Clinton Officials rip ABC's \"Path to 9/11\"
ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes." But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission's report, although that report contradicts several key scenes.
Could Republicans really orchestrate something like this to try to save the November elections? A 40 Million dollar "dramatization"?
Seems like a last ditch effort (or maybe next-to-last) of a dying constituency.
Full Version: Path to 9/11
Well, by reading the article, it's a slam job against the Clinton Administration to rally the dwindling numbers back into the GOP fold. Question is: Will it work?
I hope it is a huge flop and ABC ends up eating crow. Shame on them for being big, fat liars.
I like how the producers sent an advance copy of the film to Rush Limbaugh so he could pre-screen it and talk it up on his radio program. Needless to say, Rush *LOVED* the film and has been, allegedly, promoting it on his show.
I also like how conservatives railroaded "The Reagans" because it (mostly accurately) portrayed sainted RR as being indifferent to AIDS patients in his private, fictionalized, conversation yet think it's okay to air a film that creates false history about one of the most controversial and painful chapters in our recent history. Liberal Hollywood? Liberal media? Puh-lease.
I also like how conservatives railroaded "The Reagans" because it (mostly accurately) portrayed sainted RR as being indifferent to AIDS patients in his private, fictionalized, conversation yet think it's okay to air a film that creates false history about one of the most controversial and painful chapters in our recent history. Liberal Hollywood? Liberal media? Puh-lease.
I like how ABC put it into perspective with its press release on all the speculation: since the film is still being edited for its final, broadcast version, any criticism of it now is "premature and irresponsible," much like how dredging up old canards about President Reagan's alleged "insensitivity to AIDS" is more than tardy and uninformed, whether "mostly accurate" (?) or not.
Personally, I prefer total accuracy on television, which is why I generally watch PBS, Discovery, History, and other channels more devoted to non-fiction than to soaps, sitcoms (UGH!) mockumentaries or the grossly misnamed "reality shows." So let's remember what we're dealing with here: entertainment being hyped by an entertainer, whose marketing tactics have succeeded in snaring even Old Bill himself. I thought he'd at least have more sense to steer clear of this dust-up, but then I remembered how he behaved while in and just after he left office and understood perfectly why he shot off his mouth!
Personally, I prefer total accuracy on television, which is why I generally watch PBS, Discovery, History, and other channels more devoted to non-fiction than to soaps, sitcoms (UGH!) mockumentaries or the grossly misnamed "reality shows." So let's remember what we're dealing with here: entertainment being hyped by an entertainer, whose marketing tactics have succeeded in snaring even Old Bill himself. I thought he'd at least have more sense to steer clear of this dust-up, but then I remembered how he behaved while in and just after he left office and understood perfectly why he shot off his mouth!
I hardly think something that is scheuduled to be broadcast in three days is going under any full scale edits at this point. That product has been mostly finished for a long time.
Agreed, shep71. ABC isn't going to make full-scale changes in the next few days before broadcast. It's pretty well done and if anyone wants to watch it, they can. I won't.
I just heard ABC has hired Mel Gibson to create and direct a dramatization of The Holocaust called "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Buchenwald"
QUOTE
I like how ABC put it into perspective with its press release on all the speculation: since the film is still being edited for its final, broadcast version, any criticism of it now is \"premature and irresponsible,\" much like how dredging up old canards about President Reagan's alleged \"insensitivity to AIDS\" is more than tardy and uninformed, whether \"mostly accurate\" (?) or not.
Interesting, though, that CBS eventually caved on that, IIRC, and cut the offending line and shunted the film over to Showtime. ABC claims to be editing, but as they now know they have entire scenes that are just made up, and don't accurately reflect the actual actions, or even the conclusions of the 9/11 commission, on which the program is allegedly based, they don't seem to be as concerned as CBS was, even though the egregiousness of the program is far worse.Certainly there were failures all around on the issue of Bin Laden and terrorism, but it's more than deceptive for a show to claim Clinton did less than he actually did, while claiming, from reports I have heard, that Bush did more, contradicts all available evidence, and according to people who have seen the advance copies, the show comes off as some right-wing conspiracy theory on the continuing evils of Bill Clinton (does anyone else think GOP women are just anti-oral sex? 'Cause conservatives do seem so irate that this guy got a bj from an ugly troll).
Can you imagine the outrage if some network put on a 9/11 "documentary" that claimed the current conspiracy theories about that day were true - you know, like the government allowed 9/11 to happen, or caused it to happen, to create a means to invade Iraq afterwards?
