Slick Willie want ABC's 911 miniseries pulled

[booksbenji]

Yep! You heard it. Clinton's lawyers are trying to get ABC to pull or correct the miniseries. Since it's factual, they can't change it, without censorship... therefore the only option is to pull it.

It portrays the truth about Clinton's failure to prevent the 9/11 tragedy, when he had the chance. He could have taken out Osama Bin Laden but for partisan political reasons, he failed to act.
quote:

NEW YORK (AP) -- A miniseries about the events leading to the September 11 attacks is "terribly wrong" and ABC should correct it or not air it, former Clinton administration officials demanded in letters to the head of ABC's parent company.

But in a statement released Thursday afternoon in apparent response to the growing uproar, ABC said, "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band all wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of The Walt Disney Co., to express concern over "The Path to 9/11." (Read the letter from Sandy Berger -- .pdf file, requires Adobe Acrobat)

The two-part miniseries, scheduled to be broadcast on Sunday and Monday, is drawn from interviews and documents including the report of the September 11 commission. ABC has described it as a "dramatization" as opposed to a documentary.
...
Berger objected to a scene that he was told showed him refusing to authorize an attack on Osama bin Laden despite the request from CIA officials. "The fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license," he wrote.
I hope ABC airs it, since it portrays the truth. Censoring it, will be a gross injustice to America.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/07/911.film.clinton.offic.ap/index.html


Pure censorship if it happens:mad:

[garryh123]

That's funny. libs can make a movie killing Bush , but telling the truth about clinton in wrong.....What a joke.

[booksbenji]

http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/thief.htm

As us TEXICANS say: LET 'EM HANG :devious: :evilgrin:

[recon532002]

:thumbup: At least they Have Harvey Kietel In the Movie

Semper Fi Recon

[fontman]

Bill Clinton: Much ado about a stained legacy
September 08, 2006
By Greg Strange

Former President William Jefferson Clinton is reportedly livid over the upcoming ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" because he says it grossly misrepresents his pursuit - or lack thereof - of Osama bin Laden. To be more specific, he claims that, among other things, several scenes insinuate that he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal to care about going after bin Laden.

Or in other words, it's as if he had declared to his advisors, "Bin Laden, schmin Laden! Just get me out of this jam!"

Nor does the miniseries offer much in the way of compliments for then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright or Sandy "pants" Berger, Clinton's national security advisor. In fact, in terms of dealing with terrorism, the entire Clinton team was shown to be pretty much out to lunch.

It's not exactly surprising. There are reasons the Clinton years are sometimes referred to as America's "vacation from history" and this is part of it. The Cold War had been won (no thanks to Democrats, by the way, but rather to others who were actually serious about fighting the evil of communism) and it was thought that there were no more serious threats to civilization. Wrong!

But at the time radical Islam didn't seem like such a big deal. A terrorist bombing of an embassy here, a terrorist strike on a U.S. naval vessel there . . . What did it all matter in the grand scheme of things? The economy was cranking and the stock market was going through the roof. And as John Kerry has said, dealing with terrorism is like dealing with crime - you just try and contain it at some minimal but acceptable level. You don't go and do something crazy like declare war on it.

But now the details of their negligence (which, by the way, were drawn from the official 9/11 commission report) are coming back to haunt them, and from a sector of America that has traditionally been a bastion of liberalism and extremely friendly to Clintonistas: Hollywood.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the protestations of Clinton, as well as plenty of others, are not about correcting inaccuracies for the historical record, but rather about two other things: the upcoming midterm elections and preventing further tarnish to the Clintonian legacy.

Concerning the elections, the math is simple. Democrats are already perceived as being weak on terror. The miniseries in question could serve to reinforce that perception, and given the emotions that are sure to be dredged up by the fifth anniversary of 9/11, it could influence the way some people vote and could conceivably prevent the Dems from taking control of one or more houses of Congress.

As for the Clintonian legacy, what do I mean by "further" tarnish? Well, there was that pesky Lewinsky scandal, the juicy details of which reverberated around the world, escaping not even the remotest tribe of New Guinea headhunters and tarnishing the former president's legacy forever.

