Conservatives On The Path to 9/11: ‘Unacceptable,’ ‘Defamatory,’ ‘Strewn With A Lot of Problems,’ ‘Zero Factual Basis’
Conservatives On The Path to 9/11: ‘Unacceptable,’ ‘Defamatory,’ ‘Strewn With A Lot of Problems,’ ‘Zero Factual Basis’
The criticism against ABC’s docudrama The Path to 9/11 isn’t isolated simply to Clinton aides. In fact, many conservatives have criticized the film. Here are a few examples –
John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor:
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. [NYPost, 9/8/06]
James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor:
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.” [OpinionJournal, 9/7/06]
Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog:
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 But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so. [Hugh Hewitt blog, 9/6/06]
Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:
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. [Fox, 9/8/06]
Captain’s Quarters blog:
If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point. [Captain Quarter’s blog, 9/7/06]
Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:
Look, “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. [CNN, 9/8/06]
Seth Liebsohn, Claremont Institute fellow and produce of Bill Bennett’s radio show:
I oppose this miniseries as well if it is fiction dressed up as fact, creates caricatures of real persons and events that are inaccurate, and inserts quotes that were not uttered, especially to make a point that was not intended. [Glenn Greewald’s blog, 9/7/06]
Richard Miniter, conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror”:
If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that. [CNN, 9/7/06]
Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center:
I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes, important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit them, I think they should edit them. [MSNBC, 9/6/06]
UPDATE:
Bill O’Reilly, Fox News pundit:
Ok, we’re talking about the run up to 9-11 and this movie that they’re re-cutting now — and they should because it puts words in the mouth of real people, actors playing real people that they didn’t say and its wrong. [O’Reilly radio show, 9/8/06]
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
I can’t believe I’m about to say this, but (gulp)….kudos to the conservatives for speaking out in defense of fairness and accuracy. Man, that was like an out of body experience, someone get me a drink!
September 8th, 2006 at 3:46 pmWell, what would we expect from a script written by a bunch of christian cult fascists?
[ http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 09/ is-spooky-cult-behind-path-to-911.html ]
Do conservatives have enough backbone to stand up for the truth? Hope springs eternal.
September 8th, 2006 at 3:48 pmIt’s official, this movie is gonna suck balls.
September 8th, 2006 at 3:51 pmIf Clinton said he didn’t have a relation with that women, not a single time, should Monica also be cut from the movie? Of course Clinton denies things that make him look bad, and wants to keep them supressed, as most people would. Do you feel comfortable with politicians trying to manipulate and control one of our big three media outlets? If so, then you are a communist.
September 8th, 2006 at 3:55 pmThink Progress,
Any updates?
September 8th, 2006 at 3:57 pmAny news from ABC or Disney?
Didn’t some Senators send them a letter, to be backed up (today) with some 100,000 signatures asking them NOT to air “Path”?
Any news on that?
#3 - It’s official, this movie is gonna suck balls.
But is it going to suck Bush balls? That’s the question.
Remember, only sex is an impeachable offense.
September 8th, 2006 at 3:57 pmAw man… Now I AM going to have to watch it.
Just kidding.
I think its great that people can come together from both sides of the aisle to agree on something for a change. Its actually quite amazing and refreshing, really.
September 8th, 2006 at 3:59 pmYou mean just like when conservatives crucified CBS for “The Reagans”, and forced them cancel it’s airing on CBS ???
I guess you conservatives are just as pink as we are.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:01 pmNothing, and certainly not a comment on his own blog, is going to make Hugh Hewitt even the slightest bit concerned about his ‘credibility.’ Hewitt’s been worse than Assrocket on this, but that’s probably only because Assrocket hasn’t seen fit to weigh in as yet.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:01 pmI will work toward getting the licenses removed for
September 8th, 2006 at 4:04 pmevery station that broadcasts this garbage.
The airwaves belong to me, and all Americans,
and I won’t cotton to a pack of lies of any slant.
There will be a boycott too.
ABC/ Disney/ all their sponsors
until I die.
Today, I have written 5 letters to 5 memebers of the Disney Board of Directors.
How many letters have you wirtten today?
we need to keep writting guys and girls. It’s works !!!
September 8th, 2006 at 4:04 pmMost likely, the only thing you people will accomplish is to increase the viewers for the program. Then, if you really believe this movie has incorrect information, MORE people will be exposed to it.
Brilliant!
September 8th, 2006 at 4:07 pmI’m warry… I have a feeling there could be a whole lot more of these ‘conservatives of conscience’ speaking out as it becomes clear this gambit backfired and is now a total political liability. “Ditch the cause, save your careers!”
September 8th, 2006 at 4:08 pmSenate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
…just in case you hadn’t heard about the Senator’s yesterday…
September 8th, 2006 at 4:09 pmAw man… now I AM going to have to watch it.
Just kidding.
I think it is great that people can come together from both sides of the aisle for something again. It truly is amazing and refreshing, really.
“Do you feel comfortable with politicians trying to manipulate and control one of our big three media outlets? If so, then you are a communist. “
A) What do you call the FCC?
B) What do you call Fox? (They have been handed programming strait from the WhiteHouse and that’s no exaggeration).
C) What would it make the people who allows blatantly partisan material to be broadcasted under false pretenses?
There is plenty of blame to go around from both Administrations, but to have to lie and focus on things that didn’t actually happen to make them look even worse than they were is dangerous for our Democracy in general especially with an election so close on the horizon. Not everyone is saying they can’t have their movie aired just that it needs to either be corrected or sold for what it really is. A drama. (not documentary, not docudrama and not even a dramatization).
