls such as Fraudite and Retired Soldier the more I worry just what their idea of Government is. Apparently it’s a regime which cannot be held to account for anything that goes wrong during its time in office. Well, only if it’s Republican. It is to be supported unquestionably and can do no wrong, ever.
That doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence that they are even patriots or are wanting the best for this country. True patriots don’t just blindly accept and defend their government. A quick look through the founding fathers ideals show even they were against this kind of thinking.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:30 amYa know, maybe deposing a secular tyrant, replacing him with Iraqi Mullahs seeking deeper ties with their Iranian Clerical Brethren, and building up Iran’s influence wasn’t really the smartest way to combat “Islamic Fascists”, huh sport?
And now today, we find out that Pakistan signed a peace accord with Taliban troops in it’s tribal areas that have strong support for the Taliban. Pakistan will withdraw it’s troops in return for pledges not to launch attacks against Pakistan
Pakistan was one of only 3 countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Govt of Afghanistan prior to the Dec. 2001 US invasion
Pakistan has nuclear weapons
Pakistan is about to withdraw from a region strongly sympathetic to the Taliban
The CIA’s unit devoted to catching or killing Usama bin Laden was disbanded last year
Can Karl Rove please explain how ANY of this makes the US safer from another terrorist attack?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:31 amCoachjason (No. 73) - welcome. For the record, no name-calling here; just glad you survived the war intact.
I think the problem with this “docu-drama” thing is that the public has no way of knowing which parts are “docu” and which parts are “drama.” It’s not like each fictionalized (or inaccurate) scene will carry a disclaimer.
Also, ABC/Disney is supplying this film to Scholastic, so that it can be given to schools for … educational purposes! I suspect my conservative friends would be more than a little alarmed if Scholastic were distributing “Fahrenheit 9/11″ to their kids’ schools - and so would I. I apply the same philosophy to politics in the classroom as I do with religion - an absolute wall of separation!
By the way, isn’t the truth about 9/11 dramatic enough without inserting outright falsehoods into the story?
ABC can call it what they like, but screwing with history for political purposes is crap, in my view.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:32 amHang on one minute; this one is just too fugging stupid. Okay coachjason, who holds the Senate, the Congress and the Oval Office? (IE: All three houses?)
The Republicans.
How many of the current Supreme Court Justices were nominated by someone other then a Republican?
2. Ruth Gader Ginsberg, and Stephen G Breyer.
So tell me coachjason, just who is the Government of the United states right now?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:32 amOh! It’s okay! Everyone move along! Nothing to see here! It’s an “Amityville Horror” style interpretation! Too funny!
September 6th, 2006 at 11:32 am#81 you’re right, “…the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.. ” Amazing how quick you quote the founding fathers then will work to discout what they say…
September 6th, 2006 at 11:33 amSadly, we are controlled by the “system” . The same system that emerged post WWII, brought about Vietnam, nearly succeeded in turning Cuban missile crisis into nuclear war, took-out JFK/RFK/MLK, became temporarily impotent after Cold War because of unwillingness to reengineer itself non-militarily, fabricated brownskinned Islamic boogeyman as next global threat, etc., etc. The neocon enablers of these imperialistic institutions, defense contractors, war profiteers, and extreme Judeo-Christian ideologies, have succeeded in eliminating democracy and stupifying the public. The evil becomes further institutionalized as evidenced by the 9/11 docu-fiction being spewed by one of the system’s propaganda arms, ABC/Disney.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:33 amTop Neocon Come-ons #31:
Hey sweetie! I’ve never made my girlfriend have an abortion! Wanna lock lips?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:33 am#88 Go ahead,act like you’ve ever kissed a girl…
September 6th, 2006 at 11:36 amHey honey,
September 6th, 2006 at 11:36 amWanna come back to my place? I’ve never made my girlfriend have an abortion, AND, I make a mean omelette!
#76, Crispy, to illustrate why allowing ABC to push a reportedly factually incorrect (for apparent propaganda purposes) film as history while the course of the nation is being decided by the public’s understanding (or lack) of said history, I have a thought experiment:
What do you know of the history of William ‘Braveheart’ Wallace? Did Wallace father the King of England, Edward III? Did Wallace’s death immediately start the Bannockburn uprising? How good a historian is Mel ‘you can take away my license, but you can’t take away my freedom - oh you mean you can take that too? G**da** J**’ Gibson
Next: did the US Navy capture an enigma machine from a German U-Boat in WW2?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:38 amHey Sugar-Pumpkin, wanna come back to my place? I’ve got a new Documentary called Amityville Horror just burning it’s way out of the package AND I’ve never made my girlfriend have an abortion. You game?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:39 am#40. Well said! But nowadays I’ve noticed that people can barely remember what happened during the Clinton years besides Monica. As for the Bush I years, besides Dana Carvey’s impression and the ‘highway of death’ in Iraq it’s like a land before time. That’s just my experience with some people I know.
