Tell ABC the truth about 9/11 - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**Essefsbyday** · 08-10-2006, 02:08 AM

Well, in case you don't know, ABC will air a 6 hour long miniseries this Sunday and Monday called the "Path to 9/11". It is directed by a friend of Rush Limbaugh, who even makes Rush seem liberal. The worst part about this film though it how ABC is treating it. For example, ABC sent free copies of the film to conservative elected government officials if they requested, yet when Clinton and other liberals requested a copy, they were denied. Not only that, but ABC is sending out letters to 100,000 high school teachers, saying that ABC will send them free copies of the film to show in the classrooms. In addition, ABC is planning to have people be able to download it for FREE off of the iTunes music store. And believe or not, when it shows this Sunday and Monday, it will be completely commercial free.
IMHO, the movie shows how there is truly no such thing as a free media... at least in the U.S
Anyway, here's an article off of the New York Times:
Quote, originally posted by New York Times »9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 5 Days before its scheduled debut, the first major television miniseries about the Sept. 11 attacks was being criticized on Tuesday as biased and inaccurate by bloggers, terrorism experts and a member of the Sept. 11 commission, whose report makes up much of the films source material.
The six-hour miniseries, The Path to 9/11, is to be shown on ABC on Sunday and Monday. The network has been advertising the program as a historic broadcast that uses the commissions report on the 2001 attacks as its primary foundation.
On Tuesday, several liberal blogs were questioning whether ABCs version was overly critical of the Clinton administration while letting the Bush administration off easy.
In particular, some critics including Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar questioned a scene that depicts several American military officers on the ground in Afghanistan. In it, the officers, working with leaders of the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel group, move in to capture Osama bin Laden, only to allow him to escape after the mission is canceled by Clinton officials in Washington.
In a posting on ThinkProgress.org, and in a phone interview, Mr. Clarke said no military personnel or C.I.A. agents were ever in position to capture Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan, nor did the leader of the Northern Alliance get that near to his camp.
It didnt happen, Mr. Clarke said. There were no troops in Afghanistan about to snatch bin Laden. There were no C.I.A. personnel about to snatch bin Laden. Its utterly invented.
Mr. Clarke, an on-air consultant to ABC News, said he was particularly shocked by a scene in which it seemed Clinton officials simply hung up the phone on an agent awaiting orders in the field. Its 180 degrees from what happened, he said. So, yeah, I think you would have to describe that as deeply flawed.
ABC responded Tuesday with a statement saying that the miniseries was a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews.
The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, the statement continued, so its not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate.
Former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a consultant on the miniseries, defended the program, saying he thought the disputed scene was an honest representation of a number of failed efforts to capture Mr. bin Laden.
I pointed out the fact that the scene involving Afghanistan and the attempt to get bin Laden is a composite, Mr. Kean said, adding that the miniseries format required some conflation of events. But, he said, The basic fact is that on a number of occasions, they thought they might have been able to get bin Laden, and on those occasions, the plug was pulled for various reasons.
Mr. Kean conceded that some points might have been more drama than documentary. Some of the people shown there probably werent there, he said.
Online commentators seized on remarks made last week by Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host, who said The Path to 9/11 had been written and produced by a friend of mine out in California named Cyrus. From what Ive been told, Mr. Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on rushlimbaugh.com, the film really zeros in on the shortcomings of the Clinton administration.
Reached Tuesday, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the films screenwriter and one of its producers, said he had met Mr. Limbaugh on the set of 24, the serialized thriller on Fox.
I met him briefly, Mr. Nowrasteh said, declining to say if the two men were close. And thats it.
As for criticism that his movie was soft on the Bush administration, Mr. Nowrasteh said, Let the movie speak for itself.
ABC said it planned to run a disclaimer with the broadcast, reminding viewers that the movie was not a documentary.
But Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said genre confusion would not be a problem for commission members, several of whom saw part of the miniseries last week.
As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 commissions finding the way that they had, Mr. Ben-Veniste said. They gave the impression that Clinton had not given the green light to an operation that had been cleared by the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden, when, in fact, the Sept. 11 commission concluded that Mr. Clinton had.
Mr. Ben-Veniste said he did, however, approve of the casting. I like Harvey Keitel, he said of the actor who plays John ONeil, the onetime F.B.I. counterterrorism expert who died in the attacks. I liked him in Mean Streets. Im a fan.
And excerpts from the San Francisco Chronicle:
Quote, originally posted by San Francisco Chronicle »
- Airing commercial-free on ABC Sunday and Monday at 8 p.m. EDT (with a 9/11-related followup from ABC News at 10 p.m. Monday), the miniseries claims to draw from a number of sources, including the 2004 report of the 9/11 Commission, which was established to investigate government missteps that led to the attacks.
-Perhaps another guest, Thomas Kean (the former Republican governor of New Jersey, who was chairman of the 9/11 Commission and served as senior consultant for "The Path to 9/11") will defend the film's evenhandedness. Never mind how talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has interpreted the film for his listeners as demonstrating that, in the Clinton era, "we didn't do diddly-squat," while the Bush administration was subsequently "caught up and sort of hamstrung by the existing procedures" and "hasn't had a chance to change them."
-ABC responded to the brewing controversy Tuesday only by saying that its miniseries is "a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 Commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews."
BTW, if you think Fahrenheit 9/11 is the same thing, think again.
-Fahrenheit 9/11 was NEVER shown on network television (Only on cable I believe)
-Fahrenheit 9/11 was pretty much only shown in theaters and on DVD, meaning that one would have to go out of their way to see it.
-Michael Moore never sent out letters to high school teachers saying that teachers could have a copy of the movie for free to show it in their classrooms.
And one final thing

