"Heh heh heh. He said YANK!"
Posted on 09/09/2006 9:03:27 AM PDT by 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
This video link is priceless. Produced by NBC and Tom Brokaw no less highlighting the missed opportunities the Clinton Administration had to get Bin Laden....vieo clips of OBL via satellites/drones. Required viewing.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JuH1xwLUnbg
Bump.
The hysteria the Democrats are showing is unbelievable.
Something is wrong with this picture.
Is it possible that they believe a relatively honest docu-drama will draw attention to the Klintoon administration during the 90's? And if so, are they worried that someone digging into this will come up with, discover, find something huge, something not yet known?
Is it possible that Sandy Burglar stealing national security documents from the National Archives while supposedly doing research for the 9-11 Commission is related to something in the 90's that they just cannot allow to go public, at all costs?
I'm telling you folks, something stinks here and I do not believe it is the normal liberal worry about the Klintoon legacy or even the November elections. Not with this absolute overreaction, this hysteria coming from the left.
all this controversy is running the risk of attracting very large viewership for program. seems like a high risk strategy for Dems if they don't get all that they want.
Word of the Day --- Yank
I agree with that but do wonder if it's as simple as people will see how incompetent Clinton was in terms of fighting terrorism and since he bragged that Hillary was his co-president, her chances for the presidency go out the window.
Agreed. But keep in mind, the New Tone is still in effect, and the Rehabilitation of Bubba has been a uniform, undeviating, and consistent policy of W. Note how they even have abetted continuing the operation of the Xlinton's to erase Able Danger with their obstruction policies.
We can only surmise that Hillary's plastic valise with the 900 raw FBI files has something to do with it...
They'll get what they want - PLUS get VICTIM attention. They'll love being the VICTIM of a smear campaign (i.e. truth campaign).
"Heh heh heh. He said YANK!"
I have a question: Does anyone know whether most of the objection to this miniseries is coming from individual viewers or just the Democrat bigwigs.
Reportedly only the first half of the docudrama has been seen by anyone.
The second half is about the months before 9/11 when Bush was in office. Given that the script is based on the 9/11 report and on Richard Clarke version of reality, that part may be very critical of Bush...so the net result may be that the viewers blame Bush more than Clinton for the attacks.
I think we should BAN "The Little House on the Prairie" series of books. After all, some of the stories within were simply capturing the spirit of life lived at that time, and some of the people portrayed were composites. Not to mention the deaths of her brothers that were left out of the story entirely. Where is the outrage?
"the 911 Commission Report was neither written on clay tablets, nor was it handed down to us from Mount Sinai."
And that's what always has bothered me since the findings came out.
Rush also said that it doesn't shed a positive light on some people in Bush's cabinet like Rice. It also makes that guy that was in the whole mess-started in the Clinton administration making warnings-then bashed the Bush administration-out to be the hero. Can anyone give me his name??? Is it Richard Clark?? Don't want to get it wrong,but I believe that is his name. Anyway, he comes off a hero. So obviously there is some "drama"in it. I don't see the harm in letting it run. Then people can decide for themselves. Besides Clinton admitted himself he turned down chances to get Bin Laden. Perhaps they should have just played his quotes on the movie! :-)
I've been worrying about that also. I remember back when Clinton was in office and there was some controversy about showing a video of Clinton going into a "purple rage" on it and demanding that it not be aired.
"The taped testimony underscored the danger of relying on leaked accounts. During the pregame spin last week, Clinton was described as practically in a purple rage.
"Our sources say the president was not just evasive, but profane. At times lost his temper and at one point, stormed out of the room," said CBS's Bob Schieffer."
When they did air it, it was just about the opposite and made Clinton look dood (no easy task).
I think a lot of us will long remember this hoax.
And why didn't Bush demand an advance copy of Fahrenheit?
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.