As for this 9/11 propaganda-drama, you can bet big ratings cause Americans will watch anything that has to do with 9/11. The show could be interrupted every 15 min with an announcement that says “What you are watching is an out and out lie and you are all wasting your time” and people will still continue to watch.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:41 amDave Von Ebbers, as I’ve said in the past, you are a breath of fresh air around here. One, like myself, willing to put aside personal politics to discuss real solutions. I agree, if the ABC docudrama is being touted as fact, then a rebuttal should also be provided. If it’s being touted as drama, then let’s watch the show while eating some popcorn. I don’t turn to ABC for my olitical views, just as I’m sure you don’t turn to Michael Moore. About the pamphlets sent to teachers, it’s disgusting. Since when do television networks dictate classroom topics? hopefully most teachers will just present it as one alternative. The movie United 93 was much the same. It’s near impossible to tell what exactly happened on tha flight. But an attempt was made to show the heroism of the people involved. I apologize for the Amityville reference, it was the first movie that came into my head that had the disclaimer that it was “based on actual events”.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:42 amThe way DLC picks up chicks “Hey baby, I’m a famous blogger… do you want fries with that?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:44 amThe movie is a hit piece and a campaign tool. It doesn’t need to be balanced by anything. It needs to be yanked. Period.
Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:44 amYanked, I thought this was a free country with the freedom of speech?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:45 amor arewe just supposed to protect your speech?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:46 am“************DM - You know how right-wing the Associated Press is….You’re a little dupe - why not be proud of being a tool in the chest of someone who hates George Bush EVEN more than YOU…”
I seriously doubt the authenticity of anything that’s sourced from the White House. The Bush Administration’s policy of deceit is too well-documented.
It came from the White House - at best it’s out of context, more commonly its a plain lie.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:46 amFollow the money. Free speech is free speech. Government employees who engage in propaganda is a federal crime, asshole. Come back later will ya?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:47 am#91 - Sounds like we both agree on the “Path-to-911-is-bad” premise. Is your contention that anything short of getting ABC to pull the program is not enough? I imagine it’s possible to do it, but it would take a lot more press than we’re getting in a very short time.
(And to answer your question, alas, my memories of both Braveheart and English history are too faulty to trust, and I was never a WWII buff (although I found Cryptonomicon a great read). If you wanna talk about how Superman threw the Kryptonian proto-continent into the sun, though, I’m your guy!)
September 6th, 2006 at 11:48 amDLc… come back later? What is my debatability too much for you, or are you on your way into work. If you work for me… you’re late A-HOLE!
September 6th, 2006 at 11:49 amRe: 101 Lies are not illegal, immoral but yet legal. You should know, you use them to get elected.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:53 amAnyone remember the hit piece on Kerry that Sinclair Broadcasting was going to air back in 2004, and after a lot of bad publicity (including calls for boycotts), it got re-edited into a tepid, garbled, ineffective “new special” about how the two major candidates’ war records (or lack thereof) were being used in the campaign?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:54 amI have another one: ‘The Great Escape’. How many Americans escaped from the camp?
a. 15
b. Just Steve McQueen and James Garner (although he played a Canadian)
c. 0
And how many Americans go to Disneyland and really think those fake towns are as good as the real thing?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:54 amThis is wrong headed thinking. What this is will do is ingrain in the minds of millions false history and it will snag millions into the fantasy. It re writes history in manner which will NEVER be fixed. This kind of thinking is what is costing us our democracy. Very much like people think “no thinking and informed person would ever believe Rush Limbaugh” when in fact their are millions who not only believe him, they have turned their critical thinking over to him.
Have you read that they are sending this out to the schools, marketing it to children.
This is Goebbels and it is taking our nation further down a very, very dark road. It is niave and even foolish to think it won’t make a difference.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:55 amcoachjason
Freedom of speech does not cover hate speech, slander or libel. The rule of thumb with the bill of rights is that one person’s right to something only extends as far as another person’s right to something. So if your speech destroys my right to my good name, I can sue you for it. The trick is that I have to sue you for it, so if you wait until I am dead you can say whatever you like about me.