:
http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBI....html

**KinicsBonee** · 08-10-2006, 02:14 AM

This will only make me hate the extreme right as mcuh as I hated the extreme left after Fahrenheit 9/11. Michael Moore marketed his movie as a documentary, it wasn't, it was just his opinions. This sounds like a documentary. It's not, it's just the other guy's opinions. YOu want to know why the middle east is so screwed up and why we can't fix it? 60 years of mis-handling those crazy bastards. It didn't just start. We've been screwing the pooch for quite sometime now.

**AAAESLLESO** · 08-10-2006, 02:32 AM

i wont even bother with the movie, ill just buy the book.

**praboobolbode** · 08-10-2006, 03:29 AM

Agreed Mega. This is just tit for tat between Liberals and Conservatives. Its nothing new and people shouldn't get their panties in a bunch about it. Plus it never claims to be a documentary, just a miniseries.

**IdomeoreTew** · 09-09-2006, 02:54 PM

I'm going to say that this mini series will aired first in the world here in Australia tomorrow night (or is it New Zealand first??). I might not be interest to watching that but i will think about it soon.

**violetgorman** · 09-09-2006, 07:26 PM

Can't Bill Clinton just download it off iTunes too lol??? Why is it such a big deal that they didn't send it to him, especially if it criticized some of the mistaked he MAY have made. These plans were in planning for years before Bush came into office, technically if the Clinton Administration would have tried they could have most likely intercepted it and tried to stop it. I'm for sure not saying it was his fault, duh, but to call him completely innocent in the situation may be wrong, because we really never will know what goes on in the inner workings of the central government.

**RgtrsKfR** · 09-09-2006, 08:15 PM

Quote, originally posted by CarMattZu777 »Can't Bill Clinton just download it off iTunes too lol??? Why is it such a big deal that they didn't send it to him, especially if it criticized some of the mistaked he MAY have made. These plans were in planning for years before Bush came into office, technically if the Clinton Administration would have tried they could have most likely intercepted it and tried to stop it. I'm for sure not saying it was his fault, duh, but to call him completely innocent in the situation may be wrong, because we really never will know what goes on in the inner workings of the central government.
Under Clintons' Administration, no attacking was ever stopped. This is what pisses me off the most under his two terms. If Clinton did more then maybe, just maybe we wouldn't be where we are right now. Not saying Bush is doing any better because going the wrong way about things is just as bad as doing nothing. But this is just my oppinion and nothing more.

