Posted on 09/12/2006 4:56:56 PM PDT by Libloather
In New Letter, Bill Clinton's Lawyers Say Iger Assured Them Of "Appropriate Edits" And Hammer Film As "Disgraceful"
By Greg Sargent
After watching the first installment of "The Path to 9/11," Bill Clinton's lawyers have written another blistering letter to Disney chief Robert Iger. In the letter -- which we've obtained -- Clinton lawyers Bruce Lindsey and Douglas Band write that they actually spoke to Iger twice and that Iger assured them that he was "personally taking the responsibility to ensure that appropriate edits to the film would be made."
But, the lawyers add: "Having now seen the first night of this fiction, it is clear that the edits made to the film did not address the factual errors that we brought to your attention." The letter concludes that the film does "a disservice to the American people" and is "disgraceful." Full text after the jump.
The full text:
September 10, 2006
Dear Bob,
We are deeply disappointed that ABC and the Disney Corporation chose to air "The Path to 9/11." The final product was fraught with error and contained contrived scenes that are directly contradicted by the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report. The film has undoubtedly cemented in millions of viewers' minds a false impression of critical historical events.
While there is not enough room here to fully document the fiction in your film, attached to this letter is a detailed fact sheet listing the numerous inaccuracies in the film according to the 9/11 Commission.
Nine days ago, we wrote to you asking simply that the miniseries tell the truth, as researched extensively and definitively by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. We asked that your network not present outright fiction as historical fact to the American public. In fact, we took pains to detail sequences in the movie that were plainly invented, based upon the version of the film that was shown to television critics and distributed to many conservative commentators. During our two recent conversations, you assured us that you were personally taking the responsibility to ensure that appropriate edits to the film would be made. Publicly, ABC said that the editing process was ongoing and that it was irresponsible" to condemn the film before seeing the finished product.
Having now seen the first night of this fiction, it is clear that the edits made to the film did not address the factual errors that we brought to your attention. "The Path to 9/11" flagrantly ignored the facts as reported by the 9/11 Commission and invented its own version of history. The result, in our judgment, is irreparable damage to the Commission's work. More importantly, it is a disservice to the American people.
That the film directly contradicts the findings of the 9/11 Commission is troubling. That it defames dedicated public officials is tragic. But the fact that it misleads millions of people about the most tragic and consequential event in recent history is disgraceful.
Sincerely,
Bruce R. Lindsey
Chief Executive Officer
William J. Clinton Foundation
Douglas J. Band
Counselor to President Clinton
Office of William Jefferson Clinton
"The wall" was illustrated when the CIA refused to let John O'Neil have those photos or even know the names of the men in the photos.
LOL! Quit your day job. You're good.
I saw that. You know what was going on and I know what was going on but America's school children will have no idea.
"Apparently Clinton got lewinskied by ABC."
No he didn't. Clinton would have complained if there was only one reference to him in the entire two nights. Clinton whining is the thing people will remember, not the movie. They will think that the stuff about Clinton was a lie.
It's called a diversion.
Yet because Clinton wanted to obtain his objectives: stability, get bin Laden, build an oil pipeline, please the Pakis, to name a few, he tried to treat the Taliban as the legitimate govt. He simply didn't want to see that the Taliban were harboring and protecting bin Laden and lying to our faces about it.
BTW, read Ghost Wars by Steve Coll. Long read, but excellently traces the history of how bin Laden came to be (and all the players involved) from the Soviet invasion to 9/11.
It is also interesting that the Bush II admin had decided to go after bin Laden in late April of '01 and finalized a plan to use Massoud (with backing of Pashtun Hamid Karzai and other tribal leaders) a week before 9/11.
"The 9/11 commission was a sick joke foisted upon an ignorant public."
Guess who's back? The Jersey girls. They loved the report and now that the movie was made, the report didn't go far enough.
Attention getting sows.
I've maintained for a long time that democrats have no conscience... while the republicans have no balls. Let's hope they grow some. Freegards!
thanks for the tip on the book; Iwas going to get Soldiers of God by Robert Kaplan; hope I'll be able to come up with one of the other at local bookstore before going to Amazon
What really struck me was that each agency was waiting for "details" from their sources. Typical liberals looking for a hand out. No spies and no assetts and they expected bin Laden or the 9/11 plot to just fall in their lap. All I can say is that God has blessed us with George W. Bush and we better do everything we can to keep those lefties out of power.
P.s. I saw that someone else commented to you on this after I posted. Sorry to pile on. It was unintentional.
Bring it on! I wish these guys would put their money where their fat mouths are and sue! Please! Please!
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The last thing TV execs and their corporate advertisers want is a bunch of legal hassles and protests creating an adverse climate AFTER a show has been aired. The law suits will be aimed at making the networks think twice before bringing conservative truths to the TV again because it won't be worth the effort.
Maybe. OTOH, a lawsuit on the veracity of TPT911 (which is also part of what they would have to prove if they want to pursue defamation claims) would make riveting TV.
To have the Klintoonistas finally under oath, having to make the case that they didn't pass up OBL with bureacratic bungling, etc.? Fascinating (not to mention doomed to failure).
And who cares what the TV execs think? When they see the interest in the lawsuit and the fervor of the various views, they'd realize it was a win-win proposition for them.
The only people who would be truly distressed by a lawsuit are those who SHOULD---if they actually had the courage of their "convictions"---bring one: the Klintoons. If they truly believe the film defamed them with lies, PROVE IT.
And a good detail they brought in was that, before 9/11, Bush decided to use and Rice was trying to push development of the armed Predator drone.
How much money does a disappointed lawyer get for writing a letter that says he's disappointed?
Hey BJ, how's that Legacy coming? Looks like you can add 911 to it!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Yes, the intel coming in was overwhelming the system during this time.
But notice how the President (W)responded. Instead of waiting to figure everything out, he:
(1) made the decision to really go after bin Laden (and we know what happens when Bush says he is going to do something as opposed to when Klintoon said he was going to do something), and
(2) Bush started taking action on his decision, such as pushing for the armed Predator drone.
Clintonistas call for Iger sanctions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.