Director Defends Accuracy of Path to 9/11: ‘We Have Our CIA Consultants and Clinton Has His’
Director Defends Accuracy of Path to 9/11: ‘We Have Our CIA Consultants and Clinton Has His’
ABC is defending the multiple inaccuracies in Path to 9/11 by stressing parts are fictionalized and not entirely based on the 9/11 Commission Report. But that’s not the position of director David Cunningham.
According to Cunningham, critics are simply taking scenes out of context or relying on a competing set of experts. Here’s what Cunningham told The Crimson White, a University of Alabama newspaper:
“A lot of these critics haven’t seen the whole thing or, in some cases, any of it,” Cunningham said.
“We have these CNN pundits who haven’t seen it who are taking scenes out of context as examples [of factual inaccuracies in the film].”
Cunningham also pointed out that the critics, many of whom are Democrats, are just telling their side of the story.
“We have out [sic] CIA consultants and Clinton has his. It’s kind of a ‘he said, she said’ situation right now,” Cunningham said.
Cunningham added that “the talk of ABC possibly pulling the show ‘is just a rumor right now.’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I say bring his CIA informants out into the open for some real questioning. I would bet the CIA informants he received his info from are out of the Culinary Institute of America and are feeding him a freshly prepared plate of sh*t.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:22 amThe main difference being that cunningham is not THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
September 9th, 2006 at 10:24 amif your so far right that you have to use the term “CNN pundits” , theirs no
September 9th, 2006 at 10:26 amhope of seeming balanced
One Question: Has anyone commenting here, including Judd, actually seen “The Path to 9/11″?
I thought not. How about putting the 1st Amendment first, and letting the American people decide? That is what we have done with every other controversial publication in our history – including “Fahrenheit 9/11″, “JFK†and “The Last Temptation of Christâ€.
Personally, I doubt that the movie either blames Clinton or praises Bush as much as Faiz claims it does. Neither president distinguished himself as a warrior against Islamic terrorism before 9/11. If the reviews of those who actually have seen the advance screenings are accurate, the miniseries focuses much more attention on the nature of the enemy – especially Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheik Mohammed. As we now know, they both went undetected in their deadly plans over a period of many years. As we now know, al Qaeda declared war on us in 1996 – and we never took seriously the possibility that they might attack us here at home.
The fact that Yousef and KSM and their co-conpsirators were able to fly (NPI) under the radar of the world’s intelligence and national security agencies has already been documented. It is a fact that cannot be changed. It is history that cannot be airbrushed. It is demonstrated most poignantly by the blood and debris of 9/11. The 9/11 attacks were not conceived and executed in a span of only 8 months. It took years of sophisticated, dedicated, relentless planning and training. Those years stretch back to the earliest Islamic hijackings and kidnappings of the early 1970s. To that extent, one can “blame†every former president since Richard Nixon for the 9/11 attacks, but what good would it do to blame any of them? That is not the point.
The point is that our enemy is sophisticated, dedicated, and relentless. That is their nature. Since 9/11, we know that all too well. Ultimately any blame will not be cast on those who misunderstood the enemy before 9/11. It will fall, with history’s heavy judgment, on those who persist in misunderstanding the enemy after 9/11. Bill Clinton and his whining sycophants would serve themselves and the nation better by focusing on the future, instead of the past.
Let “The Path to 9/11″ be shown. If it offends you, avert your eyes. But let the American people decide.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:26 amSo then it should simply be retitled: The Path to 9/11: A he said, she said tale.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:27 amThen involve the FBI, and get their take on the situation, and find out why they don’t list 9/11 on Osama Bin Laden’s wanted poster.
No evidence, no idictments…sounds like a great ‘who dunnit’ kind of a story…oh, yeah, but that’s true, so we can’t include that.
Another difference is that Clinton is open about his connections to the Democratic Party. The director (and ABC) have been trying to obscure the connections of this production to political organizations. I’d say the ABC affiliates would be in danger of FCC complaints about misrepresentation of a paid political broadcast if they air it.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:30 amCunningham is a certified nutcase. Let him posture about his version of Truth. He’ll become a hollywood pariah (if he already isn’t when one previews his so called “credits”). I can’t wait to see the forthcoming lawsuits he’ll be plastered with from head to toe. His credibility as board member of that fanatical cult has made him persona non grata.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:36 am“But let the American people decide.”
please take a gander at these poll results:
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/27256.exclude.html
85% answered ‘no’ to the question, “Should filmmakers use fictionalized scenes to dramatize the events leading up to the September 11 attacks?”
September 9th, 2006 at 10:36 amthose numbers are schiavo-esque. when something is being marketed as ‘based on the 9/11 commission report’, and then takes liberties with the truth, that goes beyond the ‘just don’t watch it’ defense.
So BSR,
you think the right to commit libel trumps the right to corporate responsibility?
Don’t you think that ABC/Disney has a duty to their stockholders, and their audience, and the American people to not pitch Right Wing urban legends as truth?
Or are right wingers now arguing their is no such thing as objective reality.
I guess you guys don’t really believe anything.
It is all about power….and the vanity of Bloggers in Brownshirts.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:36 amCunningham has no conscience – no soul – and definiely no human heart ticking in his body!
September 9th, 2006 at 10:36 amBTW, everyone should check out the real 9/11 doc that’s got them all shaking in their boots and pushing this ABC propaganda in an effort to cover the public’s eyes from the real horrors of 9/11: 911: PRESS FOR TRUTH
September 9th, 2006 at 10:38 amIt ought to be embarrassing to everyone at Disney/ABC from corporate executives, to reporters, to artists, and anyone else with a shred of intelligence and dignity to have your company do the bidding of closed-minded hate-mongering jingoistic ignorant bigots. At some point, the American voters are going to figure out that fundamentalism is fundamentalism regardless of skin color, language, ethnicity, or the name of one’s particular deity. I hope the outcome of this sorry episode is to advance the cause of making being a Republican as shameful and untenable as being a Democrat was when the Republican Party was founded.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:41 amThe Decider should really call himself The Divider.
He’s successfully managed to divide this country. And, in typical look-before-you-leap neocon fashion, since the neocons have never served in a single war, they won’t know what to do if they ignite a civil war…. Except ask for deferments and join the National Guard…
September 9th, 2006 at 10:42 amI’ve seen Path to 9/11.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:42 amAnd still, none of you nitwits has seen the thing.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:43 amis there a scene is this movie where christie todd whitman tells everyone that the air quality in nyc is okay?
September 9th, 2006 at 10:45 am#4 – there’s a big difference between the movies you cited and The Path to 9/11. Those movies were shown in theaters, where patrons had to cough up an admission fee to see the picture. ABC intends to air this propaganda over the public airwaves, which they are allowed to use without paying any fees or royalties to the citizens of the US. Oh, sure, they’re airing it without commercials so it’s “not for profit”, but they’re airing it on OUR publiic airwaves.
They can show it, just show it where people have to PAY to see it. Like CBS did with the Reagan movie. They moved it to Showtime after a giant uproar from the right.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:46 amTest
September 9th, 2006 at 10:48 amI can’t believe folks are accepting the RNC or DNC talking points BEFORE viewing the film. Isn’t anyone able to make up their own minds anymore?
If this film is nothing but fabrications, it will backlash on the Republicans. Much like Farenheit 911 backlashed on the Democrats in 2004. People don’t like being lied to.
The best thing for the DNC is to let the movie air, and then publically debate the errors afterwards. That’ll kill the GOP.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:48 amTrue enough, as they have been denied advance copies.
Curiously, none of these consultants have stepped forward and vouched for the accuracy of the challenged scenes. And their most senior consultant, Senator Keane, has refuesed to state that those scenes are an accurate portrayal of events.
This is not a 1st Amendment issue. No one is talking about getting a court injunction to prevent airing of this show. This is about defamation of public officials, senior statesmen and women who are still representing America’s interests.
This also about public pressure. This same kind of pressure was brought to bear by certain “Christian” factions in the past to block airing or distribution of films they did not agree with, based on limited information.
I wonder how much Disney/ABC has budgeted to defend against libel lawsuits in connection with this film?
September 9th, 2006 at 10:50 amTo those of you who believe this is either a non-issue or too much time and space have been spent on this:
This morning I was talking to my 17 year old regarding this issue and told her it was a shame I would not be watching Grey’s Anatomy anymore. She asked why and I explained to her why I would boycott ABC And Disney. She is an extremely intelligent child, but as with most Americans cannot understand that allowing lies, half-truths and distortions to be promoted to distort history 2 months prior to an election is flat out wrong.
If this were in the theatres or on a cable station I would be mad because of the lies, but not this angry. These are public airwaves being used to distort history to assist the republicans in maintaining control.
To those of you who say, “turn the channel,†I am one of the few who consider it the height of idiocy to pay to watch television so I do not have cable. Do not get me wrong, I like television (my only remaining vice), I just refuse to pay to watch commercials. I therefore only receive the remaining stations that are required to broadcast without cost. This leaves precious little choice.
One more thng….Clinton and other progressives requested to see an advanced copyand they were refused. Why is it that neocons like Rush got to see it in advance but not progressives?
Anyway, keep up the fight TP!!
September 9th, 2006 at 10:58 amFirst we have the Republican War On Science, now we have the Republican War On History. My favorite part so far was to have the “Great Leader” interupt the broadcast with his speach. My guess is that all of this is aimed at a small percentage of people who could make a difference in some key elections coming up.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:58 amLA Times is reporting this morning that ABC is planning on going ahead and showing this hack job anyway. Despite the ‘firestorm’ of critisism.
I have to tell you guys that if you want to be taken seriously you had better not let this one go by the boards. If ABC can show this junk and get away scot free with it, we will but up to our eyeballs in ‘mockumenataries’ re-writing history to show that is was the Clinton Administration who was at fault for the Iraq war fiasco
September 9th, 2006 at 10:58 amHere was my response to the Alabama article.
