[EBH]

That differs from a note in the critics' version that said the dramatization "is based on the 9/11 commission report and other published sources and personal interviews

I thought I saw this statement in the roll of the opening, not the disclaimer. In fact it was followed by a credit given to the the book, "The Cell."

[PJ-Comix]

Did anybody notice that it was LOUIS FREEH who gave the go-ahead (not Sandy Berger nor the Clintonistas) to grab Ramzi Yousef (sp?) in Pakistan? I thought that was telling. They were waiting and waiting for authorization and it came from FREEH.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Bimp.

[TaxRelief]

This is the response letter sent to whining Clinton supporters by

Thank you for contacting us regarding the ABC special, "The Path to 9/11."

This Sunday and Monday WCVB-TV Channel 5 will air ABC's commercial-free broadcasts of "The Path to 911." On Monday, Part Two will be followed by a special edition of "Primetime Live," an electronic town meeting.

We will forward your concerns to the ABC Network, since they are still in the final edit of the program.

The following disclaimer will air throughout the movie:

"The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report and other published materials, and from personal interviews. The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression."

ABC further states,

"The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it's not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate. The attacks were a pivotal moment in our history that should never be forgotten and it's fitting that the discussion continues."

From talk shows to internet blogs, the discussions about "The Path to 911" have generated much heat, but precious little light. It is interesting to note that viewers, who have been kind enough to contact us directly, arise from two distinct camps: pro-President Bill Clinton and pro-President George W.Bush. That is correct -- both sides have been complaining.

Having reviewed a copy of this mini-series, the management at Channel 5 feels strongly that viewers should decide for themselves the merits of this movie. Unfortunately, there is plenty of blame to go around -- Republican, Democrat, government official and everyday citizen.

Neil Ungerleider
Assistant News Director, WCVB,
5 TV Place,
Needham MA 02494

[prairiebreeze]

The AyePee reporter could've added the sentence "The WH has demanded no changes to the movie's content."

And been absolutley correct in this and other instances.

[SAMS]

"If people blame Bill Clinton after seeing this, then the miniseries has failed," said Kean

Don't worry Kean,I blamed Clinton for 9/11 ON 9/11. I didn't have to wait for movie 5 years later....

[NewLand]

No matter what, this shows the entire Clinton admin as being weak and without courage.

The film, most importantly, also shows the enemy for who they are: our sworn enemy, and dirty dogs who deserve the fate that awaits them.

It also shows the danger we face within from a bloated bureaucracy that still exists today, although soomewhat improved from 2001.

Last, IMO, it should wake up those 'purist' conservatives who are willing to take the risk of allowing the Dems to re-take control of Congress, The WH, and our military...just to make a point and make themselves 'feel better'.

[razorback-bert]

Critics, such as historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., said it was "disingenuous and dangerous" not to include accurate historical accounts

Fixed that!

[shield]

bttt

[dalight]

Used to be equally harsh.. Now we get to revisit Richard Clarks self aggrandizing.. and no one is going to even attempt to set the record straight.

Nevertheless, these corrections to the movie sought and won by the Democrats are in actuality a really serious loss, because we we have been shown again who is really a threat to freedom in the US.

What was Clinton using Echelon to do, obviously all of the ACLU lawyers were missing then. Clinton's abuses of the IRS as retribution are legend, and these folks won't think twice about extinguishing their detractors. Is this the America we want?

[cwb]

"Critics, such as historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., said it was "disingenuous and dangerous" not to include accurate historical accounts in the movie."

---

Hmm...I wonder if Schlesinger felt the same way about Oliver Stone's, "JFK" movie, which deliberately misrepresented Kennedy's willingness to stay in Vietnam. At the beginning of his film, Stone presents us with a quote from JFK that implies that he was on the verge of withdrawing troops from Vietnam:

"I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it...it is the people and government of S. Vietnam who have to win or lose this struggle."

Stone intentionally misrepresented this quote to support his thesis that JFK was reluctant to continue the war. What he left out was the second part of this same speech, which completely contradicts Stone's claims:

"...all we can do is help, and we are making it very clear. But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a mistake...this is a very important struggle even though it's far away."

For years I've listened to liberals quote this part of Stone's film to support their contention that JFK wanted us out of Vietnam. Of course, most weren't aware of the second part of his speech--or his following interview just before his death with Huntley and Brinkley were JFK made it abundantly clear that he was not abadoning Vietnam.

While liberals also love to point to McNamara's NS Memorandum that spoke about a gradual reduction of US troops by 1965, they ignore that this was predicated on the assumption that the S. Vietnamese forces would be able to support themselves. Sadly, the US-supported assassination of Diem didn't turn out the way they hoped, thus this was never a consideration. It appears that historical accuracy in film is only important when it attacks Republicans.

[Continental Soldier]

Isn't it interesting that, no matter the editing and the 'tweakings,' the cowardice and incompetence of Clinton and his administration comes through loud and clear? Once that starts, the rest is bound to follow.