**Borzopayn** · 10-09-2006, 03:16 PM

I'm gonna watch it but it runs a little late and im trying this early sleep thing for school so ill probably wind up downloading it off itunes too.

**Penisvergroesserung** · 10-09-2006, 11:03 PM

Are you ready for some football

I am looking forward to 2nite's Manning vs. Manning

And, there are two games tomorrow night...yeah

**Anypeny** · 10-10-2006, 03:55 AM

watched it.. the good thing is that it didn't have any ads.. the bad thing, is that second part will be shown only tomorrow

**HedgeYourBets** · 11-09-2006, 06:02 PM

Thankfully, Miami Ink had a marathon and I was able to miss this overblown POC. That Yoji is a hoot...

**AM1VV9r6** · 11-09-2006, 06:16 PM

Quote, originally posted by Cozz »Under Clintons' Administration, no attacking was ever stopped. This is what pisses me off the most under his two terms. If Clinton did more then maybe, just maybe we wouldn't be where we are right now. Not saying Bush is doing any better because going the wrong way about things is just as bad as doing nothing. But this is just my oppinion and nothing more.
What bothers me is the following: I rember after Bush coming to power in January 2001, he and his administration talked only about nuclear threats (especially by North Korea). Not a word about terrorism, Al Queda, or Osama bin Laden.
The US security priority was a nuclear rocket shield, not war on terrorism.
So, Bush administration didn't pay any attention to terrorism befor 9/11: therefore 9/11 came as a surprise for them (despite CIA reports & warnings).
Go check the news archives from January 2001 - September 2001 and you will see what I am talking about.

**Efonukmp** · 11-09-2006, 06:25 PM

well I was hoping I wouldn't have to do this but I am closing this thread, it is not directed at the actual show, more on the politics of 911 and etc.
citing this thread
http://www.carspyshots.net/zerothread?id=20117
locked. do not re-open this thread.