*********************
“Another outspoken critic of the film is former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who has not even seen the film.
“A lot of these critics haven�t seen the whole thing or, in some cases, any of it,” Cunningham said.”
I think it would have been fair to point out in the article that several Clinton officials asked for and were denied a chance to view the entire movie even though advance copies were distributed to right wing individuals and organizations. As far as “he said, she said”, some scenes in the movie directly contradict the findings of the 9/11 Commission report while the film claims to be based partly on it. It’s bad enough to use assumptions and ideology to fill in blanks, but it’s completely irresponsible to use them to contradict the report which is the most comprehensive set of documents and interviews available.
Camel, thanks for elevating the discourse. I suppose you wait to see all political movies before commenting on them?
September 9th, 2006 at 11:00 amABC wants to educate your children.
Benjamin Moore Paint
Bosch Appliances and Tools
Thermador
Sponsor Desperate Housewives.
It’s time to destroy ABC
September 9th, 2006 at 11:01 am“Much like Farenheit 911 backlashed on the Democrats in 2004. People don’t like being lied to.”
‘farenheit 9/11′ was not broadcast commercial-free on television and did not have thousands of grade-school history class lesson plans based on it [which, by the way, means these school kids would HAVE TO WATCH IT—no 'avert your eyes if it offends you' possible in that scenario] that were going to be sent throughout the country. think about that. think about an entire generation of kids being forced to watch this crap and being told it’s based on the 9/11 commission report. this is ‘how to revise history 101.’
September 9th, 2006 at 11:04 amIf this film is nothing but fabrications, it will backlash on the Republicans. Much like Farenheit 911 backlashed on the Democrats in 2004. People don’t like being lied to.
The best thing for the DNC is to let the movie air, and then publically debate the errors afterwards. That’ll kill the GOP.
Comment by muckdog — September 9, 2006 @ 10:48 am
Muckdog, Hitler lied about the actions of the “Jews” in pre-WW II Germany. The “Jews” didn’t have the propoganda machine the republicans have with a major studio and TV network spreading lies to paint them as traitors and “weak on defense”, oh sorry I mean they didn’t have the ability to defend themselves from Hitler’s propoganda. Worked out well for those Jews didn’t it. When a fascist presents propoganda labelling a segment of the population as “the enemy” and questions their patriotism and resolve to defend the country, it’s always a bad thing that requires a fight.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:05 amOff Topic:
Judd, what’s with posts in ThinkFast that link to news disappearing within minutes of showing up?
I feel as if I am being censored at this site. As a result, I have joined TruthOut and DailyKos.
I would appreciate an explanation.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:05 am#16 – That’s a good question, but I don’t think they did, for obvious reasons.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:06 amIf they did that, then they’d also have to include all of the other post 9/11 lies, including the biggest one of all, the 9/11 Commission and their joke of a report, which has been deconstructed point by point and conclusively revealed to be a total whitewash.
Thanks Benjamin – we are in the process of remodelling and have three rooms and a bathroom left. Sherman Williams here we come!
We buy Dewalt, so that is not a problem….any other tips prior to our outing to purchase goods?
Home Depot or Lowe’s?
September 9th, 2006 at 11:07 amIt is interesting that RW trolls here seem to be arguing for reckless actions on the part of huge American conglomerate which flies in the face of fiduciary responsibility, encourages libel (especially when there are now grounds for a public figure to sue for libel, because there is PROOF OF MALICE and reckless disregard for the truth.), as well as damaging Disney’s stature….not to mention, other areas which one would expect self described “conservatives” to tread carefully.
If I were a Disney stockholder, I would be very concerned about the fallout from such an absolutely dunderheaded move of brazening out what was clearly a huge error from beginning to end.
Clearly the RW trolls here no nothing about business….or the potential for damaging fallout from such an idiotic move and Disney continuing the charade that this film was a scam pulled on ABC entertainment.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:08 amSo who does Black Swamp Renegade work for? ABC? The White House? The RNC? The Weekly Standard? The Lieberman campaign?
September 9th, 2006 at 11:08 amIt’s not a matter of “sides of the story”. It’s a matter of facts (which are, of course, liberally biased). Wingnuts just don’t get that–it’s why they are wingnuts.
Thankfully, they’re in a small and shrinking minority.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:10 amThe problem with airing fictionalized things about 9-11 is, the majority of Americans are brain-dead. What amazed the actor Robert Young, of Marcus Welby fame, was that people would come up to him on the street and seek medical advice and diagnosis, thinking he was a Doctor, even when told otherwise. The same is true for numerous Soap Opera actors. The fact of the matter is this: A vast majority of people believe what they see on TV, truth or fiction.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:10 amI can’t believe folks are accepting the RNC or DNC talking points BEFORE viewing the film. Isn’t anyone able to make up their own minds anymore?
Comment by muckdog — September 9, 2006 @ 10:48 am
The problem with your argument is that most people in this country believe the lies that they are fed to them and don’t bother to check for accuracy. These people make up 2 basic groups: those that don’t have the means to check it, and those that don’t bother to check. The director has admitted that one scene (perhaps others) is completely fabricated, and he liked the effect so much that he decided to keep it. Now how many people in this country do you really think will know that the scene never happened? Sure, there will be disclaimers announcing that the movie has fictionalized scenes, but do you actually think the average American can separate those scenes from reality? Damn it, man, to this day over 40% of people recently polled still think that Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11.
And another thing about people making their minds up on their own…Disney apparently disagreed with you when they refused to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11 due to political considerations. Remember that?
One Question: Has anyone commenting here, including Judd, actually seen “The Path to 9/11″?
Comment by Black Swamp Renegade — September 9, 2006 @ 10:26 am
Yes. Judd has. Look for his post.
2nd question: why didn’t ABC distribute copies of the movie to individuals other than those on the right?
ABC is a fool (and so are others that believe them) for trying to suggest that this movie is still being edited days before it is to be aired, which has allowed them to attempt blunting any criticism. I doubt very seriously that the copy of the movie sent to Rush was labeled “first draft.”
September 9th, 2006 at 11:13 am#33: im guessing they have added a pys-ops division at blackwater usa.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:17 amWe should boycott the corporations that are responsible. this includes ABC and Disney and all their affielates. Also since Steve Jobs is a Disney Board member, we should boycott Apple Computer as well.
If anyone has bought products from any of these recently, they should return them for credit, giving as a reason their sponsoring of this right-wing political fiction.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:18 amMaureen Dowd weighs in with The Lack of Pith to 9/11 controversy. I don’t necessarily agree with everything she says in “The Unslammed Phone” but she has a more balanced view of this ABC controversy than most. Mo Do sums it up thusly: “The argument over which president is to blame for 9/11 is tiresome. Both obviously bear some blame. There are no West Wing heroes in this story.”
September 9th, 2006 at 11:19 amPlease don’t feed the trolls. If they and their ilk ever do succeed in their mission, it’ll be the last you hear about not pre-judging and free speech. The agenda of the filmmakers has been exposed. You don’t need to see the film to know that choosing the Clinton years as the beginning of the “Path” to 9/11 is deliberate and provocative. Why not start with our Cold War decision to back the insurgents in Afghanistan, including Bin Laden, against the Soviets? Disney/ABC could use a history lesson, too. This very story of blowback might make them think twice before collaborating with the very people who’d like to put the Desperate Housewives in the Puritan version of burquas.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:20 amAnother blogger said it best yestarday
(paraphrased)
“if your gonna make fictional history, why not make it animated…and while your at it, make the two planes miss the towers”
and then they can end it with everyone in the streets singing cumbia
September 9th, 2006 at 11:26 amI can’t believe folks are accepting the RNC or DNC talking points BEFORE viewing the film. Isn’t anyone able to make up their own minds anymore?
The problem, muck, is that no one besides the right-wing director himself is actually putting out those “RNC” talking points.
Even conservative commentators are saying the movie slanders the Clintons with fiction. There is no “other side”. The 9/11 commission report is considered definitive by everyone, including the moviemakers (it’s “based on the 9/11 report”, remember?). Yet the 9/11 commission makes clear the scenes that have been reported due to ABC/Disney sending out advanced copies to every one to the right of Thomas Friedman are falsified.
So where’s the “DNC talking points” that we should avoid considering before the propaganda is broadcast and the damage is done?
September 9th, 2006 at 11:29 amComment by Briseadh na Faire — September 9, 2006 @ 11:05 am
Good to see you are still with us! I enjoy reading your contributions and will also look for them on DailyKos. I believe the posting issues here on TP are temporary, so please stay onboard.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:30 amPerhaps someone could negotiate a compromise with Disney/ABC–they show Path to 9/11 on Sunday and Monday, followed by a commercial free prime time viewing of Fahrenheit 9/11 on Tuesday.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:33 amMYTHS AND LEGENDS OF 9/11/01?
Saturday 9th of September 2006
by Jay Randal
ABC/Disney Corporation decided to concoct a fable, about the events leading up to the 9/11/01 terrorist attack, on New York City and Washinton-DC, so the phony docudrama propaganda film premieres in two parts, this Sunday and Monday nights, to foist some myths and legends on the 5th anniversary event?
Many Americans already believe that the official 9/11 report is basically a fabrication of the truth, simply a whitewash of the facts of what really transpired that day, so any more fantasy by Disney is preposterous!
It’s hard enough to accept that a creepy bearded guy, living in a cave in Afghanistan, with his merry band of goatherders, was able to launch a sophisticated attack on the US crashing jetliners into World Trade Center!
And incredulously the WTC towers collapsed on TV, as everybody watched in shocked disbelief and horror, the buildings surreally crumbled like a demolition, but the official government explanation claimed nothing nefarious transpired and burning jet fuel alone caused the destruction, so concocted baloney used to fool us?!
( Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Stone Mountain, Georgia.)