But that was just an overblown (if I can use that term) scandal which, after all, was only about sex and not about job performance (or at least not his). As his popularity ratings from the time made clear, most Americans didn't hold it against him, probably because they credited him with orchestrating the greatest economic expansion in human history.

But the idea that he might have been negligent in his pursuit of terrorist bigwigs, which may have in turn led to the single worst attack on American soil in our history, would be a far more serious stain (again, if I can use such a term) on his legacy than Monicagate.

Impeaching Clinton just because he turned the Oval Office into the Oral Office may have actually made the Republicans look worse than the president. But negligence that may have led to 9/11 is a whole other universe of potentially stained legacy that he would prefer not be broadcast on national television.

[thedrifter]

9/11 truthers &amp; Clintonistas in the crosshairs <br />
Posted By Uncle Jimbo <br />
<br />
Although I doubt it will dent the tinfoil much, it has still been a rough patch for the 9/11 truthers and supporters of the...

[thedrifter]

September 08, 2006, 6:26 a.m.
Blacklisting ABC
A 9/11 miniseries that Clinton and the Left hate.

By John J. Miller

The liberal blacklisting of an ABC miniseries on 9/11 has begun in earnest.

On Thursday, the New York Post reported that former President Clinton has written to ABC’s brass: “The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely.” In the Washington Post, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright described one scene as “false and defamatory” and former national-security adviser Sandy Berger — last seen trying to sneak classified documents out of the National Archives — said the show “flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions.”

The Path to 9/11 is scheduled to air on Sunday and Monday nights. More than anything else, its enemies seem to hate the fact that it directs most of the blame for the disaster of five years ago on someone other than President Bush.

The anti-ABC drumbeats began about a week before Clinton’s involvement. Here’s what one lefty blogger had to say: “Back in 2003, CBS was forced to pull its miniseries ‘The Reagans,’ after conservative groups lambasted the network for crossing the line into advocacy against the Reagan administration. A similar effort should perhaps be undertaken to compel ABC to pull ‘The Path to 9/11.’”

Aren’t these guys supposed to be against preemptive strikes? They’ve certainly announced their opposition to pressuring networks over such matters, or at least former senator Tom Daschle has: When CBS axed The Reagans, he said that it “smells of intimidation to me.”

Unlike recent movies such as Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center and United 93, the ABC miniseries doesn’t concentrate solely on the events of 9/11. It does dramatize that day, but the bulk of the show focuses on what led up to the catastrophe: the failed attempt to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993, the embassy bombings in 1998, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, and so on. The main character is FBI agent John O’Neill (played by Harvey Keitel), who leads a counterterrorism operation aimed at nabbing Yousef, Osama bin Laden, and their ilk. He is a diligent G-man, but the miniseries is, for the most part, a chronicle of massive failure.

The show is based on the work of the 9/11 Commission; chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican, played a role in its development. ABC spent $40 million to produce it. Even in Hollywood, that’s not chump change — especially for a television program.

If nothing else, The Path to 9/11 makes one thing abundantly clear: Hard-working law-enforcement officials had multiple opportunities to stop the terrorists before they wreaked their havoc, but inept leadership, mainly by political appointees of the Clinton administration, got in the way. Secretary of state Madeleine Albright comes off as a shrill obstructionist, CIA director George Tenet appears wimpy, and ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine (played by Patricia Heaton of Everybody Loves Raymond) is a word that rhymes with witch.

Worst of all is former national-security adviser Sandy Berger. He is the closest thing in the film to a villain who isn’t an actual terrorist. In one scene, a group of military operatives surrounds bin Laden in his remote Afghan compound. “Do we have clearance to load the package?” asks an American who is leading them. Berger refuses to give it — he simply flicks off his video-conferencing camera — and a remarkable opportunity to snatch or kill bin Laden slips away.