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
I like how ABC put it into perspective with its press release on all the speculation: since the film is still being edited for its final, broadcast version, any criticism of it now is \"premature and irresponsible,\" much like how dredging up old canards about President Reagan's alleged \"insensitivity to AIDS\" is more than tardy and uninformed, whether \"mostly accurate\" (?) or not.
The film is only being edited because former Clinton administration members had to draw the media's attention to the fact that the film is full of misleading and false information (like that Sandy Berger hung up on the CIA while they were warning him of the al-Qaeda threat or that Madeline Albright tipped off the Pakistanis -- and, therefore, OBL -- before the US launched a missile strike against one of his compounds). Need we look to statistics that showed that 70% of FOX viewers believed (and a lot of them probably still do) that Iraq was directly linked to 9/11? Let's face it, people will take the ABC "dramatization" as fact and it will impact and reshape the memory of people who watch it.I like how ABC put it into perspective with its press release on all the speculation: since the film is still being edited for its final, broadcast version, any criticism of it now is \"premature and irresponsible,\" much like how dredging up old canards about President Reagan's alleged \"insensitivity to AIDS\" is more than tardy and uninformed, whether \"mostly accurate\" (?) or not.
Fictionalizing one of the worst events in our nation's recent history, trotting it out for the least objective members of the media (e.g., Limbaugh) and falsely reshaping the public's memory of 9/11, particularly to create villains out of real, living people who committed none of the villainy the film depicts is a public outrage of a completely different order of magnitude than attributing to Reagan *one line* of dialogue that those who live is sin shall die in sin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reagans
QUOTE
Maddog:
I just heard ABC has hired Mel Gibson to create and direct a dramatization of The Holocaust called \"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Buchenwald\"
And who says the media is liberally biased? Hrumph!
I just heard ABC has hired Mel Gibson to create and direct a dramatization of The Holocaust called \"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Buchenwald\"
QUOTE
aquaman:
...Fictionalizing one of the worst events in our nation's recent history, trotting it out for the least objective members of the media (e.g., Limbaugh) and falsely reshaping the public's memory of 9/11, particularly to create villains out of real, living people who committed none of the villainy the film depicts is a public outrage of a completely different order of magnitude than attributing to Reagan *one line* of dialogue that those who live is sin shall die in sin. ...
With this I agree 100%, as I revealed in describing my own viewing choices. So why did you feel the need to drag President Reagan into it? (BTW, your Wikipedia cite is a perfect example of why that source is not a reliable one; it mentions Reagan's critics, but not his defenders, or the established facts, concerning his alleged indifference to AIDS and completely unfounded disdain for gays.)...Fictionalizing one of the worst events in our nation's recent history, trotting it out for the least objective members of the media (e.g., Limbaugh) and falsely reshaping the public's memory of 9/11, particularly to create villains out of real, living people who committed none of the villainy the film depicts is a public outrage of a completely different order of magnitude than attributing to Reagan *one line* of dialogue that those who live is sin shall die in sin. ...
But as far as the rest of your and others' speculations go, which one of you works over at the "Red Network" and is privy to their programming decisions?
Maddog, good pimp! How about Please Don't Push Up The Daisies? wink
[ September 08, 2006, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
I only dragged "The Reagans" into the discussion because it was (1) a recent miniseries (2)depicting real life politicians (3) that garnered an enormous amount of controversy because of the portrayed politician's friends' and associates' claims that the film inaccurately portrayed historical events and fabricated conversations. Very similar.
I heard a snippet on the news today about Bill Clinton admonishing ABC for not telling the truth. Haha! This one was so ripe with hypocrisy that I couldn't help but laugh my butt off. 
Let me get this straight: the uber-lefties here, there, and everywhere are whining their heads off over this, demanding it be edited or pulled, yet they blasted as censorship CBS for pulling the mini-series on the Reagans.
Oh! The hypocrisy!
Now, having called Liberals on the carpet so brilliantly once again, I'm not going to watch this thing because controversy aside, I hear it's just bad. Boring. Much too long. Even if it wasn't, I wouldn't watch it.
Do I believe ABC is taking dramatic license in broadcasting such a production? Of course. Who doesn't? But if they're going to be literally making stuff up out of thin air or intentionally lying about things, then that's obviously wrong and unacceptable. But as I said earlier, when CBS did it to the Reagans, it was OK.