PS: ABC/Disney need to admit that GOP members funded their film!
September 9th, 2006 at 11:33 amPerhaps someone will negotiate a compromise with ABC/Disney—they show Path to 9/11 on Sunday and Monday, followed by a commercial-free prime time viewing of Fahrenheit 9/11 on Tuesday.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:37 amPGW, I’d have to take issue with your notion that all the kids would have to watch it . The fallacy in your point is supported by an assumption that the kids watching it would have had no previous TV/movie experience without parental supervision and also from what I have experienced a large majority of households are engaged politically enough to either just rubber-stamp what the ABC piece says or deny portions of it that they themselves as parents disagree with. I believe that it would help stimulate further understanding of the medium itself by allowing it to play. To say that this is blatant brainwashing is not just holding water if you take it out to a post showing conclusion.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:48 am“CNN pundits” = liberal media
The RW code words are as transparent as thin air. And that one is fairly innocent. It’s misguided, not malicious, since CNN is just below FNC in catapulting Republican propaganda. The Republicans have devolved into a corrosive entity that manipulates the trusting American nature with deceptive language at all levels.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:52 amWhat we’re all witnessing is a ‘triangulation’ tactic from the Right to whip up sentiment for the war and scare the public in an election season. This is an example of the Fascism in America happening right before our eye’s. Don’t think for a minute that Bush’s speech wasn’t timed to be made during this pile of lies and propaganda ABC is distributing. The Right is DESPERATE and they have no moral compass whatsoever..they will do ANYTHING to win elections in the fall…ANYTHING.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:53 amfly-man you obviously do not live in the US if yiou actually believe that a large majority of households are engaged politally. Nothing could be further drom the truth. The vast majority of Americans could not even name their state Senators, let alone who the Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense are. Therein lies the problem – Americans believe what they see on the television as truth. The vast majority do not dig deeper to find if there is any reality to what they are being spoon fed.
If this propaganda is shown in my childs class she has my permission to walk out of the classroom!!
September 9th, 2006 at 11:54 amCan you smell that smarmy liar smell? I can, It’s all over this young “christian” director. You know the drill; lying isn’t a sin if committed in service of a righteous cause like transforming heathen hollywood.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:54 am“CNN pundits” = liberal media
The RW code words are as transparent as thin air. That one is misguided rather than malicious, considering that CNN is just behind FNC in catapulting Republican propaganda. At all levels of public discourse, the Republicans and their most fervent followers rely on deception through the use of language.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:57 amWho is this nutjob that says this is a “he said, she said” issue.
We have seen outtakes from the film and we have the 9/11 Commission report to compare it with. To say this is a “he said, she said” issue is to attack the 9/11 Commission report as a work of fiction. (How Tom Kean can remain a part of this farce is beyond comprehension).
This nutjob is also admitting this is a purely partisan program with his claim that they have their CIA sources and Clinton has his. This is another Swiftboat operation through and through.
I have always been a proud American and the pendulum will swing back into balance. We survived the McCarthyism era, and while this is even worse, we will survive this too. The gloves are coming off right now and that is the necessary first step.
ABC must be made to pay for this, even if they pull this show. The best way to do that is a complete boycott of the sponsors of this show. If that means giving up on your favorite toothpaste or breakfast cereal or even giving up viewing your favorite College football team on ABC, so be it. To be effective it must be complete.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:58 amthey say they have their consultants but they have never released the names of their consulltants. Why? The most knowledgable experts on this subject have ALL said its fiction — who are their consultants?
I agree with the others, time to launch a full boycott and destroy Disney.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:11 pmSo, when David says it’s he said, she said and the critics, many of whom are Democrats, are just telling their side of the story, he’s admitting this is indeed a partisan production? He’s wasted a good deal of breath on ABC’s path to 9/11 blog trying to convince people that it’s unbiased. The more they dance, the more we know them.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:13 pm#55 Red Wolf —- You’re right — What you post is unbelievable.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:14 pmJules, here is the issue I have with your conclusion, So if the majority of Americans are spoon fed tripe but don’t know it’s tripe how will they know what is tripe and what isn’t when it comes to the specific details that most of the blogosphere are complaining about? You’re giving them no intelligence as viewers and then telling me they would understand the minutiae of the arguments made in the film.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:14 pmJules, on your second point about your child leaving the room, doesn’t that fall right into the type of response the right would want? Think about it, you seem very politically astute, don’t you feel comfortable enough in your relationship with your child to let them see it with you and then explain your issues with some of the content. I see opportunities for you and your child to help communicate with each other and your child also correcting or persuading her peers on her viewpoints with knowledgeable reference from you.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:22 pmNo flyman – I am saying because they have no intelligence as veiwers they will believe what is spoonfed to them. They do not have to do anything, no research, no reading between the lines, nothing. They just need to sit like the couch potatoes they are and be spoonfed lies and propaganda.
Tell me what “understanding of minutiae” was required in the lies told by the swiftboaters of Kerry. Instead of researching the people behind the message and their agenda for spreading blatant lies about Kerry, they believed the propaganda. No amount of intelligence is required for this.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:26 pmRed Wolf, are we to assume you feel representing lies and distortions as fact and truth on public airwaves, should fall under protected speech?
September 9th, 2006 at 12:31 pmflyman – it is because of my relationship with my child to leave the room just as I would allow her to leave the room if a military recruiter came to her classroom to speak. I trust her and her intelligence to defend her not being required to be subjected to lies and propaganda. Just because she can disagree with the lies does not mean she needs to sit through listening to them.
You neocons believe F911 is all lies. Would you force your child to sit through a viewing of it just so they could debate the points they disagreed with?
September 9th, 2006 at 12:33 pmRed Wolf, a lot of your points are indefensible. But let’s start with just one for now
Fascism? Where are the death squads. Why is the Left dominant in the media and hollywood? Why are blogs like this and Dailykos allowed to exist?
Why is the Left about to take power in November? If this is Fascism, there nothing wrong with it!
Comment by Red Wolf — September 9, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
Fascism has a “definition”, you can’t ignore the “definition” and make it qhatever you want.
Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
This obviously applies to the current Bush Administration and the US right now, Consequently Hawkeyte is absolutely right.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:33 pmYoung children have very impressionable minds, so any adult who allows their children to watch the ABC/Disney propaganda docudrama on 9/11, do risk exposing their children to GOP funded brainwashing! Yes FOX News does brainwashing daily, but kids can be fooled more by Disney fantasy! The ABC film is pure fiction, so show it in movie theaters as a drama, and not foist it on TV as something factual to warp young minds!
September 9th, 2006 at 12:37 pmAgain red Wolf, Hitler smeared the Jews in pre-WW II and the “propoganda” stuck and the Germans didn’t stop the government from rounding up Jews in their neighborhoods, stores, or on the streets. Allowing “propoganda” to stnd unchallanged is a dangerous precedent. It must be challanged and ddestroyed, intellectually of course. And if you doubt this is propoganda, note it’s commercial free $40 million dollar paid advertisement for the republicans 2 months before a major election, made to promote the message that the republofascists tirelessly say – the democrats are “weak” on defense and against terrorism.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:43 pmRed Wolf, I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with pretty much all of post #67.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:46 pmMy-oh-my has Disney ever evolved. I can just imagine ole Walt is spinning in his grave.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:48 pmI have a six year old child who came name the president of the united states and knows that the oxyclean guy wants to sell us stuff in a commercial. The swift boat ads were just that ads. Delivery vehicle matters. Six hours has to contain some other components that may not be as dramatically or factually correct but non the less dump a huge narrative on the viewer and I don’t see the damage by either someone watching or not. I see more damage in premature editing and NOT ALLOWING someone to watch it. Grand theft auto no problem not even worth a clip, no pun intended, six hours of political revisionist history let it play.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:53 pmI don’t have much time this morning, so if there has been a discussion about media conglomeration being a major issue here, I extend my apologies. Two links: Not recent and one actually goes back to 1998. But it might be interesting for those who have the time to see how this media cluster-f*** has increased since 1998.
“Disney, parent company of ABC, has turned most of its extensive radio network and owned-and-operated stations into a 24/7 orgy of right-wing talk. (Sean Hannity is their poster boy.) Disney’s chief lobbyist, Preston Padden, is not only one of Washington, D.C.’s most infamous Republican lobbyists, but he used to work for Rupert Murdoch. Bush even pleaded just days after 9/11 for Americans to “go down to Disney World in Florida.†Meanwhile, Disney World has benefited from special security measures, including extra protection and a federally declared “no-flyover zone.†And let’s not forget that Michael Eisner pulled the distribution plug on Fahrenheit 9/11.”
http://www.laweekly.com/index.php?option=com_lawcontent&task=view&id=8148&Itemid=
Digital TV Project: Who controls the media?
http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/communications/tv/mediacontrol.html
September 9th, 2006 at 12:56 pm“Fahrenheit Lies″
I keep seeing comments talking about all the lies in “Fahrenheit 9/11″ — but never any specifics. Can someone please list a few of the lies that are in this movie?
September 9th, 2006 at 12:56 pmThis pretty much says it all, especially the part about “Clinton’s misguided priorities”.
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-911review9sep09,0,5881837.story?coll=la-home-headlines
September 9th, 2006 at 12:59 pmRed Wolf–Finally something I can agree with. 9-11 was the beginning of the end of America. It is also the beginning of American Fascism.
September 9th, 2006 at 1:00 pmOk Red, let’s pick it apart:
(1)“A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator†Perhaps you missed the whole violation of the constitution thing, violating civil rights, sneak and peek Patriot act, no knock SWAT raids, bank records searches, Justice dept letters threatening jail time if you let your son know someone showed up and looked thru his compute, signing statements that say yes it’s the law but I don’t have to follow it – like the torture issue.