September 8th, 2006 at 4:11 pmThis is what the ReichWing is fearful of. This is why they stoop to overt propaganda (with Emperor Bush leading off by spouting off). This is one good reason why we must keep the pressure on ABC and Donald Duck’s overlord, Disney.
[from: http://www.pollingreport.com/ ]
CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 2006. N=1,004 adults nationwide.
“Do you think it would be good for the country or bad for the country if the Democrats in Congress were able to conduct official investigations into what the Bush Administration has done in the past six years?”
Good - 57 percent
Bad - 41 percent
Unsure - 2 percent
Americans are waking to the fact that something stinks in the WhiteHouse. And what stinks is much more than Darth Cheney’s old age farts.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:12 pmMaybe the film’s producers are real sly dogs and knew their gaffes would bring together conservatives and liberals in one strong, united clarion call for truth - truth above all partisanship and petty bickering.
Naaaaaaah.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:12 pmLink on Digg: http://www.digg.com/ political_opinion/ Conservatives_On_Path_to_9_11_Unacceptable_Zero_Factual_Basis
September 8th, 2006 at 4:13 pmYou mean just like when conservatives crucified CBS for “The Reagansâ€, and forced them cancel it’s airing on CBS ???
I guess you conservatives are just as pink as we are.
Comment by Jebus loves me — September 8, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
Your right. The conservatives should have left CBS alone. Both sides try to keep their dirty laundry secret for as long as they can. But history will always straighten things out in time, as it will with the Reagans and with the Clinton administration’s dealings with terrorists.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pm#4. Certainly you’ll have that same opinion about the absense of GW’s discussion of his drug use and military history. I mean cocaine and going AWOL have to be at least on par with a blow job.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pmMost likely, the only thing you people will accomplish is to increase the viewers for the program. Then, if you really believe this movie has incorrect information, MORE people will be exposed to it.
Brilliant!
Nice try Dale (concern troll?, Karl Rove?), but never again will we sit back for this.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:16 pmI am working on Tee-shirt and bumper sticker slogans.
#6 - You’re right.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:17 pmBut Bush will never succumb to the temptation.
Unless, Mr. Gannon can provide assistance.
Wow whats in the air today, did Cheney pass away this a.m. and his dark spirit left the earth?
September 8th, 2006 at 4:19 pmThe timing of this error filled film is not a coincidence. ABC should abandon it!! The showint of this filmis absurd.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:21 pmhttp://www.asylumgoons.blogspot.com/
long but good read. lots of info. and the person i well read.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:25 pmcheck it out.
It’s good to see that even right wingers can have a conscience! Maybe someday they’ll also realize that the only things that exists is Truth….everything else is pure fiction!
September 8th, 2006 at 4:26 pmhttp://www.asylumgoons.blogspot.com/
long but good read. the person obviously has done the research.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:27 pmcheck it out.
Uh, afterthought, exactly what are you not going to sit back (sic) for? A docu-drama that supposedly has wrong info? (And I say supposedly only because I haven’t seen the program yet).
September 8th, 2006 at 4:27 pmfeel free to circulate it.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:28 pmKing Abdullah to Bush, get off you ass and do something before it is too late. At least that is the gist of what this CNN report is saying.
But leave Iran alone.
While King Abdullah does not mention Bush by name the inference could not be more clear.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:29 pmI have no problem with “docudramas”, but to pass it out to our high schools as a historical teaching aid is abhorrent, deceitful, unnacceptable, and a deliberate insult to all those, living and deceased bless their hearts, who have been and are still affected by 9/11/01!!!
September 8th, 2006 at 4:29 pmMy cynical opinion: the cons want us to think they are all gung-ho for fairness but they know the thing is going forward anyway.
John Podhoretz managed to attack Albright in the processof seeming fair.
Chris Wallace is just attacking a rival.
Don’t fall for any of it.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:29 pmI am a pround progressive who is totally disapointed in all of the furor over this movie. True, docudramas should be held to a higher standard of fact checking than a fictional account but come on guys isn’t forcing a network to edit or cancel a program because you don’t like it’s content tantamount to censorship? Of cousrse it is.
Right or wrong, no one has right the ban free speach. It never fails to astound me how my fellow liberals seem to forget that the most.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:30 pm#12 This could be just a ploy. Say for ecample, ABC is promoting that the movie bashrd Clinton making a lot of free publicity to entice Conservatives to make them flock to the movie. But low and behold ABC will make the Clinton’s requested cuts, TOO LATE to get the word out before broadcast, and they get their big audience. I suppose this ploy is now being use because ABC is tired of having a party and no one shows up.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:31 pmRight or wrong, no one has right the ban free speech. It never fails to astound me how my fellow liberals seem to forget that the most.
Should HATE speech be considered free if it insights violence????
Should free speech include LIES and slanderous accusations?
The problem is the truth - which the MSM has lacked for FAR TOO LONG NOW!
September 8th, 2006 at 4:35 pmSomehow, Bob, I think what you suggest would be too intricate for ABC :-).
Hey, maybe Carl Rove is behind it all?!?!
September 8th, 2006 at 4:35 pmDoes it matter that Andrea Jones is part of the ABC News Bureau?
