| Author |
Message |
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
 Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:33 pm 9/11 TV Film Sparks Clinton Administration Outrage |
|
| Quote: | 9/11 TV Film Sparks Clinton Administration Outrage
ABC's upcoming miniseries "The Path to 9/11" is generating a firestorm among members of the Clinton administration, who claim the two-part, made-for-TV film is filled with factual errors and lies.
Three members of the administration � former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, former National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger and Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey, who now heads the Clinton Foundation � have sent letters to Walt Disney Company, parent of ABC, demanding that it re-edit or pull the five-hour film, scheduled for air Sunday and Monday nights without commercial interruption.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212743,00.html |
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:47 pm |
|
Rush was talking about this on Tuesday. What do you expect? I laugh at Clinton as he tries to hide the truth from the American people.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
teya
Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 423
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:08 pm |
|
It's fiction--that's what a "docudrama" is, a fictionalized account.
Just like that movie about Bush.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:10 pm |
|
It's actual historical fiction, based on facts and stuff from the past. Entirely different from the Bush film. It all happened.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:17 pm |
|
That's a keyword though, Fiction, if it was Non-Fction, and it had all sorts of lies and errors, I could see the outrage.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:20 pm |
|
No, no, no. Historical fiction isn't necessarily made-up. It can take real events and make a fictional yet non-fictional portrayal of this. This is fictional in the sense that it isn't taking real footage and compiling it together. It's like United 93 or World Trade Center. Fiction, in a sense, but real. This film is true, and there are no lies or anything in it. It's just the Clinton White House not wanting the truth to be shown.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:23 pm |
|
Btw, the article states,
| Quote: | | ABC has described it as a "dramatization" as opposed to a documentary. |
No "docudrama" title. It's a dramatization. It's historical fiction based on actual events, including some fictional scenes but using information compiled from in-depth research.
EDIT: I do realize that there are a few fictional scenes here, but they apparently note that at the beginning of the program, that some of it is not factual. But most of it is.
Oh, and btw. The creator of this show is Tom Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. Does this not give some validity to the program? I think it most certainly does.
I'm looking forward to it, and I know it will harp on Bush a bit for his lack of inaction for the first few months of his presidency.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:04 pm |
|
Heres one of the major things people are moaning about:
| Quote: | | As The New York Times noted, critics of the film have emphasized in particular a scene suggesting that senior Clinton administration officials declined to allow U.S. military officers, purportedly in Afghanistan with Northern Alliance leaders, to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Former National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke recently told the weblog Think Progress that, contrary to the movie's suggestion, not only were "no U.S. military or CIA personnel ... on the ground in Afghanistan" who "saw bin Laden" but also that "the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL [bin Laden]." Clarke added that "the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it." |
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:06 pm |
|
This is not what I've heard. I've heard about the bin Laden stuff in Afghanistan for a long time and believe it to be true.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:18 pm |
|
The scene is made up.
| Quote: | The main source of the controversy stems from charges of inaccuracy in the portion of the film concerned with the Clinton administration in the 1990s. Critics say the screenplay makes it appear as though blame for the events that took place on September 11, 2001 should be placed on Clinton and his cabinet. One example cited is a scene in which then National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, does not approve of the order to take out a surrounded Osama bin Laden and tells the squad in Afghanistan that they will have to do the job without official authorization and then hangs up the phone. According to Sandy Berger this never happened. There is no mention of it in the 9/11 Report, however, the Report describes a plan that was devised, rehearsed and then cancelled with Berger's concurrence. The report describes uncertainty about who actually made the decision to cancel the plan. [4] Nowasteh has admitted that the abrupt hang-up was not in the script and was improvised [5].
According to the Report, it was Clinton appointed CIA director George Tenet, not Berger, who called off the supposed "operation to assassinate UBL [Osama bin Laden]." Furthermore, from what Berger and the Report say, this operation was never in the execution stage in the first place because it was not feasible that local tribes and warlords would assist in his capture and delivery to the United States[6].
One of the 11 panel members of the 9/11 Commission, Richard Ben-Veniste [7], and Clinton appointed former Terror Czar Richard Clarke have come forward to claim that the Berger scene is fiction based on their claim:
1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.
2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was nowhere near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see Osama bin Laden.