(2)“stringent socioeconomic controls†– gas price fixing, energy policy that affects every American monetary outlay secret and Cheney refuses to open to the public, bancruptcy laws that are punitive, a tax system that includes alternative minimum taxes that strangle the working American. Import tariffs on necessary goods and services.
(3)“suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship†Do I even need to address? NYT reporters should be “jailed” for being traitors. Extrodinary rendition, nuff said. Further violation of civil rights like the 2 Americans currently banished to Afghanistan and unless they give up their civil rights they remain essentially stateless. Daily fear mongering about “terrorists”, orange alerts, all just before elections or if there is “bad” news for Bush in the papers or on TV.
(4)“and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.†And do we even need to revisit Katrina, george bush doesn’t care about black people, Immigration “reform”, ie… those Mexicans are terrorists, “For starters, just look for people wearing turbans and those are who we should be looking at (at airports, remember Hindus wear turbans, not Muslims), Muslim only lines at airports…
So exactly as I said FASCISM.
September 9th, 2006 at 1:01 pmI am just wondering if there’s too much ado about nothing… Maybe nobody was going to watch this “docudrama” and now they have guaranteed the greatest audience on earth – lot’s of money coming in, so who cares if their sued later… Damage will be already done, and the DNC will be called cry babies again and again… Meanwhile, the world outside is literally collapsing, and while you discuss about the validity of this TV program, people die in Iraq, 40 today in Afghanistan, and the White House is studying when they are going to pull the trigger on Iran!! God, I’m so sick about all….
September 9th, 2006 at 1:02 pmFlyman if you want your child to watch it then you certainly have that right. My daughter would prefer to watch “Loose Change.” And before you comment, she was the person who encouraged me to see it, not the other way around.
I am happy that your six year old understands an ad when he/she sees them. If others can then explain to me why so many people in this country believed them as truth when they were outright lies?
To quote an individual on another thread, “I don’t need to eat dung to know what it is by its smell.”
This is revisionist history put on public airwaves two months prior to the midterm elections. This should not be allowed to broadcast!!
September 9th, 2006 at 1:03 pmWhat ever happened to my post?
September 9th, 2006 at 1:04 pmthis piece of fiction that is being marketed as non-fiction being shown in classrooms as being “based on the 9/11 commission report” and “the story of what actually happened” is wildly irresponsible. a massive campaign of distributing materials for teacher-led discussions about this film is shady at best. perhaps if i was a gullible libertarian, i’d be fine with this. but really, if you’re ok with this, then what was point of the Cold War?
September 9th, 2006 at 1:06 pm“We have out [sic] CIA consultants and Clinton has his. It’s kind of a ‘he said, she said’ situation right now,†Cunningham said.
It will be interesting to see these “CIA consultants” when Cunningham, ABC, and Disney are sued in civil court. Of course by then the damage will have been done, and every republofascist will use the “facts” in the “docudrama” to justify every ridiculous position they take. Perfect recent example:
right-wing commentator Frank Gaffney cited a made-up scene in The Path To 9/11, in which former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger allegedly refuses to give an order to the CIA to take out bin Laden. 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean was forced to acknowledge the scene was fictionalized and the writer of the film, Cyrus Nowrasteh, said it was “improvised.â€
Gaffney said, “I don’t know the facts here.†Nonetheless, he continued, “To the extent there is basis for this kind of reporting, I think it suggests a risk-averse attitude that was characteristic of the Clinton administration.†Watch
September 9th, 2006 at 1:26 pmPGW, the point I’m trying to make is not that I don’t admit that TV influences people but that it does a horrible job at recreating history when it comes in the form of entertainment. Sodium affects millions of people so what do people do? They read the labels. The notion is if this is not a documentary than any or all of it is suspect. Read the label, it’s a docudrama, for a reason, they knew when they made it that they couldn’t call it a documentary and that in itself should say it all. I’m more progressive than libertarian BTW.
September 9th, 2006 at 1:31 pmi guess you’re not reading my posts correctly, straw man. i’m not talking about kids at home watching tv in their living rooms.
September 9th, 2006 at 1:43 pm“… He said, She said …”
This is just classic swiftboating. There is nothing he said she said when the people making the movie admitted some scenes never actually happened, but were dramatization of the event. The mixing of drama with facts and packaging it as a “docudrama” and trying to feed it as fact to high students is not right.
The uproar of the democrat asking Disney to pull the movie is just to exercise their rights to monitor public airwave. There is no differences from the religious rights to monitor the public airwave.
Personally, I would have no problem if Disney distribute it through its paid channels or the theatre as a drama. However, if they say that it is based on the 911 commission report and trauncing one of the chairs as a consultant, but when in fact the movie contradicts with the report itself then I think Clinton should sue Disney.
Keep up the good work.
September 9th, 2006 at 1:44 pmHow long did they shop around til they found the “RIGHT MINDED SECURITY CONSULANTS”. You know, like, you know the ones who agreed with their mind set.
September 9th, 2006 at 1:49 pm“Left is more afraid of Libertarians…”
if by ‘afraid’ you mean ‘feels sorry for,’ then yes, what you say is true.
September 9th, 2006 at 1:51 pmby the way, what do you libertarians do to make yourselves feel relevant?
Bones,
Beware, the secret police is coming for you!
Lol!
Comment by Popeye — September 9, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
And what is exactly funny about that Poopeye? Did you ever think you would live to see the day in the United States, when citizens disappear without a trace, get sent to unknown locations to be tortured?
September 9th, 2006 at 1:51 pmDoes anyone have a complete list of ABC sponsors? Thanks
September 9th, 2006 at 1:56 pmRather interesting video on YouTube right now
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JuH1xwLUnbg
September 9th, 2006 at 2:07 pmMichelle – go here
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/6/123212/7371
September 9th, 2006 at 2:15 pmI say David Cunningham is a black, Jewish, gay, cross dressing, child molesting, axe murdering, drug dealing, heroin shooting, terrorist who also molests kids and cheats on his wife. Let him deny it — if he does, I’ll simply call it a “he said, he said situation.”
The problem with “we have our experts and he has his” or “he said, she said” is that it presumes both sides are equally credible — when one side is clearly incorrect as a matter of FACT, that’s outside the realm of “he said, she said” opinionating.
As to the notion that everyone should watch it, then make a judgment, one glaring problem is that the producers and ABC are advertising and marketing The Path to 9-11 as FACT when it’s not. They are not claiming it’s fiction or a dramatization that different viewers can perceive differently. In addition, if the producers and network were intellectually honest about their point of view they wouldn’t have allowed ONLY CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS to pre-screen their film — the clearly are interested in the views of only one side.
September 9th, 2006 at 2:20 pmThis lists Disney holdings and companies
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/disney.asp
September 9th, 2006 at 2:24 pmClinton’s own words, his own audio, his own voice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvo2lQe81xk&eurl=
Ouch.
Face Bubba, you blew it. 8 years on the job.
1993 WTC attack and you did nothing.
1998 Two embassy bombings killing 224 people and you did nothing
1999 USS Cole and you did nothing
Khobar Towers and you did nothing.
You had Bin Laden 3 times in your cross hairs and your administration did nothing.
9/11 happens with Bush on the job for 8 months and liberals scream it’s his fault…what the hell am I missing here?
September 9th, 2006 at 2:26 pmConservative commentators were not the only ones to pre screen this movie so give it a rest.
Secondly, look at Robert Iger’s political donations the last 10 years.
94% of them to Democrats.
6% to Republicans and those two Republicans were Chuck Hagel and Arlen Specter…two RINOS….just go to OpenSecrets.org and type in Iger’s name and it will show you all the donations to Hillary, Feinstein, Leahy, etc, etc
You guys are barking up the wrong tree. Your boy blew it and thousands of Americans died as a result.
September 9th, 2006 at 2:29 pm“You had Bin Laden 3 times in your cross hairs and your administration did nothing.”
Don’t you guys get tired of regurgitating that lie, Jim?
I know I’m tired of asking for proof of it, so, you gotta be tired of spewing it.
September 9th, 2006 at 2:31 pmAnAmerican…where is it a lie? Several CIA sources have said the same thing over and over….sorry, but Bubba has lied to me as an American so many times he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt anymore. Didn’t have sex, didn’t inhale, didn’t know her, didn’t sexually harass her, “will have the most ethical administration in history”, blah, blah, blah. Sorry, he has no credibility with me. The CIA agents that said this happened, do.
Great cartoon for you here.
http://home.earthlink.net/~srsejda/Clinton_ABC.jpg
Now, are you and the Clintonistas going to try and shut down YouTube now too….did you look at the videos I linked…if they are lies then why did they come DIRECTLY from his MOUTH and from the video of the CIA.
Clinton blew it and even his own words and video will not change you liberals minds because you hate Bush with everything in your soul….it’s all about anti Bush, nothing about finding the truth.
September 9th, 2006 at 2:38 pmIt’ll stop being a lie as soon as you can offer some substantial proof it actually happened.
Hell, I’ll even make it easy on you, just quote the relevant sections of the 911 commission report.
September 9th, 2006 at 2:40 pmTo say that reasonable people should watch this movie and draw their own conclusions makes it sound like it has a thesis backed up by facts.
For instance, maybe you want to argue that cutting taxes on the rich makes poor people better off because the wealth trickles down. So you cite some studies and historical data to make that point. People can absorb that argument, provide arguments to the contrary, or dismiss them as post-hoc-ergo-propter hoc fallacies. You can dispute the relevance of the facts (maybe the sample wasn’t broad enough or they forgot to count homeless people, or whatever), but you don’t dispute the facts themselves.
The argument here is a thesis backed up by…what’s the opposite of facts? Fiction doesn’t seem malicious enough. Rather than find facts to back up their thesis, they just made sh1t up. Richard Miniter seems to think Clinton bears a lot of responsbility for 9/11, and that you could make the point without fabricating evidence. That sounds like [note: I haven't read his writing, so I don't know if he made up his facts too] someone I could listen to and “make up my own mind” on.