08-10-2006, 02:08 AM	#1
Essefsbyday Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 477 Senior Member	Tell ABC the truth about 9/11 Well, in case you don't know, ABC will air a 6 hour long miniseries this Sunday and Monday called the "Path to 9/11". It is directed by a friend of Rush Limbaugh, who even makes Rush seem liberal. The worst part about this film though it how ABC is treating it. For example, ABC sent free copies of the film to conservative elected government officials if they requested, yet when Clinton and other liberals requested a copy, they were denied. Not only that, but ABC is sending out letters to 100,000 high school teachers, saying that ABC will send them free copies of the film to show in the classrooms. In addition, ABC is planning to have people be able to download it for FREE off of the iTunes music store. And believe or not, when it shows this Sunday and Monday, it will be completely commercial free. IMHO, the movie shows how there is truly no such thing as a free media... at least in the U.S Anyway, here's an article off of the New York Times: Quote, originally posted by New York Times* »9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 5 Days before its scheduled debut, the first major television miniseries about the Sept. 11 attacks was being criticized on Tuesday as biased and inaccurate by bloggers, terrorism experts and a member of the Sept. 11 commission, whose report makes up much of the films source material. The six-hour miniseries, The Path to 9/11, is to be shown on ABC on Sunday and Monday. The network has been advertising the program as a historic broadcast that uses the commissions report on the 2001 attacks as its primary foundation. On Tuesday, several liberal blogs were questioning whether ABCs version was overly critical of the Clinton administration while letting the Bush administration off easy. In particular, some critics including Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar questioned a scene that depicts several American military officers on the ground in Afghanistan. In it, the officers, working with leaders of the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel group, move in to capture Osama bin Laden, only to allow him to escape after the mission is canceled by Clinton officials in Washington. In a posting on ThinkProgress.org, and in a phone interview, Mr. Clarke said no military personnel or C.I.A. agents were ever in position to capture Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan, nor did the leader of the Northern Alliance get that near to his camp. It didnt happen, Mr. Clarke said. There were no troops in Afghanistan about to snatch bin Laden. There were no C.I.A. personnel about to snatch bin Laden. Its utterly invented.* Mr. Clarke, an on-air consultant to ABC News, said he was particularly shocked by a scene in which it seemed Clinton officials simply hung up the phone on an agent awaiting orders in the field. Its 180 degrees from what happened, he said. So, yeah, I think you would have to describe that as deeply flawed. ABC responded Tuesday with a statement saying that the miniseries was a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews. The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, the statement continued, so its not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate. Former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a consultant on the miniseries, defended the program, saying he thought the disputed scene was an honest representation of a number of failed efforts to capture Mr. bin Laden. I pointed out the fact that the scene involving Afghanistan and the attempt to get bin Laden is a composite, Mr. Kean said, adding that the miniseries format required some conflation of events. But, he said, The basic fact is that on a number of occasions, they thought they might have been able to get bin Laden, and on those occasions, the plug was pulled for various reasons. Mr. Kean conceded that some points might have been more drama than documentary. Some of the people shown there probably werent there, he said. Online commentators seized on remarks made last week by Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host, who said The Path to 9/11 had been written and produced by a friend of mine out in California named Cyrus. From what Ive been told, Mr. Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on rushlimbaugh.com, the film really zeros in on the shortcomings of the Clinton administration. Reached Tuesday, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the films screenwriter and one of its producers, said he had met Mr. Limbaugh on the set of 24, the serialized thriller on Fox. I met him briefly, Mr. Nowrasteh said, declining to say if the two men were close. And thats it. As for criticism that his movie was soft on the Bush administration, Mr. Nowrasteh said, Let the movie speak for itself. ABC said it planned to run a disclaimer with the broadcast, reminding viewers that the movie was not a documentary. But Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said genre confusion would not be a problem for commission members, several of whom saw part of the miniseries last week. As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 commissions finding the way that they had, Mr. Ben-Veniste said. They gave the impression that Clinton had not given the green light to an operation that had been cleared by the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden, when, in fact, the Sept. 11 commission concluded that Mr. Clinton had. Mr. Ben-Veniste said he did, however, approve of the casting. I like Harvey Keitel, he said of the actor who plays John ONeil, the onetime F.B.I. counterterrorism expert who died in the attacks. I liked him in Mean Streets. Im a fan. And excerpts from the San Francisco Chronicle: Quote, originally posted by San Francisco Chronicle* »* - Airing commercial-free on ABC Sunday and Monday at 8 p.m. EDT (with a 9/11-related followup from ABC News at 10 p.m. Monday), the miniseries claims to draw from a number of sources, including the 2004 report of the 9/11 Commission, which was established to investigate government missteps that led to the attacks. -Perhaps another guest, Thomas Kean (the former Republican governor of New Jersey, who was chairman of the 9/11 Commission and served as senior consultant for "The Path to 9/11") will defend the film's evenhandedness. Never mind how talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has interpreted the film for his listeners as demonstrating that, in the Clinton era, "we didn't do diddly-squat," while the Bush administration was subsequently "caught up and sort of hamstrung by the existing procedures" and "hasn't had a chance to change them." -ABC responded to the brewing controversy Tuesday only by saying that its miniseries is "a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 Commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews." BTW, if you think Fahrenheit 9/11 is the same thing, think again. -Fahrenheit 9/11 was NEVER shown on network television (Only on cable I believe) -Fahrenheit 9/11 was pretty much only shown in theaters and on DVD, meaning that one would have to go out of their way to see it. -Michael Moore never sent out letters to high school teachers saying that teachers could have a copy of the movie for free to show it in their classrooms. And one final thing : http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBI....html Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-10-2006, 02:14 AM	#2
KinicsBonee Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 474 Senior Member	This will only make me hate the extreme right as mcuh as I hated the extreme left after Fahrenheit 9/11. Michael Moore marketed his movie as a documentary, it wasn't, it was just his opinions. This sounds like a documentary. It's not, it's just the other guy's opinions. YOu want to know why the middle east is so screwed up and why we can't fix it? 60 years of mis-handling those crazy bastards. It didn't just start. We've been screwing the pooch for quite sometime now. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-10-2006, 02:32 AM	#3
AAAESLLESO Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 469 Senior Member	i wont even bother with the movie, ill just buy the book. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-10-2006, 03:29 AM	#4
praboobolbode Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 437 Senior Member	Agreed Mega. This is just tit for tat between Liberals and Conservatives. Its nothing new and people shouldn't get their panties in a bunch about it. Plus it never claims to be a documentary, just a miniseries. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-09-2006, 02:54 PM	#5
IdomeoreTew Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 562 Senior Member	I'm going to say that this mini series will aired first in the world here in Australia tomorrow night (or is it New Zealand first??). I might not be interest to watching that but i will think about it soon. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-09-2006, 07:26 PM	#6
violetgorman Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 491 Senior Member	Can't Bill Clinton just download it off iTunes too lol??? Why is it such a big deal that they didn't send it to him, especially if it criticized some of the mistaked he MAY have made. These plans were in planning for years before Bush came into office, technically if the Clinton Administration would have tried they could have most likely intercepted it and tried to stop it. I'm for sure not saying it was his fault, duh, but to call him completely innocent in the situation may be wrong, because we really never will know what goes on in the inner workings of the central government. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