3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it [8].
|
So as you can see the scene was added to make the movie more exciting.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm |
|
Okay then, very well. I do believe that they did something in Afghanistan, though. There is evidence of that.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:10 pm |
|
Newt Gingrich made a very excellent point today about the Dems and Farenheit 9/11, how those that saw and liked that smear film should be fine with this because it is incredibly mild in comparison, and he's right, especially considering this is historical fiction, not an attacking documentary.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:46 pm |
|
I also think Fahrenheit 9/11 is full of hundreds of errors and things taken out of context.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:52 pm |
|
It's not merely a thought. Look up "Fifty-nine deciets in Farenheit 9/11." All it is is lies, propoganda, deceit, etc. It was a smear film, nothing more.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:54 pm |
|
Thats what you get when you get to the extreme of the political spectrum
The Michael moores and Ann coulters of the world are disgusting.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:18 pm |
|
Well, there's one thing about Ann Coulter that Bill O'Reilly pointed out that sets here off from Michael Moore, and that's that she doesn't lie. She's radical and says things that are difficult to agree with and often deceives and stuff, but she doesn't lie. Michael Moore, on the other hand, lies. One need only see that atrocious film of his, as I have, to know what I'm talking about.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:25 pm |
|
I wouldn't be too up in arms to defend Ann.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
This wikipedia article seems to provide a plethora of instances where her credibility is questioned.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:27 pm |
|
Oh, I know. I'm not much of a Coulter defender. All I'm saying is that she doesn't lie. If she has an opinion she says it. She may spin and be deceitful in the way she presents her arguments, but she doesn't lie. That's the only thing (save for political ideology) that sets her apart from Michael Moore.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:30 pm |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander:_Liberal_Lies_About_the_American_Right
| Quote: | | The Daily Howler ran an extensive series of articles in July, 2002 documenting Coulter's "problem with the truth" (July 10). They checked many of her extensive footnotes to find "bald-faced dissembling" (July 11) and "misleading examples" (July 15) from the beginning to end (July 23).[2] |
Maybe if you look close enough you see that she is just like Michael moore except in book form and right wing
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:34 pm |
|
Misleading, okay. But lies? No. Again, though, I don't like her. Not only that, but I refused to, contrary to my grandpa's expectations, purchase her latest book, particularly because of her 9/11 widows deal, and I will continue to not purchase her books.
Anyways, this is off topic. I was just making a comparison that Gingrich made between this and Farenheit 9/11, not Moore and Coulter.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:39 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Misleading, okay. But lies? No. Again, though, I don't like her. Not only that, but I refused to, contrary to my grandpa's expectations, purchase her latest book, particularly because of her 9/11 widows deal, and I will continue to not purchase her books. |
One last thing, O'reilly may say she never lies. But has he and his researchers gone though every reference in her books and checked them. I very much doubt they have.
Back on topic.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:44 pm |
|
I'm not going merely by what O'Reilly says, you know. I've seen and heard Coulter numerous times on TV and radio and read some of her books. I see it first-hand that she doesn't lie. At least, if it happens it's rare and I haven't seen it.
Anyways, the overwhelming left-wing support for Moore's movie and then the disapproval of this just goes to show you not only the double standard, but unmasks the Left for what it is. Also the lack of complaints about the Bush assassination film and approval of it and disapproval of this and complaints about this goes to show you again, when both Moore's film and the staging of the assassination of the President of the United States are worse than telling the truth with some ficticious scenes in it (and noting that some of it is fictional). Not to mention the fiction doesn't involve the assassination of the President as well, but of course the debate over Death of a President isn't for here.
I'm just saying that the gross double standard is vile, especially when this is mild at best compared to those productions.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:47 pm |
|
I hate them both. Michael Moore makes all liberals seem like idiots, while Coulter routinely insults everyone who isn't as far to the right as she is.
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:04 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Newt Gingrich made a very excellent point today about the Dems and Farenheit 9/11, how those that saw and liked that smear film should be fine with this because it is incredibly mild in comparison, and he's right, especially considering this is historical fiction, not an attacking documentary. |
Bill O'Reilly just made a good point. You don't justify bad behaviour by pointing to other bad behaviour.
Fair people should want the film to be accurate, just as they would want Michael Moore movies to be fair. And fair people do oppose inaccurate things no matter what its ideology.
The Partisans in both parties however will not and will only attack things that hurt them.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:43 pm |
|
I don't think this is bad behavior. I'm not justifying bad behavior with other bad behavior, IMO, because this isn't bad behavior. I'm just making a comparison, not excuses.
Anyways, ABC caved. Figures.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