Conservatives hate moral relativism, but they want all opinions to be equally valued. Those based on science and research counted the same as those based on faith and ideology.
September 9th, 2006 at 2:46 pmso why is bush quoting and showing OBL tapes? Why is he repeating OBL talking points and not capturing him? Why did he dismantle the team that was supposed to hunt him down? It’s been almost 5 years and OBL is still on the lose. Feel Safer?
September 9th, 2006 at 2:51 pm….he said. she said….
Whatever Cunningham, there are only ONE set of FACTS.
September 9th, 2006 at 2:56 pmThanks Jules
September 9th, 2006 at 3:07 pmTime to start the boycott, don’t you think?! Let’s make it permanent, too. A lesson for others…a deterrent against political lies.
BTW — kinda sad about Disney. They used to be very creative, but they even forgot how to do their own animation. Threw away a wonderful tradition and history. I also admire the early Disney animators…but those were different people in a different time. Sad.
September 9th, 2006 at 3:30 pmit’s all about anti Bush, nothing about finding the truth.
Comment by Jim — September 9, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
No Jim, if Clinton got a hummer, no one cared, evidently except you. If Bush taps your phone, searches your house and computer, nabs your Dad and sends him to Poland to be tortured, kills innocent Muslims whose family members were neytral on terrorism but now because the US blew up the kids are rampant terrorists, spends the US Treasury into the hole to the tune of trillions of dollars, tortures and murders people violating Geneva so my kid gets tortured and murdered in a future war, gives his buddies trillions in govt contracts, causes increases in gas to $3+ dollars a gallon, home haeting oil and electricity to double, destroys the enviornment and eliminates EPA rules so you don’t get sick eating the food or drinking the tap water…..and on and on. So it’s not about HATING BUSH, it is about the truth. The truth is Bush is a major league screwup and we all knew it from past performance, but self righteous know-it-alls just knew better and now that everything is screwed and bush’s response is “I’m leaving this mess to a future president to fix” we’re screwed and the republofascists won’t admit Bush screwed things up or work on a plan to FIX things because that would admit they were wrong to begin with. So if you’re looking for the people who won’t acknowledge the “truth” i suggest you look no further that the neo-nazis, sorry cons.
September 9th, 2006 at 3:41 pm#99 – First you of course remember your republican cry during Clinton’s presidency – “NO WAR FFOR MONICA”, and of course you remember criticizing Bill for “bombing an aspirin factory”, and of course the recent disclosures that Clinton asked for anti-terrorism laws out of a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS who voted no.
You’ll also remeber the foiled Millenium Bomb plot and that clinton foiledthe first WTC bombing, captured all the terrorists and prosecuted them with a conviction average of 250 years for each meaning they will never be released.
Along with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, the Embassy Bombing is one of the major anti-American terrorist attacks that preceded the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Capture, prosecution, deaths of perpetrators
The criminal investigation ended with three hundred counts against the defendants. These counts included the utilization of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against American targets, conspiracy to kill officers and employees of the U.S. government, conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals, and conspiracy to destroy U.S. buildings by the use of explosives. Defendants included:
Wadih El-Hage, the leader of the East African al Qaeda cell who arranged for the facilitation and delivery of false travel documents.
Mohammed Odeh, a technical advisor to al Qaeda operatives responsible for carrying out the bombings.
Mohamed Al-Owhali, an expert in explosives, hijacking and bombings who asked bin Laden for an assignment to execute jihad and personally threw stun grenades in an effort to force the embassy guard to allow him entry into the parking garage.
Khalfan Khamis Mohammed, who purchased the white Suzuki used to transport the components of the bomb, rented the house in Tanzania which operated as a bomb factory, helped put the bomb together, and loaded the bomb into the truck.
In a federal trial in New York City that ended in June 2001, Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali, Mohammed Odeh, Wadih el Hage, and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed were convicted of perpetrating the Nairobi bombing and were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Two Egyptian citizens, Ibrahim Hussein Abdel Hadi Eidarous and Adel Mohanned Abdul Almagid Bary, whose fingerprints were allegedly found on the letters claiming responsibility for the bombings, were arrested in London in 1999 by Scotland Yard at the request of the U.S. They were extradited and jailed.
Other alleged conspirators in custody include Khalid al-Fawwaz, a Saudi dissident who had been living in London since 1994. Al-Fawwaz was accused by the U.S. of helping Osama bin Laden to coordinate the attacks, and was ordered to be extradited. He denied the charges and remains in custody in London pending an appeal.[7],[8].
Anas Al-Liby was thought to have been captured in Afghanistan Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani is believed to have been captured in Pakistan and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, whose brother was one of the suicide bombers, and who helped another of the bombers to get a Yemeni passport, is currently in the custody of the U.S. at an undisclosed location.
Mohammed Atef, indicted on November 4, 1998 for his role in orchestrating the attacks, was later reported killed by U.S. bombs during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.
So Jimbo doesn’t quite sound like you stated…what the hell am I missing here?
September 9th, 2006 at 3:55 pmOh and Jim I forgot Bill Clinton created the office of US Counter terrorism, the office that richard Clarke held, you know the Richard Clarke that Condi Rice demoted.
“When the administration took office, Condoleezza Rice kept Clarke on staff. But she downgraded his position so that as national counterterrorism coordinator he no longer reported directly to Cabinet-level officials.”
Yeah it wasn’t Bush’s fault. Downgraded the Counterterrorism Czar, never met even ONCE to discuss terrorism.
September 9th, 2006 at 4:07 pmIt really makes me wonder what Repubs are holding over the heads of the CEO’s at ABC? Maybe promises made if they got re-elected, special favors? If Mr. Iger is a Democrat why would he jeopardize everything before an important election? If he was a Democrat he would want the truth about the Bush administration and the actual facts leading up to 9/11 fabricated? Also, if he was a fair man and a responsible citizen he would want an open dialogue to find out what exactly did go wrong? I don’t buy it and I am beginning to smell something more that his refusal to at least cancel the movie or shelf it for a time when the American public are given the truth about 9/11. I think it is all about $$$$ and who has the most money to win these elections. The Repubs are running for their lives. Especially Bush. Bush has alot to lose. He most definately will be impeached if the Democrats get in control…as it should be. But remember folks, they have alot of cash flow. If people want Dems to stop the insanity, they better put their money where their mouths are. Evidently it worked to get ABC to drop it’s family values.
September 9th, 2006 at 4:10 pmTomorrow, unless ABC is forced to cancel the phony docudrama, the GOP funded propaganda part 1 gets shown, so everybody take your kids to some other activity and NOT watch it! If viewership can be kept low, then the whole thing will turn into a financial fiasco for ABC, and the CEO of Disney fired for trying to foist baloney onto Americans! Also watch the football games on Monday, or take the kids to see a movie, or go out to dinner, but do NOT watch that ABC docudrama!
September 9th, 2006 at 4:27 pmI hope the movie also deals with the full history of the WTC.
I hope people will consider that while they blame Bill Clinton and his distractions for his failure to capture Osama. Perhaps they need to take a long hard look at the Reagan-Bush Sr. years? Perhaps a lil scandal called Iran-Contra? Republicans have a long history of shaking hands with evil. The vulnerbility of the WTC was documented in the 80’s. If our government was not so corrupt during the Reagan years perhaps our security and the security of the WTC would have been once again the most important issue?
January 4, 1984: Alleged Terrorist Plot to Bomb WTC Uncovered The New York Port Authority, which owns the World Trade Center, is aware of terrorism occurring around the world and that the WTC is vulnerable to attack. It has therefore created the Terrorist Intelligence Unit within its police department, headed by Detective Sergeant Peter Caram, to gather information about terrorist groups and assess the vulnerability of its numerous facilities to attack. On this day, Caram writes a memo to the assistant superintendent of the Port Authority Police Department, reporting that the FBI has uncovered a terrorist threat: Two supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini are allegedly planning to bomb the WTC in the near future. Although the attack never occurs, this is the first of numerous occasions during the 1980s where the WTC is considered a potential target for a terrorist attack. [Caram, 2001, pp. 4-5; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]
Entity Tags: Peter Caram, World Trade Center
January 17, 1984: Port Authority Terrorist Intelligence Unit Issues Report on WTC Security Detective Sergeant Peter Caram, the head of the New York Port Authority’s Terrorist Intelligence Unit, has been directed by the assistant superintendent of the Port Authority Police Department to compile a report on the vulnerability of the WTC to a terrorist attack. Having previously worked at the WTC Command, Caram has exclusive knowledge of some of the center’s security weaknesses. On this day he issues his four-page report, titled “Terrorist Threat and Targeting Assessment: World Trade Center.†It looks at the reasoning behind why the WTC might be singled out for attack, and identifies three areas of particular vulnerability: the perimeter of the WTC complex, the truck dock entrance, and the subgrade area (the lower floors below ground level). Caram specifically mentions that terrorists could use a car bomb in the subgrade area—a situation similar to what occurs in the 1993 bombing (see February 26, 1993). [New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004; Caram, 2001, pp. 5, 84-85] This is the first of several reports during the 1980s, identifying the WTC as a potential terrorist target.