That’s why so many books come out after any given popular figure dies, generally purporting to the be the true story of their lives. Once you are dead your good name, well it isn’t quite as easy to defend.
This movie seems to me, to be an act of libel, it aims to destroy Clinton’s good name. You might debate with me over how good Clinton’s name actually is, but the fact remains that it is making things up which never happened in an effort to discredit Clinton and his staff, who are all still alive.
Now from ABC’s point of view this means that the movie leaves them open to a law suit due to the false claims contained within and the fact that it has not billed itself as a parody, and if it comes to that they will lose based purely on what has been found out about it already. It is therefore, from their point of view best if they yank the movie, after all, there is no obligation from ABC’s viewpoint to screen it.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:56 amRE: 109 I won’t argue Clinton’s good or bad name, history will do that by itself. I’m simply saying that what this movie does is no different from what Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Sean Hannity, Al Franken, or Stephanie Miller does. They distort the truth and rename it “the truth”. I have not seen the movie, as I assume most of you have not, so how can we complain over the merits 9or demerits) over who gets defamed in the process? It seems to me that the only ones who will watch it are republicans who agree with what it says already. If you’re afraid the dem’s will lose membership because if one movie, then their loyalty should have already been questioned. If it does make Clinton look bad, let him sue to clear his good name.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:03 pmHey, Coachjason - are you trying to ruin my reputation or something? Last time I defended you I got flamed for being a “faux” liberal, or something like that. (Like I give a good gosh-darn about anyone else’s labels!)
Anyway, about that First Amendment argument - you’re right in the obvious sense: The film is protected speech whether its accurate or inaccurate. But, the First Amendment doesn’t protect ABC from OUR views, either. The government has no right to interfere with the network, except with in FCC guidelines (to the extent those guidelines are, in fact, constitutional - and that’s an entirely different pandora’s box), but private citizens can bitch and moan to their heart’s content. If ABC bows from pressure exerted by private citizens, there’s no First Amendment issue.
Least, that’s the way I see it.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:04 pm#99 - “It came from the White House - at best it’s out of context, more commonly its a plain lie.” - Comment by DM
*********Dear DM - “It’s a Small World after all…” THAT’s just what your friend and ally bin Laden said!!!!!!!
Darn it, the judge just showed up…..
September 6th, 2006 at 12:05 pmI remember you Dem’s calling “the Day after tomorrow” the movie George Bush doesn’t want oyu to see. So let’s call this movie the one “Bill Clinton doesn’t want you to see!”
September 6th, 2006 at 12:05 pmDave Von ebbers… you got me there. If they succumb to your pressure, then so be it. Maybe it’ll go straight to video and then people will flock to Blockbuster (another company I own stock in) to rent it. So in that sense, I’m with you, YANK THE MOVIE ABC!!!!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:08 pmBTW… Dave V.E., I’m not trying to ruin your rep. Lest being a good person and a good American discredits you from this site!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:09 pmEver wonder why coachjason and all the other trolls never have anything new or intelligent to say? And why they only spew out the same old bulls–t lies and accusations that we’ve refuted thousands of times already? That’s because they know what the truth is and they know we are right but don’t care. They don’t read our blogs for fact or opinion, they come to fight. Forget about them!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:11 pmcoachjason
Look, the difference between this and M Moore’s movie is this:
Michael substantiated his claims and his sources were factually accurate. What conclusions he drew were perfectly within his legal ambit. In effect no libel took place. Many rightwingers actually mention the fact that it was a masterwork in that there was nothing which could be claimed on its own to be libel within it. Those facts that were presented did not constitute libel or slander, because they were true, what conclusions Michael Moore drew from those facts, were his opinions.
I notice the bulk of those names you have listed up their are conservative, but still, they are generally giving and opinion and not stating fact. You are free to have whatever opinion you like under the law, you can call people names etc… but you cannot falsify the facts to suit your world view. This movie has crossed that line in a spectacular manner. It is not entirely that it is a propaganda piece that attracts my ire towards it, it is that it lies in order to fuel its argument.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:11 pmAre you just naive or a troll?
I can’t believe people are this naive. We are not talking about some show about the life of some damn jumping horse or one trying to prove that Lizzy Borden was guilty. We are talking about a major historical event which occurred recently - one that the political balance and future direction of our nation is very much tied to.
This thing will no doubt be royally debunked, even more than it already has, but the cult which controls the nation and millions who see the show will NEVER hear the corrections. The republicans will no doubt work off the lying talking points created in this propaganda piece for years to come.