Oh! The hypocrisy!
Now, having called Liberals on the carpet so brilliantly once again, I'm not going to watch this thing because controversy aside, I hear it's just bad. Boring. Much too long. Even if it wasn't, I wouldn't watch it.
Do I believe ABC is taking dramatic license in broadcasting such a production? Of course. Who doesn't? But if they're going to be literally making stuff up out of thin air or intentionally lying about things, then that's obviously wrong and unacceptable. But as I said earlier, when CBS did it to the Reagans, it was OK.
QUOTE
MIB:
Let me get this straight: the uber-lefties here, there, and everywhere are whining their heads off over this, demanding it be edited or pulled, yet they blasted as censorship CBS for pulling the mini-series on the Reagans.
Do I believe ABC is taking dramatic license in broadcasting such a production? Of course. Who doesn't? But if they're going to be literally making stuff up out of thin air or intentionally lying about things, then that's obviously wrong and unacceptable. But as I said earlier, when CBS did it to the Reagans, it was OK.
ALSO, Wasn't there a lot of truth bending & biased reporting in Michael Moore's movie "Farenheit 911"? When he was pushing his theories it was accepted cuz it was hoped it would swing an election. You can't claim bias on the other side & ignore it on your own. Plus all the pundits are predicting BIG Democratic wins - so why not relax & enjoy the massacre.Let me get this straight: the uber-lefties here, there, and everywhere are whining their heads off over this, demanding it be edited or pulled, yet they blasted as censorship CBS for pulling the mini-series on the Reagans.
Do I believe ABC is taking dramatic license in broadcasting such a production? Of course. Who doesn't? But if they're going to be literally making stuff up out of thin air or intentionally lying about things, then that's obviously wrong and unacceptable. But as I said earlier, when CBS did it to the Reagans, it was OK.
[ September 08, 2006, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: copman ]
Democrats and the Clinton staff are not asking it to be removed completely like the Reagan miniseries. They want a couple inaccuracies edited.
In any case, for those who wish to here's a protest link that can be sent to ABC. Exercise your right to your opinion!
QUOTE
illini n milwaukee:
Democrats and the Clinton staff are not asking it to be removed completely like the Reagan miniseries. They want a couple inaccuracies edited.
Actually, Mr. Clinton did ask ABC to pull it if they didn't delete the alleged inaccuracies.
Democrats and the Clinton staff are not asking it to be removed completely like the Reagan miniseries. They want a couple inaccuracies edited.
Copman, please point out the factual inaccuracies in "Fahrenheit 911." There were some, but most of the conservatives who decry the movie can't name them, and the overwhelming majority of the film was factual. No one has yet debunked its major points, especially the US material.
Speaking of "Path to Fascism," er, "Path to 9/11," here's blogger Max Blumenthal on the right-wingers who're behind it. Some tidbits (and do click on the links, which back up his assertions. Like anyone needs Hollywood to get any crazier. (Oh, and these right-wingers are no friends to homos.)
[ September 08, 2006, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Speaking of "Path to Fascism," er, "Path to 9/11," here's blogger Max Blumenthal on the right-wingers who're behind it. Some tidbits (and do click on the links, which back up his assertions. Like anyone needs Hollywood to get any crazier. (Oh, and these right-wingers are no friends to homos.)
QUOTE
In fact, \"The Path to 9/11\" is produced and promoted by a well-honed propaganda operation consisting of a network of little-known right-wingers working from within Hollywood to counter its supposedly liberal bias. This is the network within the ABC network. Its godfather is far right activist David Horowitz, who has worked for more than a decade to establish a right-wing presence in Hollywood and to discredit mainstream film and TV production. On this project, he is working with a secretive evangelical religious right group founded by The Path to 9/11's director David Cunningham that proclaims its goal to \"transform Hollywood\" in line with its messianic vision.
Before The Path to 9/11 entered the production stage, Disney/ABC contracted David Cunningham as the film's director. Cunningham is no ordinary Hollywood journeyman. He is in fact the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission (YWAM). The young Cunningham helped found an auxiliary of his father's group called The Film Institute (TFI), which, according to its mission statement, is \"dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Television industry.\" As part of TFI's long-term strategy, Cunningham helped place interns from Youth With A Mission's in film industry jobs \"so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out,\" according to a YWAM report.