President Clinton’s appearances are confined to images from news conferences and his deposition: There he is denying his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, then explaining it away, and finally announcing his determination to battle terrorism. He comes off as fatally detached from America’s greatest challenges. In fairness, though, the miniseries does allow for a different interpretation: Although Clinton brought the Lewinsky mess upon himself, Republicans are to blame for letting it become a national distraction — and one that had bad consequences for O’Neill and his fellow terror hunters. Also, it’s worth mentioning that in Monday’s installment, when the miniseries turns to the early days of the Bush administration, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice (played very effectively by 24 veteran Penny Johnson Jerald) comes off as an ignoramus, especially in a scene when she downsizes the responsibilities of counterterror official Richard Clarke (an unsung if earnest hero, by the film’s lights, and played by Stephen Root of Office Space). To call this a pro-Bush miniseries, as its critics surely will do, is a bit too simple.

Directed by David Cunningham, The Path to 9/11 is an exercise in gritty realism. During stretches of it, viewers will feel like they’re watching actual events unfold as they really did — with the addition of handheld cameras being placed just so. The script, written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, moves along at a brisk pace.

At a question-and-answer session following a screening last month in Washington, D.C., Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the 9/11 Commission, challenged the film’s authenticity. “There was no incident like the one portrayed,” he said of the scene in which Berger vetoes the bin Laden operation. He also objected to the negative portrayal of Albright: “I was disturbed by that aspect of it.”

Kean, for his part, described the miniseries as “pretty accurate.” He also added: “It’s dramatized in a couple of areas, but it’s a dramatization that’s true to the story.”

Adds Nowrasteh, in an interview with NRO: “The Berger scene is a fusing and melding of at least a dozen capture opportunities. The sequence is true, but it’s a conflation. This is a docu-drama. We collapse, condense, and create composite characters. But within the rules of docu-drama, we’re well documented.”

Viewers, of course, will mostly connect with the drama and the characters. There is some fine acting in this miniseries — I especially liked Prasanna Puwanarajah as a vexed Pakistani who works with the CIA to capture Yousef. The most memorable character may be Ahmed Massoud, the Northern Alliance commander who fought against the Taliban in Afghanistan and was assassinated hours before 9/11. Played skillfully by actor Mido Hamada, who bears more than a passing resemblance to the most romantic images of Che Guevara, he’s a real scene-stealer. He speaks the best line in the whole miniseries, shortly after Berger’s refusal to authorize that bin Laden job: “Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?”

I have a question of my own: Where can I get an Ahmed Massoud t-shirt?

Ellie

[booksbenji]

and hide from and behind the truth. :devious: "I did not hear or see intel reports on Been Overloghim."

[yellowwing]

What ever. A 6 year Bush led Republican Govt is what we got. That is reality not political opinion commentary, that's fact. Your troops don't have the proper equipment don't blame Clinton. Your only allies are two bit 3rd world schmucks, don't blame Clinton.

You got high gas prices and illegal immigrants on your doorstep, don't blame Clinton. You got stem cells in your tax dollars, don't blame Clinton. You got the church funded by federal dollars, don't blame Clinton. You got Federal Food and Drug approved RFID implanted in your skin, don't blame Clinton.

There's a 60% majority in this nation that think something is wrong with where we are going. You can not stop them.

[003XXMarineDAD]

Well the old saying about leading a horse to water rings true here also.
You can not lead a donkey to the truth unless you have a 2X4 to do it with.
:D

[yellowwing]

Well the old saying about leading a horse to water rings true here also.
You can not lead a donkey to the truth unless you have a 2X4 to do it with.
:D
That sound like its begging a Osotogary cartoon! :banana:

[marinegreen]

Screw BUSH/CHENEY (period)

[yellowwing]

Cheney and Rumsfeld go way back. PBS did a good background (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/) on them. Theres no way the Democrats are going to oust Rumsfeld while Cheney still draws power.

[chafas2531]

Well the old saying about leading a horse to water rings true here also.
You can not lead a donkey to the truth unless you have a 2X4 to do it with.
:D

:marine: and even then, this is not a given that it will accept the truth. You know the old addage of the child being told to sit down... he sat down but retorted back with a "but I am standing up in the inside." Same with many today. One can listen to truth but it takes more to act on it. Hey Gary, where is the picture?
SEMPER FIDELIS!:usmc:
A Heart O" Texas Marine.
ben