Entity Tags: World Trade Center, Peter Caram
Early 1984: Port Authority Establishes Office of Special Planning Peter Goldmark, the executive director of the New York Port Authority, is concerned that, in light of terrorist attacks occurring around the world (see April 18-October 23, 1983), Port Authority facilities, including the World Trade Center, could become terrorist targets. [Associated Press, 9/28/2005; New York Times, 10/27/2005] He therefore creates a unit called the Office of Special Planning (OSP) to evaluate the vulnerabilities of all Port Authority facilities and present recommendations to minimize the risks of attack. The OSP is staffed by Port Authority police and civilian workers, and is headed by Edward O’Sullivan, who has experience in counter-terrorism from earlier careers in the Navy and Marine Corps. In carrying out its work, the OSP will consult with such US agencies as the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, NSA, and Defense Department. It will also consult with security officials from other countries that have gained expertise in combating terrorism, such as England, France, Italy, and Israel. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 226; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004] According to Peter Caram, head of the Port Authority’s Terrorist Intelligence Unit, the OSP will develop “an expertise unmatched in the United States.†[Caram, 2001, pp. 12] In 1985 it will issue a report called “Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center†(see November 1985). [New York Court of Appeals, 2/16/1999] It will exist until 1987. [Village Voice, 1/5/2000]
Entity Tags: New York Port Authority, Office of Special Planning, Peter Goldmark
(Between Early 1984 and October 1985): Office of Special Planning Studies Vulnerability of WTC to Terrorist Attack The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks (see Early 1984), spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability. According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton, when Edward O’Sullivan, head of the OSP, looks at WTC security, he finds “one vulnerability after another. Explosive charges could be placed at key locations in the power system. Chemical or biological agents could be dropped into the coolant system. The Hudson River water intake could be blown up. Someone might even try to infiltrate the large and vulnerable subterranean realms of the World Trade Center site.†In particular, “There was no control at all over access to the underground, two-thousand-car parking garage.†However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.†He is told there is “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.†[New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004; Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227] The OSP will issue its report called “Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center†late in 1985 (see November 1985).
Entity Tags: Office of Special Planning, Leslie Robertson, Edward O’Sullivan, World Trade Center
July 1985: Report Outlines Terrorism Threat to WTC While the Office of Special Planning is still working on its report about the vulnerability of the WTC to terrorist attack, the New York Port Authority has hired security consultant Charles Schnabolk to also review the center’s security systems. This month his secret report, titled “Terrorism Threat Perspective and Proposed Response for the World Trade Center†is released. It sets out four levels of possible terrorism against the center, and gives examples of each: “(1) PREDICTABLE—Bomb threats; (2) PROBABLE—Bombing attempts, computer crime; (3) POSSIBLE—Hostage taking; (4) CATASTROPHIC—Aerial bombing, chemical agents in water supply or air conditioning (caused by agents of a foreign government or a programmed suicide).†Similar to other reports in the mid-1980s, it also warns that the WTC “is highly vulnerable through the parking lot.†[UExpress (.com), 10/12/2001; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]
Entity Tags: World Trade Center, Charles Schnabolk
November 1985: Office of Special Planning Report Calls WTC a ‘Most Attractive Terrorist Target’ After assessing the security of New York Port Authority facilities, the Office of Special Planning (OSP), the Port Authority’s own antiterrorist task force, releases a report called “Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center.†For security purposes, only seven copies are made, being hand-delivered and signed for by its various recipients, including the executive director of the Port Authority, the superintendent of the Port Authority Police, and the director of the World Trade Department. [New York Court of Appeals, 2/16/1999; Village Voice, 1/5/2000] Because of the WTC’s visibility, symbolic value, and it being immediately recognizable to people from around the world, the report concludes that the center is a “most attractive terrorist target.†[New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004] The report, which is about 150 pages long, lists various possible methods of attacking the center. [New York Court of Appeals, 2/16/1999; Caram, 2001, pp. 103] One of these is that a “time bomb-laden vehicle could be driven into the WTC and parked in the public parking area. … At a predetermined time, the bomb could be exploded in the basement.†[Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227] As a Senate Committee Report will find in August 1993, “The specifics of the February 26, 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center garage were almost identical to those envisioned in the [OSP] report.†[New York Court of Appeals, 2/16/1999] Due to the Port Authority’s failure to adequately implement the OSP’s recommendations, the report will be crucial evidence in a successful civil trial against it in October 2005, charging negligence in failing to prevent the 1993 bombing. [Bloomberg, 10/26/2005; New York Times, 10/27/2005; New York Times, 2/18/2006] As of mid-2006, the other possible methods of attacking the WTC listed in the report remain undisclosed.
Entity Tags: World Trade Department, World Trade Center, New York Port Authority, Office of Special Planning
(Mid-1986): Report Rates Vulnerability of Public Areas of WTC to Terrorist Attack as ‘Very High’ Following the release of the Office of Special Planning’s (OSP) report, which called the WTC a “most attractive terrorist target†(see November 1985), the New York Port Authority, which owns the center, seeks a second opinion on the OSP’s recommendations. At a cost of approximately $100,000, it hires the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to review the general security of the WTC. SAIC states in its report that the attractiveness of the WTC’s public areas to terrorists is “very high.†Like the OSP, SAIC pays particular attention to the underground levels of the center and describes a possible attack scenario much like what occurs in the 1993 bombing. [Caram, 2001, pp. 105-106; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004]
Entity Tags: World Trade Center, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), New York Port Authority
1991: Burns and Roe Securacom Does Report on WTC Security; Told Center Is Terrorist Target During the mid-1980s, a series of reports described the vulnerability of the World Trade Center to terrorist attack (see July 1985)(see November 1985)(see (Mid-1986)). Now, because of the increased risk of terrorism against the US due to the Gulf War, the New York Port Authority hires private security company Burns and Roe Securacom to prepare a further report, and tells them that the WTC is a terrorist target. Unlike previous investigators, Burns and Roe Securacom finds that the center’s shopping and pedestrian areas, rather than the underground parking garage, are the most likely targets. [New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004; New York Times, 10/27/2005] After separating from Burns and Roe, Securacom (later called Stratesec) will become one of a number of firms involved in providing security at the WTC, right up to the day of 9/11 (see October 1996). [Progressive Populist, 3/1/2003]
Entity Tags: Burns and Roe Securacom, New York Port Authority, World Trade Center
Republicans have no conscience nor do they take responsibility for their actions. Michael Reagan calls Clinton a sociopath, perhaps he needs to concentrate on his father and the Bush administration. It has been scandal after scandal with these freaks. I am starting to believe they do not care about the interest or security of the USA as long as they fill their pockets. They would sell their mothers down the river.. so to speak…for a quick buck.
September 9th, 2006 at 4:38 pmi want to see the film and make my own opinion. why do people who are in the political arena get to decide what i watch and do not watch. there are tons of contraversial films out there, but it is the responsibility of the viewer to decide what to take and what to leave behind. we are getting a sheet pulled over our heads when people begin to tell us what can not be shown. as a citizen of a free society this scares me. I love the clintons, but they of all people should know that censuring art forms, and trying to controll networks is going to get them in heaps of trouble when it comes time for an election for Hillary. come on guys, wise up.
September 9th, 2006 at 4:48 pmSo, where were all of you when “Farenheit 9/11″ was released? That was billed as an accurate portrayal of events when actually it’s all opinion and left-sided spin. Why didn’t everyone bitch and moan then? You’re all pissed now because of this movie and it’s for one reason and one reason only….the truth hurts.
Most of you here need to get a life and move on. Bush IS President, like it or not, and you’re not going to change it. Deal with it. EVERY President has his shortcomings. Clinton, Bush 1, Carter, Reagan…none were perfect. Geez, get a life and get over it.
September 9th, 2006 at 5:32 pmMY letter to ABC:
Oh, it’s not politically motivated, it’s a dramatization! Wink, wink. And in this great country you have every right to make up stories that you think will hike your ratings. Difference is, you’re messing with a raw nerve here, bucko.
In my circles, the TRUTH, especially regarding 9/11, would have been an infinitely more compelling story. And how much more productive would it have been to, for instance, address the countless issues raised in the film “Loose Change”?
This film is nothing more than a jarringly transparent and bone-chilling glimpse into the very soul of ABC/Disney. Will you stop at NOTHING?
Taking us ALL for fools will be your undoing…
September 9th, 2006 at 6:17 pmA problem is that conservatives have rallied and been successful, for years, in getting things pulled that they disagreed with. They got the Reagan miniseries pulled because it also presented non factual information. So now liberals have the same right, to lobby against something of this nature.
Besides that, airing a non factual accouting of 9/11 on the anniversary is not appropriate. People will expect to see news coverage replayed, and factual information discussed, with the correct facts included, about the events of that day.
Not a murky ‘docudrama’ that distorts the facts. If ABC wants to air it another day, and simply present it as a work of fiction, then I honestly have no problem, as long as the inaccuracies are pointed out, or perhaps they could air a discussion panel before or after.
Distorting the facts surrounding the Clinton adminstration handling of this is not what I consider to be an appropriate tribute for the day.
September 9th, 2006 at 6:44 pmIt also disrespects the people who suffered because of and during 9/11 directly, those who lost loved ones, to not tell the correct facts on the anniversary about this horrendous episode of American history.
Hey, Judd, congratulations on your appearance on “Countdown” with Keith Olbermann! It was nice for Wayne and I to put a ‘face’ to the writing that we enjoy. Keep up the good work!
September 9th, 2006 at 7:00 pmYou mean this face:
September 9th, 2006 at 7:45 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/about
D’oh! Honestly, I never looked there before, fly-man. Is MY face red! (Actually, it is, I got a sunburn at the Mets game today.)
September 9th, 2006 at 7:53 pmI’m not a Republican…but good try. I’m a registered independent that left both parties long ago.
As for Iger …even questioning if he is a Democrat is laughable. Money talks…take a look at his donations at the link below
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=iger&txtState=CA&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&Order=N
September 9th, 2006 at 8:11 pmwe need to email the director. It would be good for him to have his email tied up by our complaints.
September 9th, 2006 at 8:14 pmHmmm, interesting, that a screenwriter (who has only worked on shlocky pics – so bad that his wife anonymously wrote the only positive – an embarassingly odd ultra effusive gush- comment on the film in a blog as “ysteb” from Camino CA)) and a director (with little credentials) should believe that they have equal access to CIA information as a former President of the United States. I would love to see a libel lawsuit, a defamation lawsuit, etc. and force them to provide (under perjury penalty) their sourcing background for the film. Two FBI consultants quit the film (one based on the original script, and the second once production was under way) for gross inaccuracies in the production.