September 8th, 2006 at 4:37 pm#33 Hey#33 , your a liberal who thinks. Refreshing. I knew there was one around. And your right. Right or wrong, all politicians should keep hands off the press.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:37 pmThe only reason I watched “The Last Temptation Of Christ” and “Priest” was because of the protests against those movies. The only reason I tried to read “The Satanic Verses” was the fatwah against Rushdie (I couldn’t finish it, because it’s a stupid piece of crap). I am certain that the controversy surrounding “The Path To 9/11″ will only serve to increase its audience share.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:37 pm#33
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not free speech. Neither is attributing false statements to real people. It is called slander.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:38 pmI love it when conservatives attempt to hang their own failings on Clinton.
The truth is, we were much safer under Clinton than we are under Bush. I don’t care how many “docu-dramas” the ReichWing floods on the airwaves that try to convince use to the contrary.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:38 pm#33 ChuckLA,
Our calls for cancellation or severe editing came when they were still talking about distributing teaching materials to schools so they could treat this film as “history” when it clearly wasn’t. Also, by making the claims (at first) that it was based on the 9/11 Commission Report when it clearly contradicted it in some places (according to people who did see it), they were trying to give people the impression that it had a certain level of accuracy that it did not have.
Other than that, they could have had Clinton running around the Oval Office in his underwear in every scene for all I care as long as they don’t try to make people think that it’s historically accurate. And I’ve seen pictures of Clinton in the Oval Office fully dressed, so I know he couldn’t have done that “all the time.”
September 8th, 2006 at 4:40 pm#41, safer under Clinton? Have you forgotten the bombing of the USS Cole? Or the embassy bombings? Or the WTC bombing? Or the Khobars Tower bombing? The many US citizens killed in Pakistan, France, Spain, not to mention Israel?
The plain, sad truth is that BOTH presidents, Clinton and
September 8th, 2006 at 4:51 pmThe plain, sad truth is that BOTH presidents, Clinton and
Comment by Dale
Uh-oh. Looks like Dale fell asleep in the middle of his post. Someone want to poke him with a stick to wake him back up? I’d like to see how that ends.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:55 pmI think this is a fantastic example of free speech. A chorus is rising up saying we C is free to show it and we are free to expose it for the drival it is.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:58 pm#43, dont confuse #41 with facts. Liberals curl up in the fetal position when you confront them with fact.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:58 pmFree speech on network TV??? HAHAHAHAHA!
Try putting your point of view across on one of “our” airwaves sometime. It’ll cost you big time.
No, the corporations who control “our” airwaves will continue to spew whatever crap they want to at us–especially if it furthers their own interests.
The old bumper sticker slogan still holds: “KILL YOUR TELEVISION”.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:01 pmMy guess is that he choked on the bullshit.
I wish him a speedy recovery.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:01 pmAhh.. first the news that local races in.. I think Virginia want NOTHING to do with the national GOP.
And now we have conservatives railing against this attempt to modify history that was produced by other conservatives.
I love watching the rift in the conservative movement just grow and grow.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:05 pm#33 ChuckLA
#
I am a pround progressive who is totally disapointed in all of the furor over this movie. True, docudramas should be held to a higher standard of fact checking than a fictional account but come on guys isn’t forcing a network to edit or cancel a program because you don’t like it’s content tantamount to censorship? Of cousrse it is.
Right or wrong, no one has right the ban free speach. It never fails to astound me how my fellow liberals seem to forget that the most.
Comment by ChuckLA — September 8, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
“Proud progressive”? I doubt it. But, even so, this isn’t a freedom of speech issue. It’s not just a matter of free speech when the guy that’s speaking has a gigantic bullhorn. There’s a matter of respect that you’re missing, too. On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, ABC wants to play six hours of right-wing propaganda that claims to be based on fact but isn’t. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater and it doesn’t apply to a mega-corporation trying to provide our kids with propaganda, smears, and lies and disguising them as classroom materials.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:07 pmSorry to disappoint, must’ve been a problem in the HTML I wrote… what I was saying, was both Clinton and Bush could’ve done more to fight terrorism.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:10 pmThe plain, sad truth is that BOTH presidents, Clinton and
Comment by Dale
I guess he was going to say Jimmy Carter. Then Carter´s liberal minions tracked his IP, broke into his place and silenced him. It was an order from Clinton.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:20 pm#51 - RememberProject Bojinka? It was thwarted under Clinton. That involved at least 10 aircraft flying over the Pacific to be bombed.
The first persons to bomb the World Trade Center were brought to justice. You know, arrested and jailed. No “collateral damage” of innocent civlians required.
Y2k celebrations were safe. Or don’t you conservatives know a good party when you see one?
How is it that conservatives only want to believe their “no war for Monica” jingoism?
September 8th, 2006 at 5:24 pmwhat I was saying, was both Clinton and Bush could’ve done more to fight terrorism.
Comment by Dale
You know whats funny? They just did and do the opposite. US is a military-based economy…terrorism is fought with weapons…weapons are made by US …mmmmm.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:25 pmWait, its in the tip of my tongue.
Uh, hey Juan… look right above your post… idiot.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:26 pm#51 - Got Osama?
I thought not.
Or don’t you realize the bin Ladens did business with the Bush’s?
September 8th, 2006 at 5:28 pm#53… well, I never said (and I don’t believe anybody else has said) that Clinton never did anything to fight terrorism… I said that Clinton and Bush could have done more. wow, comprehension isn’t really your strong point, is it?
And #54, are you trying to say that the US is providing weapons to the Islamic terrorists? You really are off your rocker.
C’mon people… don’t waste my time with this type of crap… point out any fallacies I make, or anything wrong with what I posted, and we’ll talk. But try to use FACTS to back up what you’re saying (not just inane blabbering about weapons being supplied to terrorists).
