Skip to comments.
ABC Altering 9/11 Film After Clinton Officials Express Outrage
Fox News ^
| 9/8/06
Posted on 09/08/2006 6:14:38 AM PDT by pabianice
Edited on 09/08/2006 8:38:54 AM PDT by Admin Moderator.
[history]
ABC is altering its upcoming miniseries "The Path to 9/11" in response to intense criticism from members of the Clinton administration that the two-part, made-for-TV film is filled with factual errors and lies, a network official reportedly said.
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 said they 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.
The Washington Post reported Friday that an ABC executive, who requested anonymity because the network is making only written comments, said small revisions have been underway for weeks.
Excerpt
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abctv; ahabandjezebel; aretherenomenleft; atabc; billingrecords; bluedressstain; censorship; chinesecampaignmoney; clintonistas; clintonsucks; demoalliesterrorists; freedomofspeech; impeachedexpresident; jimguytucker; liar; liberalmedia; maproom; mediamorons; mediawhores; monica; nazis; pathto911; roselawfirm; scumbag; sinkemperor; stainovaloffice; stalinism; thebentone; themeaningofis; traitors; travelgate; vincefoster; whileclintonslept
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 421-430 next last
To: SueRae
The ultimate irony is that the original uncut DVD is almost certainly available for two bucks in Communist China--bastion of free speech (s)--and not on US TV.
221
posted on
09/08/2006 7:32:47 AM PDT
by
CDB
("They shall fall by the sword: they shall be a portion for foxes." from Psalm 63)
To: GQuagmire; All
I read that the cuts or changes are small compared to the effect the movie will have on people. They will see the terrorists as they are, evil people (like how you feel after watching Jack Bauer get one of them) and the DVD sales are already picking up.
Remember all those uncut DVD's handed out in "gift bags" at the screening. Well, according to MacRanger over at his site:
Looks like Bill is going to need a case of Pepto, email from overseas, guess what bootleg movie is showing up? Told you, cant stop the flood. Look for the Berger Cuts to show up on You Tube any day now.
Also from MacRanger:
Think about it folks, ABC wouldnt have spent $40 million dollars and two years of production if they hadnt already vetted the facts they will portray. Regardless of the hysteria, they are on pretty good ground. In fact, the witnesses are all too willing to come forward if needed to give their accounts in person if needed.
Lets remember that the 9/11 Commission report didnt report all the facts and in some cases - like Able Danger - ignored facts. The writers and directors pulled a lot of storyline not from editorial license, but from eye witness accounts. THATS why you see such a push back. They know the real Clinton legacy is about to go in the crapper and while the Democratic Party has pretty much disavowed the Clintons, the fact is that they are the last Democrats that were in power during the terrorism filled 90s, and proved that they cannot be trusted with National Security.
So look for more craziness to come, but in the final analysis they are going to lose this battle and lose it big.
To: pabianice
ABC could solve the whole problem by giving the characters names like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condalizza Rice, and Carl Rove.
Then the DNC would be quiet about it.
Hey, it's fiction, right?
223
posted on
09/08/2006 7:33:40 AM PDT
by
angkor
To: TomGuy; halfright
"Rush said he never received a copy of the tape, He saw it live..."
"I thought he said he had 'received' an unofficial copy of the DVD -- from an unnamed source."
I recall Rush saying he received a copy from Cyrus (forget his last name) who was the author/screenwriter I believe and a friend/acquaintance of Rush. He said that BJ and other Clintonistas wanted a copy, but ABC wouldn't give them one, nor did they supposedly give anyone a copy. There was a screening in DC with about 1/2 Pubbies and 1/2 Dims within the last month or so. IIRC Rush said none of the Dims said anything negative after they saw the screening of the original version.
To: Williams
Correct. The story right now is the editing of a movie. The REAL story is political censorship by liberals. Remember what happened to Tipper Gore and Aerosmith? We need an Aerosmith to come out loudly against censorship now.
To: BoBToMatoE
Hey, Bill Clinton raped and molested and then terrorized women and young girls, and they made him a hero. They can and will do anything.
Like Clinton said, he did it "because he could." They will come for us soon enough. And the republicans will go quietly, hats in hand.
To: uncbob
>> As he preaches to the choir<<
As does FR, Little Green Footballs, Instapundit and Hot Air.
That doesn't mean I don't enjoy them.