09-09-2006, 08:15 PM	#7
RgtrsKfR Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 487 Senior Member	Quote, originally posted by CarMattZu777* »*Can't Bill Clinton just download it off iTunes too lol??? Why is it such a big deal that they didn't send it to him, especially if it criticized some of the mistaked he MAY have made. These plans were in planning for years before Bush came into office, technically if the Clinton Administration would have tried they could have most likely intercepted it and tried to stop it. I'm for sure not saying it was his fault, duh, but to call him completely innocent in the situation may be wrong, because we really never will know what goes on in the inner workings of the central government. Under Clintons' Administration, no attacking was ever stopped. This is what pisses me off the most under his two terms. If Clinton did more then maybe, just maybe we wouldn't be where we are right now. Not saying Bush is doing any better because going the wrong way about things is just as bad as doing nothing. But this is just my oppinion and nothing more. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-09-2006, 03:16 PM	#8
Borzopayn Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 452 Senior Member	I'm gonna watch it but it runs a little late and im trying this early sleep thing for school so ill probably wind up downloading it off itunes too. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-09-2006, 11:03 PM	#9
Penisvergroesserung Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 610 Senior Member	Are you ready for some football I am looking forward to 2nite's Manning vs. Manning And, there are two games tomorrow night...yeah Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-10-2006, 03:55 AM	#10
Anypeny Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 506 Senior Member	watched it.. the good thing is that it didn't have any ads.. the bad thing, is that second part will be shown only tomorrow Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

11-09-2006, 06:02 PM	#11
HedgeYourBets Join Date Aug 2008 Posts 4,655 Senior Member	Thankfully, Miami Ink had a marathon and I was able to miss this overblown POC. That Yoji is a hoot... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

11-09-2006, 06:16 PM	#12
AM1VV9r6 Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 445 Senior Member	Quote, originally posted by Cozz* »*Under Clintons' Administration, no attacking was ever stopped. This is what pisses me off the most under his two terms. If Clinton did more then maybe, just maybe we wouldn't be where we are right now. Not saying Bush is doing any better because going the wrong way about things is just as bad as doing nothing. But this is just my oppinion and nothing more. What bothers me is the following: I rember after Bush coming to power in January 2001, he and his administration talked only about nuclear threats (especially by North Korea). Not a word about terrorism, Al Queda, or Osama bin Laden. The US security priority was a nuclear rocket shield, not war on terrorism. So, Bush administration didn't pay any attention to terrorism befor 9/11: therefore 9/11 came as a surprise for them (despite CIA reports & warnings). Go check the news archives from January 2001 - September 2001 and you will see what I am talking about. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

11-09-2006, 06:25 PM	#13
Efonukmp Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 461 Senior Member	well I was hoping I wouldn't have to do this but I am closing this thread, it is not directed at the actual show, more on the politics of 911 and etc. citing this thread http://www.carspyshots.net/zerothread?id=20117 locked. do not re-open this thread. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)