September 9th, 2006 at 8:27 pmTherein lies the problem – Americans believe what they see on the television as truth. The vast majority do not dig deeper to find if there is any reality to what they are being spoon fed.
If this propaganda is shown in my childs class she has my permission to walk out of the classroom!!
Comment by Jules — September 9, 2006 @ 11:54 am
And I have a classic example of this.
In 2004, Republican candidate for Virginia governer Jerry Kilgore started running ads claiming that Democratic candidate Tim Kaine made fun of his accent in a radio ad (Kilgore is from Southwest Virginia).
Curious about what exactly Kaine had said that upset Kilgore, I figured Kilgore would have something to say about this in the Press Release section of his web site. Sure enough, he did.
Problem is, he conveniently neglected to post Kaine’s comments that supposedly poked fun at his accent. Not even a link to the comments. What he did post, however, were comments from 2 people, the Kilgore press secretary and Larry Sabato, stating how terrible it was for Kaine to stoop so low and poke fun at the way Kilgore talked.
And guess what? The local Republican folks around here bought it. From people interviewed in the local paper to Letters to the Editor, they slammed Kaine.
So where did I find the comments Kilgore was bitching about? Yep…on Kaine’s web site. He addressed this “issue” as well, posted the comments he made, and said there was nothing defammatory about them. What was Kaine’s “crime”? Making a comment on the radio that it was a shame that Kilgore, instead of personally speaking in his own radio ads, got someone else to do the voiceover in the ads.
See, many people in the area where I live don’t take kindly to outsiders making fun of their southern drawl. Kilgore knew this, and created what we now call a strawman argument. And as Jules mentions, the ignorant ones around her bought it and didn’t bother checking to see what Kaine had actually said.
September 9th, 2006 at 8:30 pmCunningham will be starring in a new ABC fall program with a working title of Desparate Neocons…
September 9th, 2006 at 8:45 pmCunningham will be starring in a new ABC fall program with a working title of Desparate Neocons…
September 9th, 2006 at 8:45 pmDesparate Neocons
Is that “Disparate Neocons,” or “Desperate Neocons?”
Actually, works either way.
September 9th, 2006 at 9:01 pmSo, where were all of you when “Farenheit 9/11″ was released? That was billed as an accurate portrayal of events when actually it’s all opinion and left-sided spin. Why didn’t everyone bitch and moan then? You’re all pissed now because of this movie and it’s for one reason and one reason only….the truth hurts.
Comment by Guest — September 9, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
Nice try, Bud. F-9/11 was not a “portrayal.” As I recall it was filled with video clips of actual events. You know, like the clip of Bush telling an audience of his supporters that his base was made up of the “haves” and the “have mores.” And video of Bush sitting in that Florida classroom for 7 minutes, with a stupid blank look on his face, while America was under attack. No actors involved.
I’ll answer your question about where everyone was back then with another question: where the hell was Disney, and why didn’t they want to distribute F-9/11? Oh yeah…political reasons. They sure are hell-bent on getting “The Path to 9/11″ aired on network TV.
September 9th, 2006 at 9:06 pmOh, and Guest, where the hell were the Republicans in Congress who turned down Clinton’s requests to increase terrorist tracking, including expanding the NSA wiretapping program (legally, unlike Bush)?
Oh, that’s right. They fought him and turned him down.
The truth does hurt, doesn’t it?
September 9th, 2006 at 9:13 pmMore truth hurts, Guest:
This travesty of a film, which is being fronted by only the Republican 9/11 Commission co-chair Thomas Kean (who’s now making money off that role as paid consultant on this project), was initiated by Loren and David Cunningham and their right-wing Christian missionary group (YWAM) in tandem with its auxiliary arm, The Film Institute, and promoted by uber-wingnut David Horowitz. The Center for Popular Culture, Horowitz’s LA-based group, announced two years ago that it would launch a widespread PR campaign to blame Bill Clinton for the 9/11 attacks…
The Center for the Study of Popular Culture, in Los Angeles, has begun a PR campaign to pin the blame of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the Clinton Administration.
The Center has mailed copies of David Horowitz’s new pamphlet entitled “How the Left Undermined America’s Security,” to about 1,500 media outlets on Feb. 19. Horowitz is president of the Center.
The 46-page pamphlet charges that the U.S. national security interests were undermined by the left, leading to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.
You can find more at firedoglake.com.
September 9th, 2006 at 9:16 pmWhere to begin, where to begin …
The point here, dear conservative posters, is that people who have seen the film have pointed out fabrications about the Clinton administration; members of the Clinton administration who were involved in the very actions about which the fictitious scenes were written have denied the accuracy of those scenes; those same Clinton administration officials have been denied advance copies of the film, while right-wing commentators like Rush Limbaugh have been given advance copies, and have been promoting the film AND commenting on the very scenes which have been challenged; originally, Scholastic, Inc., was planning to distribute study guides to 100,000 teachers nationwide, thereby pushing this right-wing propaganda in OUR KIDS’ SCHOOLS; Richard Cressey, who worked in BOTH the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, has pointed out that the challenged scenes are, indeed, completely made up; the film is being advertised as a dramatization of the events detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report, yet the challenged scenes are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission Report itself; any number of conservative commentators, including Bill Bennett, have said that the inaccurate scenes should be removed; and most people won’t have time to view the film over 2 nights, and then do exhaustive research to determine which scenes are accurate, or at least true to the 9/11 Commission Report, and which scenes are fabricated.
Let’s see, have I left any thing out? Oh, yeah – that 2 FBI agents hired to consult on the film quit because they believed it was inaccurate.
So, I’d say that ABC screwed up big time.
The funny thing is, you all say we should watch the film and decide for ourselves whether or not its accurate – as if you’d really watch the film and then concede that Clinton, Clarke, Albright, Berger, Cressey, etc., are right and the film was inaccurate or deceptive. I’ve got $20.00 that says not a single conservative (or “libertarian”) poster in this thread will make that concession after watching the film.
September 9th, 2006 at 9:19 pmOh, and another thing, dear conservatives and/or libertarians (and I get tired of having to point this out, over and over again): The First Amendment is about GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP, nothing more, nothing less. Private people CAN’T violate any one else’s First Amendment rights.
If THE GOVERNMENT tried to stop ABC from airing “Path to 9/11,” there would be a major First Amendment issue (though, as several posters pointed out yesterday, the government has considerable latitude in regulating broadcast television and radio, so First Amendment rights are at their lowest ebb in that context; nonetheless, I happen to believe the First Amendment would not allow the government to prevent ABC from airing the film).
If PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS protest against ABC and/or its sponsors, those private individuals are doing precisely what the First Amendment contemplates – they’re exercising THEIR First Amendment rights. See, it’s a two way street: The First Amendment allows you to say whatever you like, but it doesn’t protect you from OTHER PEOPLE’S OPINIONS.
Seriously, you guys must understand this, right? This isn’t rocket science folks…
September 9th, 2006 at 9:26 pmthe bottom line is this is propaganda. if they’re going to fabricate parts of the story but not mention all the u.s. cash flowing to the mujahadeen in the 80’s, then it is propaganda. when they’re not showing the whole ‘path to 9/11′ just the parts of the ‘path’ they choose, then it’s propaganda. when specific people are brought in to make it and certain people are allowed to see it and other people are not, then it’s propaganda.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:53 pm“You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.”
September 9th, 2006 at 11:16 pm— Author Unknown
Just like the Right Wingers…you people think you can shut down this countries freedoms. I find this all VERY funny…really…don’t stop…you’re making me laugh. I doubt this will make the comments, but thought I’d give it a shot anyway…I have seen Path and I can see how President Clinton would be upset. I understand his desire to not have it shown…truly, no kidding here…not because it is false or fictionalized…rather because it shows a very embarrassing portion of his presidency. Maybe the filmmakers should have seen this coming…not sure why they didn’t, but all these people who have NEVER seen it and are commenting make me laugh.
All the threats and innuendoes are ridiculous. If ABC is going to face law suits then let them…they’re a big company…they can handle it. Still you people make me laugh because you are trying to shut down some of the basic tenants of our society. E.g. freedom of speech, journalistic freedoms, oh yes, the democratic process, etc…YOU MAKE ME LAUGH!
The funniest part? Now, this will be the most watched television show of all time! All because you people. “You people?†You ask…you know whom you are, the individuals that get most or all of your talking points from other liberal blogs and boards…like sheep to the slaughter. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of those boards are run by Disney marketing or right-wingers! FUNNY!
Please, don’t stop…I can’t find humor on the Internet like this anywhere. I mean, how funny is it going to be when I sit back with my popcorn and turn on the television tomorrow night and think, “America, what a great place…whine as they might…left or right…they can’t stop us!†America the beautiful. Shoot, I think Disney should have put this thing in theaters, they probably could have beat Pirates of the Caribbean 2 at the boxoffice! LMAO!!!
September 10th, 2006 at 12:05 amWC – “The Reagans” was not cancelled. It was simply moved to a different network and aired with it’s original script. I didn’t agree with how the Reagans were portrayed, but it is a free speech issue. But then again, I suppose that would depend on what the meaning of the word “is” is…
EyeSawPath – I agree. This whole website could be a wonderful sitcom. The laughs would never end. This is better than Comedy Central.
Are your lives really that pathetic where you feel the need to send emails and letters to ABC? Don’t forget…the letter you compose today will come directly from the tree you were hugging yesterday.
Again folks, get a life…
September 10th, 2006 at 12:56 amWC – “The Reagans†was not cancelled. It was simply moved to a different network and aired with it’s original script. I didn’t agree with how the Reagans were portrayed, but it is a free speech issue.Again folks, get a life…
Comment by Guest — September 10, 2006 @ 12:56 am
IT IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. The First Amendment ONLY applies to the government stifling speech. If you want to protest free speech issues, then I guess you’ll be protesting Bush Free Speech Zones, arresting people from government evets wearing the “wrong” tshirts, barring people from government events because of bumper stickers on their cars in the parking lot, etc.