227
posted on
09/08/2006 7:34:45 AM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
To: Mo1
Do you know the answer into my #217? I'm looking for the answer now.
228
posted on
09/08/2006 7:34:59 AM PDT
by
scott7278
(The War on Terror includes defending the homefront from the MSM.)
To: pabianice
Surprise, surprise, surprise. /Pyle
229
posted on
09/08/2006 7:35:32 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(I don't vote for liberals, regardless of party.)
To: pabianice
I always thought (abc) would cave. clintoon and his band of criminals receive cover yet again.
230
posted on
09/08/2006 7:35:52 AM PDT
by
From One - Many
(Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk)
To: halfright
I specifically heard him say he had the advance DVD on Tuesday at the beginning of the show. He did not say then who he had received it from but he did mention the person yesterday.
231
posted on
09/08/2006 7:35:52 AM PDT
by
mazda77
To: pabianice
I'm wondering how much intent there was from the get-go that any controversial scenes, that is, anything critical of Clinton or cast the Clintonians in a bad light, would ever see the light of day. To be honest, this whole slimy affair looks like nothing more than the typical political dirty trick the Clintons used the entire time they were in office, which was just different versions of front-running. That is, put out the word that something really, really bad was coming, raise holy Hell about it, relentlessly hammer any opposition down, get whatever changes and soft-pedaling you squeeze out of the (accommodating) media, and then when whatever it was actually breaks, everyone says, geez, this isn't so bad, what's all the fuss about?
We saw this same game played, with minor variations, countless times in dealing with the multiple of Clinton scandals over the years. Do a preemptive strike to make it seem things are really bad, and when the thing actually comes out a lot the public is pretty much inoculated to it, but also play the "victim" angle for all its worth so you end up gaining more sympathy than antipathy.
232
posted on
09/08/2006 7:36:40 AM PDT
by
chimera
To: rintense
If the republican establishment had engaged in this there would be public hearings and the media would attack the GOP and run them out of office. Keep in mind the thing the democrats are covering up is their complicity in the deaths of thousands of Americans.
To: longtermmemmory
"Chris Wallace already said he will boycott covering the 9/11 documentary! and thats FNC!"
He can stay home if he wants to boycott it, Brit Hume wont, and HE calls the shots!
234
posted on
09/08/2006 7:38:21 AM PDT
by
Beagle8U
(Ronald Reagan didn't turn me into a Republican....Jimmy Carter did that!!)
To: mazda77
No big deal just the use of raw government power and threats to rewrite the history of Americans killed by their incompetence, just the burial of the First Amendment. Clinton rapes America again, and walks away smiling. Again.
To: scott7278
Does anyone know how, as a citizen of the United States, to formally request an investigation into abuse of power and conduct unbecoming a senator for these five fools? I'm not sure you can do anything to them except to elect them out of office
Voter can have the last say .. but that is up to the voters
It is possible for ethic charges to be brought on them for throwing their weight as US Senators to make a threat to a TV Station
236
posted on
09/08/2006 7:39:29 AM PDT
by
Mo1
(Think about it .. A Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be 2 seats away from being President)
To: jackv
Perhaps all the publicity will generate some interest in what Clinton actually did (or in this case,
didn't do) prior to 9-11.
CNN should really capitalize on this. It's a great opportunity for them to trounce another network, and get the truth out about Clinton for once.
Somehow, I doubt CNN will take advantage of this golden opportunity. It could bring them both credibility and profit, but I guess kowtowing to the liberals gods trumps all that.
To: TomGuy
"Chris Wallace tried to compare this with the Reagan movie that got shuffled to Showtime."
If truth = fiction, yeah, there is a comparison.
Reagan movie was a protest about obviously false protrayals.
Clintonistas are protesting the truth.
238
posted on
09/08/2006 7:42:00 AM PDT
by
WOSG
(Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
To: Notwithstanding
No, its bias.
Censorship is when the govt does it. In this case "intimidation", or "blackmail" might be better terms.
239
posted on
09/08/2006 7:42:20 AM PDT
by
El Gato
To: scott7278
I believe a lawsuit could certainly be brought by citizens who believe their First Amendment rights were infringed by government action, due to the involvement of current officeholders. The lawsuit would at least be embarrassing to the network and the politicians. Would the citizens have standing? The lawsuit would have much better legal grounds if brought by ABC.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 421-430 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson