In New Letter, Clinton's Lawyers Demands ABC Yank Film

tpm cafe ^ | 9/9/06 | Greg Sargent

[finnman69]

On Friday evening, Bill Clinton's lawyers sent a new letter to ABC chief Bob Iger demanding that ABC yank "The Path to 9/11." We've obtained a copy of the letter, and it reads in part: "As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. `The Path to 9/11' not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film." Full text of the letter after the jump.

Dear Bob,

Despite press reports that ABC/Disney has made changes in the content and marketing of "The Path to 9/11," we remailn concerned about the false impression that airing the show will leave on the public. Labelng the show as "fiction" does not meet your responsibility to the victims of the September 11th attacks, their families, the hard work of the 9/11 Commission, or to the American people as a whole.

At a moment when we should be debating how to make the nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, "The Path to 9/11" calls into question the accuracy of the Commission's report and whether fabricated scenes are, in fact, an accurate portrayal of history. Indeed, the millions spent on the production of this fictional drama would have been better spent informing the public about the Commission's actual findings and the many recommendations that have yet to be acted upon. Unlike this film, that would have been a tremendous service to the public.

Although our request for an advance copy of the film has been repeatedly denied, it is all too clear that our objections to "The Path to 9/11" are valid and corroborated by those familiar with the film and intimately involved in its production.

-- Your corporate partner, Scholastic, has disassociated itself from this proect.

-- 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, who served as co-executive producer on "The Path to 9/11," has stated that he raised concerns about the accuracy of several scenes in the film and that his concerns were not addressed during production.

-- Harvey Keitel, who plays the star role of FBI agent John O'Neill, told reporters yesterday that while the screenplay was presented to him as a fair treatment of historical events, he is upset that several scenes were simply invented for dramatic purposes.

-- Numerous Members of Congress, several 9/11 Commissioners and prominent historians have spoken out against this movie.

-- Indeed, according to press reports, the fact that you are still editing the film two days before it is scheduled to air is an admission that it is irreparably flawed.

As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. "The Path to 9/11" not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film.

Sincerely,

Bruce R. Lindsey Chief Executive Officer William J. Clinton Foundation

Douglas J. Band Counselor to President Clinton Office of William Jefferson Clinton

[Mr Cobol]

...whoever his real daddy is.

You've heard the theory of who his real daddy is haven't you?

[GQuagmire]

who?

[Syncro]

`The Path to 9/11' not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission...

Gorlic and the commission itself did self tarnishing IMO

[longtermmemmory]

This is now about silencing the MSM.

The clintons are one by one shutting down the reporters.

It is worth noting which reporters show themselves to be lapdogs.

(I REALLY want to see if Wallace is going stick to his declared boycott)

[tcrlaf]

Damn Taliban Democrats--the truth is like kryptonite to liberals.

Let's call them exactly what they ARE/have become:

The American Nazi-Democratic Party....
No Non-DNC Approved speech will be tolerated under threat of Government Retribution.
SEIG HEIL!!!
ABORTION UBER ALLES!!

[mass55th]

"Someday they will be behind bars where they truly belong."

Hopefully I'll be on the right side of the Pearly Gates to see them try to get in, only to see them vanquished to the depths of Hell.

Well, I can dream can't I?

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Funny how you can successfully sue somebody because your kid stubbed his toe on their doorstep, but nobody can sue Krinton for the theft of 900 FBI files that violates a hundred privacy laws. Billary is also mysteriously unsue-able for harassment (sexual or otherwise), wrongful termination, defamation, violation of political fundraising laws, and bribery.

[longtermmemmory]

I hope and pray the DVD is marketed as the "UNCENSORED Path to 9/11"!

Next they will try and prevent stores from selling it.

Perhaps the producers will give out free downloads.

IMAGINE PATH TO 9/11 VIEWING PARTIES!

Perhaps this is something for a Freeper Activist Action.

[mass55th]

"You've heard the theory of who his real daddy is haven't you?"

Heard it probably wasn't Blythe, but refresh my memory.

[Mr Cobol]

“Perhaps this show makes Bush look really bad and the Clintoons are 1) raising viewer numbers”

I think that is what is going on. One night to show eight years of what, about 15 terrorist attacks, and then one night to focus on eight months of a new Presidency. I don’t like the looks of this.

BJ is not stupid, he would NEVER fall into a trap and expose himself, just ain't gonna happen.

He had to know this was in the making and could have applied the muscle while in production.

I'm not buying the idea that it will damage him.

I'm not smart enough to know the real motive but there is one.

[technomage]

Your point is a good one but since no judge locked up Sandy Burgler, we will never know what the Clintonistas are hiding.