Last June, Cunningham's TFI announced it was producing its first film, mysteriously titled \"Untitled History Project.\" \"TFI's first project is a doozy,\" a newsletter to YWAM members read. \"Simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet. Talk about great expectations!\" (A web edition of the newsletter was mysteriously deleted yesterday but has been cached on Google at the link above).
***
Nowrasteh's conservatism was on display when he appeared as a featured speaker at the Liberty Film Festival (LFF), an annual event founded in 2004 to premier and promote conservative-themed films supposedly too \"politically incorrect\" to gain acceptance at mainstream film festivals. This June, while The Path to 9/11 was being filmed, LFF founders Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo -- both friends of Nowrasteh -- announced they were \"partnering\" with right-wing activist David Horowitz. Indeed, the 2006 LFF is listed as \"A Program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.\"
Since the inauguration of Bill Clinton in 1992, Horowitz has labored to create a network of politically active conservatives in Hollywood. His Hollywood nest centers around his Wednesday Morning Club, a weekly meet-and-greet session for Left Coast conservatives that has been graced with speeches by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens. The group's headquarters are at the offices of Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture, a \"think tank\" bankrolled for years with millions by right-wing sugardaddies like eccentric far right billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. (Scaife financed the Arkansas Project, a $2.3 million dirty tricks operation that included paying sources for negative stories about Bill Clinton that turned out to be false.)
With the LFF now under Horowitz's control, his political machine began drumming up support for Cunningham and Nowrasteh's \"Untitled\" project, which finally was revealed in late summer as \"The Path to 9/11.\" Horowitz's PR blitz began with an August 16 interview with Nowrasteh on his FrontPageMag webzine. In the interview, Nowrasteh foreshadowed the film's assault on Clinton's record on fighting terror. \"The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests,\" Nowrasteh told FrontPageMag's Jamie Glazov. \"There simply was no response. Nothing.\"
***
At FrontPageMag, Horowitz singled out Nowrasteh as the victim. \"The attacks by former president Bill Clinton, former Clinton Administration officials and Democratic US senators on Cyrus Nowrasteh's ABC mini-series \"The Path to 9/11\" are easily the gravest and most brazen and damaging governmental attacks on the civil liberties of ordinary Americans since 9/11,\" Horowitz declared.
Now, as discussion grows over the false character of The Path to 9/11, the right-wing network that brought it to fruition is ratcheting up its PR efforts. Murty will appear tonight on CNN's Glenn Beck show and The Situation Room, according to Libertas in order to respond to \"the major disinformation campaign now being run by Democrats to block the truth about what actually happened during the Clinton years.\"
While this network claims its success and postures as the true victims, the ABC network suffers a PR catastrophe. It's almost as though it was complacent about an attack on its reputation by a band of political terrorists.
Before The Path to 9/11 entered the production stage, Disney/ABC contracted David Cunningham as the film's director. Cunningham is no ordinary Hollywood journeyman. He is in fact the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission (YWAM). The young Cunningham helped found an auxiliary of his father's group called The Film Institute (TFI), which, according to its mission statement, is \"dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Television industry.\" As part of TFI's long-term strategy, Cunningham helped place interns from Youth With A Mission's in film industry jobs \"so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out,\" according to a YWAM report.
Last June, Cunningham's TFI announced it was producing its first film, mysteriously titled \"Untitled History Project.\" \"TFI's first project is a doozy,\" a newsletter to YWAM members read. \"Simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet. Talk about great expectations!\" (A web edition of the newsletter was mysteriously deleted yesterday but has been cached on Google at the link above).
***
Nowrasteh's conservatism was on display when he appeared as a featured speaker at the Liberty Film Festival (LFF), an annual event founded in 2004 to premier and promote conservative-themed films supposedly too \"politically incorrect\" to gain acceptance at mainstream film festivals. This June, while The Path to 9/11 was being filmed, LFF founders Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo -- both friends of Nowrasteh -- announced they were \"partnering\" with right-wing activist David Horowitz. Indeed, the 2006 LFF is listed as \"A Program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.\"
Since the inauguration of Bill Clinton in 1992, Horowitz has labored to create a network of politically active conservatives in Hollywood. His Hollywood nest centers around his Wednesday Morning Club, a weekly meet-and-greet session for Left Coast conservatives that has been graced with speeches by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens. The group's headquarters are at the offices of Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture, a \"think tank\" bankrolled for years with millions by right-wing sugardaddies like eccentric far right billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. (Scaife financed the Arkansas Project, a $2.3 million dirty tricks operation that included paying sources for negative stories about Bill Clinton that turned out to be false.)