September 8th, 2006 at 5:34 pm#56… yes, the bin Ladens have done business with a LOT of people… and most of the bin Ladens have spoken out AGAINST Osama… that’s not to say that he isn’t possible he’s being supported with bin Laden money… ya know, instead of posting half-comments, why don’t you actually post some hard, salient facts.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:36 pmI am a pround progressive…my fellow liberals
Comment by ChuckLA — September 8, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
yea… here’s another one… you know, you don’t have to lie to post here… it’s obvious when people do… it’s in the content… your’s doesn’t pass…
but don’t go away… read and learn… we need each other to help fix this mess…
September 8th, 2006 at 5:51 pmThen I guess you haven’t read any posts besides your own.
September 8th, 2006 at 6:00 pmLooks like ABC and Disney really stepped in it this time.
September 8th, 2006 at 6:07 pmI hope they pay a price in $$ - the only language they understand.
It will be effective to call ABC directly and voice your complaints:
(818) 460-7477*
or submit your complaint via regular mail to:
ABC, Inc.
500 S. Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521-4551
Suggested comments:
I will support the move to have licenses removed for
every station that broadcasts this propaganda.
I will boycott ABC, Disney, all their sponsors.
September 8th, 2006 at 6:07 pmI don’t watch football, but I’m not watching this crap. So lets hope more people watch football Sunday and Monday. I never thought I would want football season to start.
September 8th, 2006 at 6:10 pmGotta go off topic here. Sorry.
A new “hard-hitting” video released today by the Democratic National Committee slams Bush’s “new found interest” in Osama bin Laden on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and two months before the mid-term elections, after “years of hardly mentioning” the al Qaeda leader.
The video shows the “Bush Administration’s willingness to use fear and smear tactics to gain political advantage in a tough election year,” according to a DNC press release.
“Specifically, after years of hardly mentioning Osama bin Laden, saying that ‘he wasn’t that concerned about him,’ and closing down the CIA office charged with his capture, President Bush seemed to have a new found interest, citing the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks seventeen different times in a speech this week,” the press release continues.
Mark Paustenbach, Deputy Press Secretary for the DNC, told RAW STORY that the video, for now, would be a web-only release, and that there were no plans to use it for any future fund-raising purposes.
I don’t know why this is restricted to the Internet — this should be in newspapers and on network TV.
September 8th, 2006 at 6:13 pmInfo on the movie’s Evangelical connection:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001491.php
September 8th, 2006 at 6:23 pmhttp://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001491.php
September 8th, 2006 at 6:24 pmChuckLA-The freedom of speech does not include libel or slander. It also does not allow fraudulent advertising. That is what this movie appears to be in the nutshell. Try thinking things thru before attacking your (supposed) fellow progressives
September 8th, 2006 at 6:26 pmAs far as I know freedom of speech does not apply to network TV. Otherwise we would be hearing lots of cussing, and seeing lots of “wardrobe malfunctions”. I personally like the really big wardrobe malfunctions like the Tara Reid one.
September 8th, 2006 at 6:31 pmLet’s make our voices heard and see if we can get these guys to pull this blatantly obvious Bush propaganda. ABC may profit from the predictable controversy but airing a film designed to obfuscate Bush’s responsibility for 9/11 will cause ABC to suffer greatly in the estimation of serious people.
Disney and ABC should leave the RNC propaganda to Fox, it’s not ABC’s demographic.
Robert Iger - CEO - robert.a.iger@disney.com
Rich Ross - President of Disney Channel Worldwide - rich.ross@disney.com
Sean Cocchia - VP/Business Development, Disney Channel Worldwide- sean.cocchia@disney.com
Gary Marsh - Disney Channel Worldwide President of Entertainment - gary.marsh@disney.com
Sarah Shelton - Assistant to Gary Marshsarah - shelton@disney.com
Scott Garner - SVP/Programming, Disney Channel - scott.garner@disney.com
Karen Myer - Assistant to Scott Garner - karen.myer@disney.com
Meredith Metz - Senior Vice President, Creative Affairs, Walt Disney Television Animation - meredith.metz@disney.com
Lisa Salamone - The Head of Animation Production, Disney Channel - lisa.salamone@disney.com
Joanna Spak - The Head of Finance, Planning, etc., Disney Channel - joanna.spak@disney.com
Mark Kenchelian - The Head of Business and Legal Affairs, Disney Channel -mark.kenchelian@disney.com
Jewell Engstrom - CFO and Executive VP for Disney-ABC Cable Group - jewell.engstrom@disney.com
Olivia Stafford - Assistant to Jewell Engstrom - olivia.stafford@disney.com
Albert Cheng - EVP/Digital Media, Disney-ABC Television Group - albert.cheng@disney.com
Karen Hobson - Digital Media Communications Office, Disney-ABC Television Group - karen.hobson@disney.com
George Bodenheimer - Co-Chairman Media Networks Group - george.bodenheimer@disney.com
Nicole Nichols - Senior VP of Entertainment Communications, Disney-ABC Television Group - nicole.nichols@disney.com
Aime Wolfe - Assistant to Nicole Nichols - aime.wolfe@disney.com
Patti McTeague - VP of Kids Communications - patti.mcteague@disney.com
Siobhan Kenny - Acting Head of International Communications - siobhan.kenny@disney.com
Paul Lee - ABC Family Channel - paul.lee@disney.com
Annie Fort - ABC Family Media Relations - annie.fort@disney.com
Alex Wallau - President of Network Operations & Administration - alex.wallau@disney.com
David Westin - ABC News President - david.westin@disney.com
Mike Shaw - ABC Sales and Marketing President - mike.shaw@disney.com
Fred Kuperberg - Disney/ABC Executive VP of Business and Legal Affairs - fred.kuperberg@disney.com
Kara Rousseau - VP of Ad Sales Marketing for Disney/ABC Kids Networks - kara.rousseau@disney.com
Kim Harbin - Buena Vista Media Relations - kim.harbin@disney.com
Anne Gates - Disney Consumer Products Executive VP & CFO - anne.gates@disney.com
Angela Emery - Director of Public Relations, Buena Vista Games - angela.emery@disney.com
Chris Bess - Buena Vista Home Entertainment - chris.bess@disney.com
Peter Murphy - Senior Adviser to Mr. Iger - peter.murphy@disney.com
Judy Estrin - Board of Directors - jestrin@packetdesign.com
John Bryson - Board of Directors - john.bryson@edisonintl.com
Monica Lozano - Board of Directors - monica.lozano@laopinion.com
John Chen - Board of Directors - john.chen@sybase.com
Gary Wilson - Board of Directors - gary.wilson@nwa.com
Leo Odonova - Board of Directors - leo.odonovan@mbna.com
Thomas Staggs - CFO/Senior V.P. - tom.staggs@disney.com
September 8th, 2006 at 6:31 pmDid Disney screw-up bigtime with…
We could be witnessing a major meltdown at the Disney corporation. Their brand, which is by far their most important asset, is losing its wholesome, family-friendly connotations and coming to be associated with bad right-wing propaganda….