Yeah, Burglar got off with a $10,000 fine. If you or I did that, we would be serving 5-10.

Still, there is a record of all documents catalogued into the archives. Someone can do a cross check and find out exactly what docs are missing.

If I am not mistaken, they do not make copies, either paper, digital or both of all archives??

[NutCrackerBoy]

I am going to turn on my TV to ABC at the appointed time and that show better be on.

[My2Cents]

You have a point, but I think Bush's ineffectiveness in deflecting or answering his critics' lies takes the air out of his supporters as well. I'll give you a personal example: In 2004, I started collecting every reputable report I could find which would confirm that Saddam had an active WMD program, and possessed such weapons prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The idea was to come up with enough evidence of WMDs (evidence that is clearly out there, but which the media has ignored) to provide an answer to the "Bush Lied!" crowd. Just by doing internet searches, I came up with a significant number of reports verifying that Saddam had WMDs. I figured that the Administration had this information, and more, and that some time in 2004 they would effectively and dramatically refute and silence the "Bush Lied!" myth. That refutation never came, and in fact, the Bush Administration simply caved-in and admitted that much of the pre-war intelligence about Saddam's WMD capabilities was in error. I was stunned by the Administration's willingness to let the whole matter drop, and by their refusal to fight on this issue and to bring the evidence that there was to light. I was still doing research on Saddam's WMDs when I finally came to the conclusion, "What's the point?" If the Administration wouldn't defend itself and answer the claims that "Bush Lied!", why should I knock myself out doing my own research into the issue? Now, true, Bush won the '08 election (bearly), but the myth that "Bush Lied!" is still hanging out there, unchallenged (or unchallenged effectively). Bush may be content to let history be the judge, and maybe 25 years from now the record will be set straight, but in the meantime the liars and character assassins are doing their corrosive work, undermining Bush's policies and the security of this nation, and the White House continues to sit and let them lie.

More to the point of this thread, Clinton's syndicate has been busy innoculating the viewing public in order to minimize the impact of the ABC 9/11 film. If, as we all expect, the second part of the film hits Bush's actions, or inactions, presenting Richard Clarke's view of things leading up to 9/11, will the Republicans or the White House defend itself if these hits are exaggerated or outright wrong? I think we know the answer to that...a big fat "No."

[Mr Cobol]

I'll hold off till someone else has more info on it. I'm sure someone else has heard it.

I heard it on Medved on his conspiracy day.

Medved said it was very possible and I haven't heard anymore.

[Jackie]

.
TO ALL -- Remember:

1. Hitchens called Bubber a rapist and serial liar.

2. Safire, of course, called Hillary a congenital liar.

3. Fahrenheit 911 is packed with lies.
.

[FastCoyote]

"I agree completely. If they had ignored or minimized it with a dismissive tone, it would have had far less impact. What they've done is effectively maximize its potential damage to them. Heh, heh."

It's a double bind for Dems. If it gets pulled, everyone will wonder what they missed and why they weren't allowed to decide. And the pirated copy is already out, so everyone will see it anyway. If it gets edited, every edited part will now be analyzed to death, further highlighting the problem. And the more they try heavyhanded censureship, the more people will ask "What do they have to hide?".

[tcrlaf]

I think the Administration was trying to stay ABOVE the fray, and trying not to get distracted by Liberal Lie, after Liberal lie, believing THE TRUTH would eventually make it's way out....

Unfortunately, the LIES became the accepted norm. As evidenced by the Rove Affair, the TRUTH means very little to today''s Liberal, democrats, and Media, who didn't even do the most basic of FACT-CHECKING into what they were reporting...

In an environment where DNC Press releases get relayed verbatim as "Breaking News" without question, they probably fet it was just easier to diffuse this by agreeing, than getting into a huge "They said, We Said"...

[My2Cents]

The fact that Dr. Demento is in on this stanpede of the first amendment requires a response.

My basic problem with the RNC is that it views the Dems pulling these stunts and it assumes that most Americans will figure the Dems are being petty and stupid, and that they (the RNC) can just sit back and let the Dems self-destruct. That's assuming too much thought and insight on the part of the American people. This passive response to Democrat outrages is frustrating, particulary when the Dems are trampling upon such things as the First Amendment. I view their passivity as an unwillingness to defend our constitutional rights when they're threatened by the Democrats.

[Mr Cobol]

Heard it probably wasn't Blythe, but refresh my memory.

Yah it's almost certain it wasn't Blythe.

I'll hold off on the theory I heard, I was hoping someone else had heard it.

[Recovering_Democrat]

...but also cheapens the fith anniversary...

I guess Lindsey and Band can't afford a spell checker.