Posted on 09/09/2006 12:03:37 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called on ABC/Disney to reveal who poured $40 million into the slanderous 9/11 propoganda film they plan to start airing starting Sunday, and issued the following statement:
"It's deeply disappointing that ABC would put something on the air that has been proven to have factual inaccuracies about one of the most important events in our nation's history. ABC should not air this distortion of history.
"The fact that the writer/producer of the piece is a well known conservative raises additional concerns and questions. The American people deserve to know who funded this $40 million dollar slanderous propaganda. Use of the public airwaves is a privilege conferred upon broadcasters in the public interest. It comes with a responsibility to the American people and a responsibility to the truth."
"The Path to 9/11" - Revisionist History Masquerading as Truth
A "historical" drama fraught with factual error
-- The movie is being advertised as "Based on the 9/11 Commission Report." In truth, it features disturbing revisionist history that faults the Clinton administration for failing to stop 9/11 by refusing to take out Osama bin Laden. There are several scenes, which are utterly and completely fabricated, showing administration officials like National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright telling CIA officials not to go ahead with attacks on bin Laden.
-- In one scene, Madeleine Albright is shown telling CIA officials not to strike bin Laden until she can tip off the Pakistani's, who would be upset by the strike. Not only is this incident nowhere to be found in the 9/11 Commission Report, upon which this drama is supposedly based, but it is patently false and a complete fabrication by the screenwriter.
-- Perhaps more outrageous is a scene where CIA agents, whose operatives have surrounded a hideout where Osama bin Laden is thought to be, contact Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger for authorization to proceed with a strike. Berger says he doesn't have the authority to call the strike and, when pressed by the CIA, hangs up on them. Again, 100 percent false and an unjustifiable fabrication by Rush Limbaugh's friend and Hollywood writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh.
-- The 9/11 Commission Report does reference two instances where the Clinton administration decided not to proceed with strikes against Bin Laden. While one CIA official told the commission that the administration had missed an opportunity in 1999, "Clarke told us the strike was called off after consultations with Director Tenet because the intelligence was dubious." The Commission's report makes clear that, on another occasion in 1999, CIA Director George Tenet doubted his agency's intelligence and did not recommend a strike to the President.
(9/11 Commission Report, pages 138 & 140)
-- Mr. Nowrasteh, whose interviews have been featured on prominent conservative blogs in recent weeks, has no security or policy experience and is responsible for TV gems such as the remake of "La Femme Nakita," "Falcon Crest," "D.E.A.," and "Pacific Blue." The author of the supposedly historical account of the events leading up to 9/11 has an unfortunate tendency to ignore the facts in his filmmaking.
(http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_083006/co ntent/coming_soon.guest.html)
(http://wwwmanhattan- institute.org/html/_chicsuntimes-hollywood.htm)
-- Mr. Nowrasteh has a record of (and penchant for) rewriting history with his films. Historical inaccuracies in Nowrasteh's films have made him the target of criticism in the past - criticism that he has cavalierly brushed off:
o "There's a larger truth at work here in some of these historical adaptations or dramas that's more important than the accuracy of each incident."
o "Does that mean every word, every shot, every scene in the movie is exactly as it happened -- Of course not. No film would claim such a thing. It all comes down to context, interpretation and emphasis. Regardless, I believe the reason the film has received wide acclaim is that it has the ring of truth."
o "If I know that an argument occurred in the Situation Room about a certain subject - and I wasn't in the Situation Room - I have to re-create that argument."
o "My main goal is to stick to the facts, but I also want to create an entertaining and exciting drama."
o "I made a conscious effort not to contact any members of the administration because I didn't want them to stymie my efforts."
The real Clinton Administration record
-- "The Path to 9/11" attempts to paint to Clinton Administration as lackadaisical when it came to counter-terrorism efforts. In fact, the 9/11 Commission Report - the supposed basis for this drama - tells a different story. The Report makes clear that CIA Director George Tenet had clearly been directed by President Clinton and Mr. Berger to get bin Laden (p. 199 & 508- 509).