Airing defamatory media that adversley effects people’s reputations is NOT protected. First ABC put out a statement that this “docudrama” is a “true story based on the findings of the 9-11 Commision, and they know they are lying since every 9-11 Commisioner has written ABC/Disney and told them the film is a lie. Second, there is no government suppression of speech, people are pressuring ABC to prevent the showing, and since you’re a free speech proponent, then you are in full support of their right to free speech to do this.
Guest, get a consitent position and re-read the litigation on the First Amendment.
September 10th, 2006 at 7:24 amWC – “The Reagans†was not cancelled. It was simply moved to a different network and aired with it’s original script.
Comment by Guest — September 10, 2006 @ 12:56 am
So the republicans wanted “The Reagans” cancelled. So because there was controversy and potential liability, the film was moved off the “public” airwaves, where defamatory speech is illegal and moved it to a “private” cable channel where “public” airwaves laws don’t apply, although tort law still applies.
September 10th, 2006 at 7:32 amBones (the REAL bones) – thanks for pointing out the private action/government action distinction YET AGAIN to these Republican posters. Jesus, I get soo tired of having to state the obvious.
I don’t think the government should interfere with a broadcast network airing this program because, although First Amendment rights are limited on public airwaves, they are not non-existent. Still, the issue here is whether private people protest against ABC – a perfectly appropriate use of OUR First Amendment rights.
It is funny, though, how conservatives “get religion” on the Bill of Rights as soon as they fell like their rights are threatened. As the old saying goes, “What do you call a conservative who’s been arrested? A liberal.”
September 10th, 2006 at 4:58 pmComrades Bravo!
These traitors at ABC are betrayers of our new mother land. Where I come from, this Robert A. Iger would be dragged through the streets in front of the tomb of our glorious leader Vladimir Lenin and shot in public. The producers, directors, writers and anyone associated with this propaganda would be picked up in the early hours of the morning by our State Security Chief Lavrenty Beria (The Black Hand) and taken to a Siberian labor camp never too be heard from again.
For many years I have been loyal to ABC and the Pravda (truth) that our Socialist Liberal ally has put forth in order to progress our ultimate goal; the decline and absolute destruction of America and the capitalist traitorous pig’s like ABC.
I ask you Mr. Robert A. Iger, “Have you no shame Sir�
Comrades, we must not give up the fight. It has taken us many years to groom you and your elected leaders.
Remember what our great leader Nikita Khrushchev said:
“ We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism ”
It’s more important now then ever before that we stand together and stay focused! We can not allow this abomination of propaganda to go forward.
We must do whatever it takes to keep this film from airing on Sunday the 10th, 2006, we only have a few hours left.
It is your duty as loyal Liberal Socialist Democrats to rise up in solidarity and put a stop to this immediately!
Senator Harry Reid, one of our courageous and distinguished Senatorial leaders from the state of Nevada, reminded the capitalist traitorous pigs at ABC of their license from the FCC. Please Senator Reid, we’re your loyal comrades in arms and begging you to use all the glorious power you possess. You must stop this film! You must push forward with an iron fist and crush this despicable display of propaganda.
If this film isn’t stopped from airing on ABC, Sunday night, I’m afraid all our efforts since the cold war and the aspirations of our great leaders from glorious years past and Nikita Khrushchev’s dreams and predictions will have been lost.
If we loose now, the great Liberal Socialist Democratic Party, we have nurtured, will decline into the ash heaps of history never too be heard from again.
You must!…. I repeat, you must contact our comrades in arms at their offices in Washington.
Now I’ve done all the work all you have to do is contact our comrades below by e-mail or call:
Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D – NY) Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
Web Form: clinton.senate.gov/contact
Reid, Harry- (D – NV) Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3542
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
Kerry, John F.- (D – MA) Class II
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2742
Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html
Landrieu, Mary L.- (D – LA) Class II
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Levin, Carl- (D – MI) Class II
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D – WV) Class II
531 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6472
Web Form: rockefeller.senate.gov/services/email.cfm
Schumer, Charles E.- (D – NY) Class III
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6542
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm
Kennedy, Edward M.- (D – MA) Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
Web Form: kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm
Feinstein, Dianne- (D – CA) Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/email.html
Leahy, Patrick J.- (D – VT) Class III
433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4242
E-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Stabenow, Debbie- (D – MI) Class I
133 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4822
Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/email.htm
Durbin, Richard- (D – IL) Class II
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2152
Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D – AR) Class III
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4843
Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html
Feingold, Russell D.- (D – WI) Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Harkin, Tom- (D – IA) Class II
731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3254
Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Bayh, Evan- (D – IN) Class III
463 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm
Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D – DE) Class II
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
E-mail: senator@biden.senate.gov
Boxer, Barbara- (D – CA) Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact
Menendez, Robert- (D – NJ) Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Nelson, Bill- (D – FL) Class I
716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5274
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Obama, Barack- (D – IL) Class III
713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2854
Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/
Byrd, Robert C.- (D – WV) Class I
311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html
Cantwell, Maria- (D – WA) Class I
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html
Conrad, Kent- (D – ND) Class I
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/webform.html
Dayton, Mark- (D – MN) Class I
123 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
Web Form: dayton.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Dodd, Christopher J.- (D – CT) Class III
September 10th, 2006 at 5:50 pm448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2823
Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130
I watched the movie. And it was great.
You know, I used to really admire Bill Clinton. And looked up to him. But when 9/11 happened, I couldn’t help but wonder “What was Clinton and Madeleine Albright doing?”
I think both of them should be held responsible for 9/11. It would be a true tragedy if they just run away with this.
September 11th, 2006 at 4:19 amI have been hearing this production being much maligned by liberal rage. I don’t blame you. You got a raw deal Three yrs. ago. first we saw Bon Jovie, then it was “bon voyagie Kerry”, and the wound has grown septic. I have noted comments on innumerable sites, which describe path to 9/11 in terms such as, “amateurish and poorly constructed.” Follow up commentary usually will say something like, “where’s that great liberal media conspiracy you conservatives so readily speak of, which you (we) say ever resigns perception of your (our) values to a marginal and dank corner (despite the fact that it is the majority in truth who are cornered and gagged).” Liberals have strayed so far from reality as to now refer to ABC as a conservative lair and tool. So now, what can one say to such cosmopolitan and educated speech? Well, it ain’t too tough now is it? In response to the described critique (”amateurish and poorly constructed, at best”). “Where is Dan Rather, and why is his career all but over, along with (like Clinton) his reputation and legacy?” In response to the question, (”where is the liberal media conspiracy conservatives speak of ?” ). “Where is Dan Rather, and why is his career over (+) ? ” In response to the implication, (”ABC is a right wing media tool”). “Where is Dan Rather, and why is his career all but over (+) ?” Has there ever been a more “amateurish or poorly constructed, (at best)” story than the one that brought down Dan ? The left must be finding their faith, because they took that story on “faith”, with no critical or reasonable logic employed (except if one applies an unsavory logic, as opposed to just merely illogic). Has there ever been a more telling tale as to media slant, than the 60 minutes tale that brought down Babble-0n (CBS-Dan) ? Now, feel free to babble on, you smarmy, divisive, disingenuous, unpatriotic, racist, traitorous, ……………….. You will continue to lose elections, and to slide into the obscurity you claim you know in your brave and defiant stance against the greater forces of this barbarian culture you so despise, and against whom you claim your secular purity through your refusal to coalesce. The beauty is, you will never know why, but you will surely know when to shut up, as you so well knew not to defend against the open assault on liberty when cultural threat and coercion revealed that its true face was far grimmer than the enemy you do dare defile (Americans). I’m of course talking about the months of murder, chaos and calamity associated with the Muhammad cartoons. I understand. These are your brethren, with whom you feel great kinship (an enemy of my enemy, if you will), though the sentiment be so ruefully unrequited, and tolerances incompatible with reality. You sure had a long time on that one (Danish cartoon incident) to show your metal, and to stand for liberty, as you do so against the rabble majority here in America, which of course is ever over represented by the detestable “conservative†media. Why I remember just a couple yrs. back. Artists in America demonstrated their reverence for Christian tradition by sculpting depictions of Christ, whittled from a piece of $#!+ (literally), and Mary was consigned to a watery roll in a bottle of p!$$ (literally), and I will not tarnish your own lustrous and bronze self cast by saying that you did not so defend Christians with willful silence in the way that you did so defend your Muslim brothers on this fore mentioned occasion. Against Christians, you defended liberty, and stated that the putrid depictions of our sacred were merely true and commendable expression, and to be more than defended, but admired. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, you defended liberty not so similarly, but with the blaring and deafening sound of crickets. Yes, you know when things truly are as you depict them, and it’s then that you know how to blend in to the American population the way al-Qaeda would do so.
September 13th, 2006 at 4:39 amRug Lover
March 21st, 2008 at 7:40 amGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:23 amSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 pmReviews Of Digital Hearing Aids
Interesting – because that is the same thing I found out last Thursday.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:32 amNutritional Supplements Weight Loss Weight Loss
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 8:51 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 12:55 pmbathroom wc
Nice Post… do you know what is the first? Maybe You can se My Post Here
March 28th, 2008 at 5:01 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 9:59 pmHealth Insurance California Health Insurance Michigan Health Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 amAuto Loans
Carroll in the past put in to get an auto loan and got approved right away , leaving aside there horrible money problems !
April 5th, 2008 at 7:23 amPirates Of The Caribbean Posters
I can’t wait to get back to Grand Cayman for my next vacation but I don’t think the current dollar exchange rate will hold up for long.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:15 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 11:24 amGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 8:26 amGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 8:54 am