September 8th, 2006 at 6:36 pmAre the Repugs as rotten at spelling as my spiritual comrades, the progressive leftish-pinko-Democrats? I love you guys, but don’t you think it reflects poorly on your grasp of detail & nuance (not to mention the amount of reading you do) if you appear not to know the difference between “insight” and “incite”; “diffuse” & “defuse”; “lo” & “low”? To all my fellow correct-thinking Americans who take the trouble to express their great ideas in literate English, a heartfelt “thank you.” I really do think it’s worth the effort.
September 8th, 2006 at 6:54 pm[…] Even conservatives have concerns about “Path to 9/11.” […]
September 8th, 2006 at 7:03 pmOffended, I think asking folks to input all those email addresses for a complaint is unnecessary. Ninety-nine percent of those folks have zippity say in what happens.
September 8th, 2006 at 7:24 pmWow. Well hats off to ABC I guess, for getting the almost the entire American political spectrum to finally agree on something.
September 8th, 2006 at 7:27 pm[…] ThinkProgress has compiled a list of conservative commentators who are denouncing ABC’s pathetic excuse of a ‘fair and balanced’ documentary, ‘The Path to 9/11′. While it’s good that even the most batshit insane of them all are denouncing the documentary, don’t believe for one moment that it’s genuine. They know how this is going to end, they know they are on the short end of the stick, and they don’t want to be associated with a bunch of frauds. But if this hadn’t gotten any attention, I would have bet anything that they’d be defending it for presenting an ‘accurate’ portrayal of the truth if the documentary was blasted by the blogosphere after the fact. […]
September 8th, 2006 at 7:31 pm[…] It’s not just “Clintonistas”, as ABC’s Senior Washington Correspondent John Cochran called them yesterday. Bill Bennett and a host of conservatives, prominent historians, and the signatures of over one hundred twenty thousand Americans on one anti-Disney effort alone are also calling on Disney/ABC to put this thing out of its misery. So why aren’t they? It is a bad, bad corporate move to associate Disney, Mickey Mouse and ABC with partisan posturing, and especially posturing that uses the smoke and deaths of 9/11 as political backdrop to try to prop up alternate “fictionalized” versions of history. It’s the kind of thing that gets remembered for a long, long time. […]
September 8th, 2006 at 7:35 pmHas anyone else had trouble getting their e-mail messages through to Disney? I just sent the following to david.westin@disney.com and it was returned by my system, “no such address.”
Mr. Westin,
just to get it out of the way, I have to say I’ve had it in for ABC news ever
since Jackie Judd and the infamous stained blue dress. Thankfully, the country was smart enough to reject your fellow coup-mates, and I’m confident a poll taken right now would show overwhelming majorities pining to return to the golden Clinton era. Nevertheless, I’m willing to concede that 9/11/01 can serve as a significant enough day that it’s almost pointless to compare events before and after. There’s no way, however, for ABC news to escape the taint that would occur if your company decides to air “9/11, The Path to War.” I can see the
argument that it is inevitable that the so-called independence of the news
divisions of the major networks, if it ever existed, will vanish; so, why
shouldn’t ABC just take a huge step in that direction. Moreover, if there’s any truth at all to the complicity of Disney and ABC in engaging in right-wing fundamentalist Christian propaganda (and it certainly appears more and more that Disney and ABC cannot claim to be ignorant of the agenda of the producers, director, and writer), I suppose you enjoy the creeping fascism coming out of the White House and hope for its ever-accelerated continuance. May you fail miserably.
Joel Rutstein
September 8th, 2006 at 7:37 pmit should not be shown period…using real people to tell lies is wrong..
September 8th, 2006 at 9:50 pmOh, yeah, free speech. Do you mean free access to a public network? You righties had a fit about Farhenheit 911 but that you actually had to pay to see. NOBODY is paying for this garbage (unless it is under the table) and I don’t see them offering 10 grand to spot the falsehoods like Moore did. Put your money where your mouths are you vile fascists.