With the LFF now under Horowitz's control, his political machine began drumming up support for Cunningham and Nowrasteh's \"Untitled\" project, which finally was revealed in late summer as \"The Path to 9/11.\" Horowitz's PR blitz began with an August 16 interview with Nowrasteh on his FrontPageMag webzine. In the interview, Nowrasteh foreshadowed the film's assault on Clinton's record on fighting terror. \"The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests,\" Nowrasteh told FrontPageMag's Jamie Glazov. \"There simply was no response. Nothing.\"
***
At FrontPageMag, Horowitz singled out Nowrasteh as the victim. \"The attacks by former president Bill Clinton, former Clinton Administration officials and Democratic US senators on Cyrus Nowrasteh's ABC mini-series \"The Path to 9/11\" are easily the gravest and most brazen and damaging governmental attacks on the civil liberties of ordinary Americans since 9/11,\" Horowitz declared.
Now, as discussion grows over the false character of The Path to 9/11, the right-wing network that brought it to fruition is ratcheting up its PR efforts. Murty will appear tonight on CNN's Glenn Beck show and The Situation Room, according to Libertas in order to respond to \"the major disinformation campaign now being run by Democrats to block the truth about what actually happened during the Clinton years.\"
While this network claims its success and postures as the true victims, the ABC network suffers a PR catastrophe. It's almost as though it was complacent about an attack on its reputation by a band of political terrorists.
[ September 08, 2006, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
For the record there are a number of conservatives asking for the show to be pulled as well. Given the sensitive subject matter and the scheduled air date (5th year anniversary weekend) nobody on either wants to seen as condoning a movie that apparently plays fast and loos with the facts.
I say air it. A movie isn't going to change the minds of anyone on either side. The Clinton haters are still going to blame everything on Clinton and the Bush bashers will never allow for the possibility that Clinto may hold some responsibilty.
I won't watch it simply because, from the clips I've seen, it looks like a terrible movie.
I say air it. A movie isn't going to change the minds of anyone on either side. The Clinton haters are still going to blame everything on Clinton and the Bush bashers will never allow for the possibility that Clinto may hold some responsibilty.
I won't watch it simply because, from the clips I've seen, it looks like a terrible movie.
I just don't understand the idea by ABC to air a "dramatization" on such an extremely sensitive issue. I mean, if they actually were to be factual on both sides...it might actually be somewhat interesting for those who didn't read the 9/11 Commission's report or are familiar with it.
It could be a valuable and interesting series...but they felt they needed to spruce it up for some reason. Since it was soo bland and boring beforehand.
It could be a valuable and interesting series...but they felt they needed to spruce it up for some reason. Since it was soo bland and boring beforehand.
Perhaps the noted George Will, a conservative as everyone knows, said it best about this mini-series and docudramas in general:
I'm always leery of docudramas...
QUOTE
I'm always leery of docudramas...
ABC Airs First Night of 9/11 Mini-series
But the network resisted calls to cancel the $40 million miniseries, airing commercial-free over two nights. Part two is scheduled for Monday, with an interruption for President Bush's address to the nation.
Am I the only one who thinks it's fitting to have the King of Fiction be the only commercial interruption in the entire fictionalized account?
But the network resisted calls to cancel the $40 million miniseries, airing commercial-free over two nights. Part two is scheduled for Monday, with an interruption for President Bush's address to the nation.
Am I the only one who thinks it's fitting to have the King of Fiction be the only commercial interruption in the entire fictionalized account?
Here in San Diego tonite, we are watch the Charges game, not Part 2. That will be broadcast this coming Saturday, at 9PM.
T
T
QUOTE
TRL:
Here in San Diego tonite, we are watch the Charges game, not Part 2. That will be broadcast this coming Saturday, at 9PM.
T
Dude. That sucks that you have to wait until Saturday to find out how it ends.Here in San Diego tonite, we are watch the Charges game, not Part 2. That will be broadcast this coming Saturday, at 9PM.
T
[ September 11, 2006, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Maddog ]
QUOTE
Maddog:
Am I the only one who thinks it's fitting to have the King of Fiction be the only commercial interruption in the entire fictionalized account?
No, I found it to be quite amusing myself. Irony has a way of pulling her tricks on us to amuse us when we least expect it. Am I the only one who thinks it's fitting to have the King of Fiction be the only commercial interruption in the entire fictionalized account?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.