No wonder the country is going to hell.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:12 pm#102 - hmm, ABC has the right I suppose to show whatever it wants and I have the right to ignore it, complain about or whatever. I can’t change which direction the sheep bleat. However, I think that they should probably give equal airtime to the libel case Bill Clinton will bring, CNN will have Nancy Grace all over it I’m sure (/sarcasm off).
BTW: William Wallace died years before Edward III was born and Bannockburn was 9 years after Wallace was executed, so Mel Gibson is being ‘liberal with the facts’. Now, the fact that he fueled anti-English sentiment in Scotland is not his fault right? And U-571 was a crock. The British Navy not the US were the guys who captured the enigma, I suppose Matthew McConnaghy’s english accent was about as good as Kevin Costner’s. And finally - the Great Escape - answer was 0 - no Americans were involved. Now you could argue that of the three examples, only ‘Braveheart’ marginally caused harm to anyone. But U-571 and the Great Escape are unintentionally giving Americans (if they see the ‘based on true story’ at the beginning and look no further) an incorrect understanding of history. IMHO, putting a factually incorrect ‘based on true events’ version of 9-11 WHILE DECISIONS ARE STILL BEING MADE on the public perception of that history is propaganda, no other word for it.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:12 pmBruce (No. 109), I think you are overstating your case when you say that “[f]reedom of speech does not cover hate speech, libel or slander.” Actually, there are quite a number of First Amendment cases involving libel and slander, in particular. When it comes to libeling a public figure, the person making the libelous statement can only be held liable if he or she acted maliciously or with reckless disregard for the truth. And, there are certain kinds of libelous statements that are “privileged” - for example, one usually cannot be held liable for defamation if the statement is contained in pleadings filed in court, or if the statement was made by one politician against another in the context of a political campaign.
As far as hate speech goes, I would argue that your dead wrong. Hate speech, in and of itself, is protected by the First Amendment. There is no such thing as “group libel” under our constitutional system, and speech that advocates criminal or violent action is protected unless there is a clear and present danger of imminent violence or harm - and even then, the speaker can only be silenced if there is no other way to prevent the imminent threat of danger from materializing. Hate crimes are punishable only because there is underlying action - assault, battery, criminal damage to property, vandalism, etc. The “hate” element goes to the offender’s motive; that is, if the underlying criminal conduct was motivated by hate, the offender may be subject to a stiffer penalty.
And before anyone argues that hate crimes violate the First Amendment because they “punish thought,” remember that motives are always relevant to determining the severity of the crime or the punishment for the crime. Take a look at any death penalty sentencing statute and you will see that the “aggravating factors” often relate to motive - for example, if you kill for compensation you may be eligible for the death penalty; or if you kill a witness to prevent him or her from testifying; or if you kill to cover up a crime, etc. - these are all aggravating factors based on motive. And the reason is, a person who will kill for money, or to cover up a crime, etc., may be less likely to be reformed and more likely to pose a threat to others. The same could easily be said for someone whose criminal activity is motivated by racial, gender, religious hatred, etc.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:17 pmBruce, when I was a kid my dad taught me to not only “question everything” but to “believe none of what you read and half of what you see.” Using that premise, Michael Moore’s movie and this one, can be no more than half true. I cannot speak for others, but as for myself, I don’t need Rush, Hannity, Moore, or ABC to craft my political opinion. Besides Clinton isn’t running for any office any time soon, so how does this effect his political future?
September 6th, 2006 at 12:18 pmCan the FEC get involved in this if it’s so obviously partisan that it looks like a bajillion dollar giveaway to the Republicans during election season?
Is ABC, Disney, and Scholastic giving Republicans un-declared campaign donations with this?
September 6th, 2006 at 12:19 pmFor those who say it is only a movie or that ABC bills it as a docudrama, I say it is much more than that. Limbaugh and the others are prddling this movie as fact, not as drama. Their faithful listeners accept the movie as fact. Heck for years soem of the myths propagated by this movie have been accepted as fact by the right. Also when ABC plans to send it out to schools across the nation it is attempting to shape America’s perception of what happened. It is attempting to mold the minds of the young with dramazitzed depictions of 9/11, many or most of which are absolutely untrue. It is propaganda pure and simple and they are attmpting to warp the minds of the youth with it. Kind of like how the Hitler Youth or the Young Pioneers were brainwashed. I just had to toss that in because GWB keeps bringing up Nazism and COmmunisum lately.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:21 pm#117 and Bruce, Michael Moore’s F911 was not dramatized with Harvey Keitel and so-on interpreting real events and staging fake events with fake dialogue.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:22 pmRE: #122 Don’t you just love the kids who are unable to put aside politics for common ground solutions. I’m doing all but agreeing with you boys and still, all you can do is call me names… pathetic!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#126 I don’t recall the name of the movie, but there was a movie made that refuted F911, point by point. If that can be done, then F911 can’t possibly be all true. HAS THAT EVER OCCURRED TO YOU?
September 6th, 2006 at 12:26 pmthere’s even a website devoted to debunking everything M.Moore says, using FACTS. go to http://www.moorewatch.com and see for yourself
September 6th, 2006 at 12:28 pmCoachjason, one of the beefs I had with “Fahrenheit 9/11″ was the way Moore created the impression that members of the bin Laden family and/or the Saudi royal family were allowed to leave the country while all commercial flights were still grounded. In fact, commercial flights resumed around the 13th or 14th of September (Thursday or Friday), because I recall one of my siblings leaving for Germany on 9/14. Anyway, the bin Ladens (or Saudi Royals - can’t remember which) actually left the country on Monday, 9/17, albeit by private jet.
Nonetheless, it was not as if they were permitted to leave while the rest of us were still grounded.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:31 pmWith this weekend’s upcoming mockumentary “The Path to 9/11,” Disney and ABC are breaking dangerous new ground in the conservative propaganda war. Even as the ABC network follows in the footsteps of Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ in “mobilizing the base,” ABC News on Sunday declared Robert Greenwald’s new documentary “Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers” a left-wing hatchet job “produced like a political campaign.”
For the details, see:
September 6th, 2006 at 12:32 pm“ABC News Slams New Iraq Documentary, Ignores Own 9/11 Right-Wing Fantasy.”
128. What’s the “common ground” solution you’re putting forth here? That you own stock in a bunch of companies and you think corporations have the right to re-write history at will as long as there’s a caption that says it’s a docudrama.
Oh wait, I see the connection.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:33 pmDave V.E. I think it’s official, the libs are gonna cast you out. You agreed with me again. I cannot be held responsible for what they do to you next…
September 6th, 2006 at 12:34 pmcoachjason to be fair you’ve made some inflammatory posts yourself.
As for the likes of Fraudite and co, what drives these trolls to keep coming back to this site day in and day out? Nothing better to do? Mental affliction to keep going back to something you fundamentally disagree? In all the time these masochists have been here I’ve not seen anybody change their mind or have other thoughts because of their trolling natured posts.
Could it possibly be, the contents of this site are a threat to their fragile psyche? If they won’t be swayed by anything here, and nobody is really being swayed by them, they are only here for the above reasons - mental affliction of some kind, in the presence of MANY times been proven wrong and made to look like idiots; or they’re paid to do it. Or they’re really just that dumb.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:34 pmSince the media has been bought and paid for by the extreme right wing of this country, I don’t go there, ever. I got my satellite turned off because of it. It comes down to this, from coachjason’s post, that the likes of Al Franken is put in the same sentence and compared to RUSH LIMBAUGH????? Therein lies the problem. What is truth then? The trolls on this site, whenever something is posted that was written by a real journalist, is slammed as being nothing but left wing propaganda, even though there are facts that can be supported in these writings. You know, the work of REAL JOURNALISTS.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:35 pmI will NOT watch the ABC phony docudrama propaganda 9/11 swift-boating attack blaming it on former President Bill Clinton!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:36 pmI would rather watch flies mating, then this GOP putrid sludge > lol.
Re:#133. I came here to work with you guys for some common ground. I am totally willing to put my personal political views aside for whoever wants to work with me. I never made the claim that I have the answers, in fact, I have more questions than you can shake a stick at. Besides, I guess that the Evil Blockbuster and Google corp are now war profiteering. What are they selling to many DVD’s to afgani’s or Iraqi’s?
September 6th, 2006 at 12:37 pm#129, er yes, F911 certainly has some editorial comments that a economical with the use of all the facts, I agree. I also think Moore cherry picked facts for entertainment value (like Bill Maher does). I remember Craig Unger was unhappy with what Moore left as his contribution to the ‘House of Bush’ part of the film.
I couldn’t find any trace of the debunking films you mention as I google-monkeyed. Just because a film exists, does not mean that F911 is untrue or even half untrue (or some mathematical formula diving the amount of truthiness of F911 by the number of debunking films).
And now another pithy Turtle quote:
George Washington was lucky he won - instead of a freedom fighter, he could have simply been a hanged traitor…
September 6th, 2006 at 12:40 pm9/11 Conspiracy
Here are some 9/11 conspiracy videos. The first is a link to a full-length documentary calle