September 8th, 2006 at 9:52 pm#73 - It’s about more than just demanding to the “right” people that they pull the film. It’s about letting ANYONE involved with this project know that there are CONSEQUENCES to being involved.
Consequences like boycotts, etc.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:03 pmRight or wrong, no one has right the ban free speech. It never fails to astound me how my fellow liberals seem to forget that the most.
Should HATE speech be considered free if it insights violence????
Should free speech include LIES and slanderous accusations?
The problem is the truth - which the MSM has lacked for FAR TOO LONG NOW!
Comment by madashell — September 8, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
Free speech does not mean to Slander or to have actors portray real people that are still alive and having them say something they didn’t say and pass it on as truth. That’s not Free speech. Free Speech is not lying.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:14 pmThey have to be worried about lawsuits. Albright came right out and said defamation - can they be sued over this? I sure hope so . . . .
In the meantime - not even a penny - ever again - to any of them. And I intend to bad-mouth them coast to coast forever.
September 9th, 2006 at 1:41 am*
As a non-partisan, some what right of center independent voter, I had many, many problems with the Clinton Administration. Naetheless, to falsify the record in such a manner is to me entirely unacceptable.
And I’m surprised, too. Politics today are so polarized and venomous that I really didn’t expect any conservatives to speak in such an ethical manner, by disparaging this fictitious and slanderous film.
I’d before supported an unchanged broadcast of this film, but now having more accurate information, feel that ABC is behaving in a particularly vile manner. Clinton’s true record is bad enough; no reason to lie about it.
BTW: I also have contempt for the Republican party and Bush, not just the Democrats and Clinton. IMO, they are ALL a bunch of wankers.
September 9th, 2006 at 5:53 amHow sad! The Right can’t even make stuff up about Clinton anymore. Their mojo is really gone.
If they can’t lie about Democrats, how on earth is the Right supposed to survive? I guess they’re done for.
September 9th, 2006 at 7:12 amFree speech does not entitle one to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:39 pmLying to produce a false depiction to a mass audience of a recent historical fact is not free speech - it is illegal.
Free speech is what allows us to call Bush a POS here at this site - ABC is entrusted with the public airwaves, and it has betrayed that trust with its support of a lie.
[…] Script’s portrayal of the Clinton administration so grossly distorted that even Diamond Bill Bennett and other conservative commentators think the whole project should be deep-sixed. Check. […]
September 9th, 2006 at 1:39 pmI call bullshit on these “concerned conservatives.” They can pretend to take the “high road” all they want, secure in the knowledge that 90% of the people who see the mini-series will never hear about their “reservations” and “criticism.”
I use my parents as my yardstick. They watch network and local news, and leaf through Newsweek, and consider themselves “informed.” They aren’t likely to know that there’s a *question* about the accuracy of the movie, let alone that it contains outright falsehoods.
And it’s not just the lies, it’s the editing, as detailed in the Editor & Publisher article that describes several cuts from discussions about terrorism to scenes of Clinton dealing with the Lewinsky matter. It’s the purist form of propaganda - to let the juxtaposition create meaning in the minds of the view - a “lie” that can’t be called a lie.
None of their ‘tsk, tsk” matters compared to the fact that the rightwingers get this deception piped wholesale into the brains of the ‘murkin people.
I call “bullshit” on their “criticism.” It means nothing to the 90% of the viewers like my parents. In fact, it means less than nothing - it allows fair minded people to consider them “honest” instead of self-serving. It’s just another kind of lie.
September 9th, 2006 at 4:50 pm[…] These people have stood up and called on ABC to either pull or edit The Path to 9/11. None of them could be described as liberal. Some people sacrifice principles for partisanship. Some sacrifice partisanship for principles. […]
September 9th, 2006 at 6:01 pm[…] Conservatives On The Path to 9/11: ‘Unacceptable,’ ‘Defamatory,’ ‘Strewn With A Lot of Problems,’ ‘Zero Factual Basis’ […]
September 9th, 2006 at 6:49 pm[…] If ABC pulls the movie it won’t only be because of the actions of the left wing but also because of the actions of these folks. We didn’t support them when they needed it. Thanks to ThinkProgress. […]
September 9th, 2006 at 7:53 pmThe program has been screened in Australia on Channel 7 already, due to the time difference, and there seem to be enough facts in it justify people taking it seriously.
It is clearly stated at the start of the program that there are scenes that are made up, so I wouldn’t worry. It’s almost as good as a couple of episodes of 24, but still hard to believe that this actually was based on a real event, that happened during our generation.
It is an enjoyable program if you can step back a bit, but, regardless, any treatment of the subject matter is going to be difficult.
Only a few hours now.
September 10th, 2006 at 2:04 pmWow, ran across this crap while searching info about this flic. You people have way too much time on your hands and need to get a life!! WTF are you getting all worked up over some tv show for? Turn the stupid comp off and go out and contribute to society.
September 10th, 2006 at 5:47 pmYou mean just like when conservatives crucified CBS for “The Reagansâ€, and forced them cancel it’s airing on CBS ???
I hate to interrupt your left-wing echo chamber, but the problem with “The Reagans” was that it accused Reagan of things that no reliable source had ever accused him of, like wishing gays dead.
There is solid evidence that Clinton’s advisors did really stupid things that ignored the growing threat of terrorism from the ME, and that’s all the movie shows them doing. It doesn’t accuse them of any malicious intent. If Sandy Berger didn’t do stupid things, then why was he trying to destroy information from the intelligence archives? What was he trying to hide?