-- The bi-partisan commission clearly states that Clinton was focused on the threat of al Qaeda and bin Laden, going so far as to make sure that he had a daily stream of reports about bin Laden's whereabouts and activities (p. 175).
-- The facts beneath the TV drama's veneer are that President Clinton and his administration took unprecedented steps to combat terrorism and bring the danger of Islamic terrorism into the conscience of the American public, raising the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
-- Against a heavy Republican opposition that was openly dismissive of the dire threat terrorism was at the time, President Clinton spearheaded a $1.1 billion piece of anti-terror legislation in 1996, spending money to protect infrastructure, increase stockpiling of antidotes, protect airlines, and reorganizing the intelligence community.
-- Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
-- President Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al-Qaeda was using for its money- laundering operations. However, Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, gutted the portions of Clinton's bill dealing with this matter, calling them "totalitarian."
A Bush Administration whitewash
-- It is interesting to note that this film is being released weeks before the critical 2006 midterm elections. At a time when Americans are more united than they've been in years about the failures of the Bush Administration and it's handling of the war on terror, this is a blatant attempt to distract the American viewing public from the Bush team's monumental foreign policy failures - including their failures to follow significant clues in the months leading up September 11th.
-- "The Path to 9/11" is shot in docudrama style- using Clinton-era news clips, it suggests to the audience that it is an honest portrayal of the events leading up to 9/11, when it fact it is nothing more than on Cyrus Nowrasteh's biased, partisan interpretation and dramatization, which he has made public in prominent conservative blogs.
(http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2 3865)
-- Perhaps the best evidence of the partisan bent of the movie is that it weaves in iconic footage of the Lewinski scandal, suggesting to viewers none-too-subtly that President Clinton didn't pursue bin Laden more vigorously because he was distracted by impeachment proceedings. Again, this is an outrageous subtext that is refuted by any number of sources.
-- Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke, p. 186: "Now I feared that the timing of the President's interrogation about the scandal, August 17, would get in the way of hitting the al Qaeda meeting. It did not. Clinton made clear that we were to give him our best national security advice, without regard to his personal problems. 'Do you all recommend that we strike on the 20th -- Fine. Do not give me political advice or personal advice about the timing. That's my problem. Let me worry about that.' If we thought this was the best time to hit the Afghan camps, he would order it and take the heat."
-- A recent Salon review saw this "deceptive" TV Drama for the Bush whitewash that it is:
-- ". Condoleezza Rice gets that fated memo about planes flying into buildings, and makes it very clear to anyone who'll listen just how concerned President Bush is about these terrorist threats -- despite the fact that we're given little concrete evidence of the president's concern or interest in taking action."
-- The whitewash is so blinding that "Instead of offering us some indication of President Clinton's earnest efforts to stop Osama bin Laden, we're repeatedly treated to his most uneasy moments in the hot seat over Lewinsky, painting the president as a buffoon..."
-- Thanks to the Salon it is clear that the conservative writer/producer of this TV drama ".seem(s) determined to link the Clinton administration's missteps to the Monica Lewinsky scandal."
(http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/review/2006/09/01/911_ shows/)
---
Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, http://www.democrats.org. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
bttt
Good thing Pierre Jennings is no longer with us. He would have demanded the bigwigs at ABC pull the film
just like he threw his weight around re: a certain Toby Keith song :)
>>Toby Keith says the producer of an ABC 4th of July TV special rescinded an offer to have the country singer perform his current hit after the show's host, World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings, heard the song and vetoed it. The single, Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American), is an outpouring of grief, anger and frustration Keith wrote in the wake of Sept. 11 and the earlier death of his father. The controversial, patriotic song tells of a veteran who lost his eye in a combat training mission and also features a number of confrontational verses.
(For the record, Mr. Keith is a lifelong Democrat)
Watchin' 'em flip out over a TV show is hilarious.
The more they freak, the more attention it draws.
What fools in so many ways.
I don't think that you can be anymore blinded than you already are blinded by the war on terror.
If Clinton, Burgler, and Halfbright had gone after OBL as hard as they are ABC, they might have gotten OBL.
The 9-11 commission report...as we have discovered since its release...hasn't exactly been 100 percent fact. So we are all left with a story that will never be truthfully told. Its like the Kennedy episode...in fact....like both Kennedy episodes.
Dean: "It's deeply disappointing that ABC would put something on the air that has been proven to have factual inaccuracies about one of the most important events in our nation's history."
Dean followed up: "In fact, the scene where Berger was supposedly thwarting the efforts of field CIA staff, are not true. At the time Berger was busy stuffing TS docs in his pants and socks to coverup the Clinton Administrations failings during one of the most important events in our nation's history."
make that *all* the Kennedy "episodes"...
the infowarrior
DId you notice that DNC has kindly provided a way for you to send your personal message to Robert Iger? I decided to take advantage of it:
Dear Mr Iger:
When I clicked on the Path to 9/11 website, I was miraculously redirected to the Democratic Party site and given an opportunity to write directly to you about this film.
I am astounded and shocked by what I have heard the past couple of days. No, not about the film. About the attempt of current and former government officials from the Democratic Party bullying, cajoling and threatening ABC unless the film is made more palatable to them. Now, that's going to take some work to meet the deadline so Sen. Reid, I guess, just decided to make it easy for you --simply don't show the film at all, he says. Voila! Problem solved for everyone!
Stand firm, Mr. Iger. Run that film -- uncut. This was still America the last time I checked. But it won't be much longer if the gangsters who are putting the screws on you have their way.
Personal note to the Democratic Party, who kindly made this forum available:
Go to hell, brownshirts!
Love,
SCR
I'm aware of that. I'm saying the Democrats gushed over the 9/11 Commission Report. I'm fully aware that it's not 100% factual. That's been my point ever since it was released.
Dean:
If you really believed this - you'd scream it!
No smear left unturned?
First of all, this sounds like a threat. After all, privileges can be revoked.
Second, it's interesting to see the Dems frame their objections in populist terms. The reality is that the energy against the film is coming from a handfull of elites worried about their public image. This is very much a top-down phenomenon. But the Dems are doing everything they can to make it look bottom-up, as conservative disgust with the Reagan film was. Their quickly assembled 200,000 person petition is a case in point. As a tactical matter, it's clear the Dems are making a deliberate effort to keep their anti-film activities from having the appearance of being spurred by the narcissistic self-interest of an elite few. Instead, it's all in the interest of "the people".
How can you say something that you haven't even seen and hasn't even aired is proven inaccurate?
Great message you sent!
I think they should play the entire movie and when the parts come on that Senator Clinton, her husband and the democrats want banned, ABC should put a big red banner across the screen as a disclaimer "CENSURED:Material Not Approved By Democratic Leadership"
That's what I can't figure out either. I'm with the director of the film, let the film air, then debate the movie based on what it contains.
"First of all, this sounds like a threat. After all, privileges can be revoked."
Heck, we ought to support the Dem's on this. If they want to shut down ABC because it says something they don't like after smearing us 98% of the time. Than, we should view it as an oppurtunity to get rid of ABC. It really does not make any difference what stick you use to beat a dog. This way we have a precedent to go after CBS.
I would of donated to it if I could.
Hey Dean,
Post my name if you want, you POS!
I agree, and the louder they yell, the deeper their predicament becomes, IMHO. They're shooting themselves in the foot, politically. Here's why:
It would be more effective to just say it's not factual (and let the viewer go in thinking it's not factual...that is if you believe BJC, but evidently lots of people do otherwise they wouldn't have elected him twice.) So the folks just think, oh, it's just a docudrama like so much on TV, and not a documentary. We saw how much impact Fahrenheit 9/11 had. (Bush is still President.)
By repeatedly yelling for censorship (and if they get it), the viewer now, even if they're prone to believe BJC, will wonder "What got cut out?" and know what they're seeing was a subject of huge controversy. By screaming for censorship, they're bringing more attention to the movie than it would have ordinarily had.
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.