Most of the conservative commentators who are criticizing the film, such as John Podhoretz, are second tier and third rate. Podhoretz is nothing more than an ethnic bigot who doesn’t like the fact that two Jews - Albright and Berger - have been criticized.
September 10th, 2006 at 9:39 pmThese dems who want to squach free speech then expect us to vote for them is breath taking.
September 10th, 2006 at 10:28 pmDid any of you read the 911 report?
I read the entire thing, and the movie seemed to me to be right in line with the report so far.
There is no question that the Clinton’s administration looked at terrorism as a law inforcement issue rather than looking at it as a national secutrity issue. That was the fact of the matter.
Don’t cry about it.
September 10th, 2006 at 11:15 pmWho gives a flying **** what these shills think? They sold out their “credibility” years ago, even after PBJ had already stated that the “liberal media” myth was bogus.
September 10th, 2006 at 11:17 pmWho gives a flying **** what these shills think? They sold out their “credibility†years ago, even after PBJ had already stated that the “liberal media†myth was bogus.
Yep, bogus. That’s why Dan Rather threw away his entire career on a bunch of fraudulent “Guard memos.” No bias there.
September 10th, 2006 at 11:45 pmI watched the first installment and thought it was informative. Don’t worry, my liberal friends, I’m sure they’ll take some shots at Bush tomorrow night. By the way, if “Path” is propaganda…what was “Fahrenheit 9/11″?
“Path” is a made-for-TV movie. “Fahrenheit” was sold as a “documentary”.
The Clintonistas should learn a lesson from Bush…just ignore it. You’ll live longer.
September 10th, 2006 at 11:52 pmAside possible journalistic inaccuracies, “Path” will help people think about the terrorist problem as a top priority. The general picture that “Path” paints is true, that President Clinton’s priorities were emabarrassingly about his personal problems. And, his style of abandoning people in his administration when the going got rough softened a lot of backbones and made Capitol Hill and the U.S. look week and indecisive.
On Clinton’s watch: 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000. 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel. 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel. 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000. 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors. Perhaps if he’d done as good a job on those terrorists as he did on the Branch Davidians, 9/11 would still be just like any other day on the calendar.
September 11th, 2006 at 12:39 amNow that “Path” has aired, let’s narrow down and nail any genuine errors. Keep it simple.
September 11th, 2006 at 2:51 amNow that “Path” has aired, let’s nail any genuine errors. Keep it simple.
September 11th, 2006 at 2:52 amPerhaps, 100 years from now, history books may record that Waco was the defining moment for the Clinton presidency, paralyzing his administration by stifling initiative and promoting CYA management styles in an effort to avoid another public debacle.
There is no question that the thrust of the Clinton administration was to treat terrorism as a CRIMINAL offence… one where rules of evidence, search warrants, rights of individuals, etc were much more important than preventing an attack. That is a valid approach, if you believe arresting and convicting the terrorist is more important than stopping him before he acts.
September 11th, 2006 at 3:10 amAnd, I believe the Republican Congress was complicit in this, failing to demand that terrorism be treated as a National Security threat, and by approving the Wall of Separation that prevented the CIA from notifying the FBI of the names of the hijackers pre-9/11.
Are their any good, smart people watching this movie who will get their mind off the producers of this movie and the heads of the government and actually get mad at the terrorists? I watched Part 1 tonight. I though it was great. It showed a lot how the CIA, FBI, and the White House failed to work with their men on the ground going after these terrorist, and it showed their successes. Every day I am thankful that I did not join the military to go fight this war. The war is coming to us. It is here in out land. It is a mental war. A war I will not use a weapon in other than my words to try and keep sanity in peoples lives next to me. We all know our country will go through harder times still ahead. So I still wonder, are their any good, smart people watching this movie who will get their mind off the producers of this movie and the heads of the government and actually get mad at the terrorists? They will not stop until they die as martyrs or take their own life. So let’s hope they meet their end sooner than ours.
September 11th, 2006 at 3:11 amAbout time conservatives have their say! Anyone with a brain remembers what the Clinton regime did not do during the 90’s— like kick some arse! Thank God for George W. Bush who is finally taking the fight to the enemy! While I am here pissing off a bunch off hippies; any one who doesn’t think that Iraq and Iran had something to do with 9/11 needs to get their head examined. I have heard so many lame arguments concerning differences in their respective ideology etc. But their is a saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” example U.S.A. , England, And oh yes the U.S.S.R. ( COMMUNISM AND CAPITOLISM COMING TOGETHER TO FIGHT NAZI GERMANY!) Well I hope this post doesn’t cut into your pot smoking time
Mike Rich SEMPER FI!!
September 11th, 2006 at 4:24 amSeptember 11th, 2006 at 8:21 am
[…] – Prominent media commentators, including many conservatives, spoke out against the film. […]
September 11th, 2006 at 10:56 am“…any one who doesn’t think that Iraq and Iran had something to do with 9/11 needs to get their head examined.” Comment by Mich Rich Sept. 11, 2006
You mean like the Senate Intelligence Committee?! Boy, that’s going to require a lot of couches!
Remember the neocon rallying cry? “No war for Monica!” ? What was that all about, hmmm?? Well, I say that if getting a bj in the White House and then lying about it is an impeachable offense, then surely lying about the justification to take this country to war must surely be also. The way I see it, there’s plenty of guilt to pass around on both sides of the aisle. PILES of it. But what does that do to honor the memories of those that died five years ago today?
Like Mike Wright (above) just wrote, remember it was the terrorists who killed innocent Americans, not Democrats or Republicans.
Oh, and you say “Semper Fi”? To whom, George Bush or to The People? Just so we know where you stand…
September 11th, 2006 at 1:33 pmIn responce to Akousa (post107) I could write a paper on my views and opinions concerning this subject but today is not the day out of respect for my fellow country men who fell five years ago. Semper fi or Semper Fidelis, as you are aware, means “Always Faithful” it’s the moto of The United States Marine Corps. In the Corps it is further expanded to mean God, Country, Marine Corps– in that order. It also implies a sacrifice of duty to ideologies that are bigger and more important than one’s self. So the question arises as to whom or what I am faithful to. The answer to that is that I swore an oath to defend the Constitiuon of the United States against enemies both foreign and domestic. I beleive that George W Bush is correct in his ideology concerning the war on terror and policies in Irag and the greater Middle East. I served my country heart and soul for twenty years. During the 1990’s I sat and watched attack after attack and wondered when the commander and chief would do something before it was too late.
Semper Fi to my brothers and sisters, my country men abroad who unlike so many here are doing the right thing paying, many a times, with the ultimate sacrifice.
SEMPER FI,
Mike Rich
U.S.M.C. (Ret.)
September 11th, 2006 at 2:16 pmPlease excuse my typos and misspellings in post 108. i know you libs love to tear people apart over stuff like that please have mercy and remember i is only a jarhead.
Semper Fi
Mike Rich
September 11th, 2006 at 2:23 pmThe Clinton’s are panicking over the “Path to 911.” The Dems are now calling the production “fiction.” After all of the scandals, the poll watching, and worries about image, I have no dought President Clinton was side-tracked with the impeachment, and his image. After Sandy Berger got caught stealing documents in Washington, how can any one believe what comes out of Clinton’s camp. I guess the truth hurts!!!!!!
Steve, Palmdale Ca
September 11th, 2006 at 2:54 pmÐ”Ð»Ñ Ð»ÑŽÐ´ÐµÐ¹ предÑтавленных президентом куÑтиком.
September 11th, 2006 at 3:52 pmÐ”Ð»Ñ Ð»ÑŽÐ´ÐµÐ¹ предÑтавленных президентом куÑтиком
For the people of those represented by the President by the bush
Hey Mike thought this would help
Semper Fi
Mike rich
September 11th, 2006 at 4:03 pmΟι φιλελεÏθεÏοι αποÏÏοφοÏν το γάιδαÏο
Semper Fi
Mike Rich
September 11th, 2006 at 4:09 pmWe have just seen the path to 9/11 here in the uk, both parts were fantastic tv in the way they were made and defining the way that event was bought about. Yes its been dramatised, the makers were very up front about that -in order to get your message across you have to put it in a vehicle that people can consume - in this case a film. Remember though there is no smoke without fire, remember the scene where the CIA working with the Northern Alliance were in striking distnace of bin laden, and the decsion to take him was dodged - that administration had the chance and for whatever reason decided for political reasons not to go for it…if was American i’d be left with a bitter taste in my mouth let down by politicians more concerned with re-election than serving the people that put them in power.
September 11th, 2006 at 5:51 pm[…] What hasn’t been said about this ‘Docu-drama’? It has been called false and misleading by the Airlines, Clinton and advisors , Historians , and even some conservatives . It aims to paint the Clinton Administration as bumbling and inept, so focused on his scandals at home to worry about Osama bin Laden. […]
September 11th, 2006 at 11:40 pmOh, it’s so prescious how liberals and dems are crying about this movie. Maybe they finally understand how conservatives feel when crap like “The Reagans” and college drop-out Michael Moore’s films come out. I always knew that liberals were a bunch of limp wristed individuals who claim to be so “open minded” until they get some criticism.
Also, I think the main problem this movie shows is that the “cover your own ass” bureauacracy and political correctness has ruined any sense of reality in politics.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:12 amOh, it’s so prescious how liberals and dems are crying about this movie. Maybe they finally understand how conservatives feel when crap like “The Reagans” and college drop-out Michael Moore’s films come out. I always knew that liberals were a bunch of limp wristed individuals who claim to be so “open minded” until they get some criticism.
Also, I think the main problem this movie shows is that the “cover your own ass” bureauacracy and political correctness has ruined any sense of reality in politics.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:12 am[…] – Prominent media commentators, including many conservatives, spoke out against the film. […]
September 12th, 2006 at 6:15 pmI love you guys. I’m sure the fact checking will parse the exact wording of each line of Democratic dialogue, while missing the point. Government leaders were more worried about their own careers than about the citizens they were charged to protect.
The film does a great job of pointing that out. The only reason they spend more time on the Clinton administration is that he happened to be in office for more of those attacks.
Perhaps if we worried more about doing the right thing, rather than what other people thought, the nation would be better off.
September 13th, 2006 at 6:07 pmΟι φιλελεÏθεÏοι είναι πεÏίττωμα γαιδάÏων
SEMPER FI
September 14th, 2006 at 1:24 amΟι φιλελεÏθεÏοι είναι πεÏίττωμα γαιδάÏων
September 14th, 2006 at 1:25 amGood one Mike!!
ΑναÏωτιÎμαι ότι εάν οποιοδήποτε Îνα άλλο Îχει λογαÏιάσει αυτό Îξω;
Ίσως είναι πάÏα Ï€Î¿Î»Ï Î±Ï€Î±ÏƒÏ‡Î¿Î»Î·Î¼Îνοι με κάτι;
Semper Fi
Mike Rich
September 15th, 2006 at 2:42 am