Did ABC Edit "The Path to 9/11"

hughhewitt.townhall.com ^ | Sept. 5, 2006 | Hugh Hewitt

[Signalman]

The Disney execs met all through the weekend - unheard of in this business - debating what changes would be made and what concessions should be given. Here is what looks to be the conclusion:

- There will be a handful of tweaks made to a few scenes. - They are minor, and nuance in most cases - a line lift here, a tweak to the edit there. - There are 900 screeners out there. When this airs this weekend, there will be a number of people who will spend their free evenings looking for these changes and will be hard pressed to identify them. They are that minor. - The average viewer would not be able to tell the difference between the two versions. - The message of the Clinton Admin failures remains fully intact.

The story here is the backlash that the Disney/ABC execs experienced was completely unexpected and is what caused them to question themselves and make these changes at all. Had this been the Bush Admin pressuring, they wouldn't have even taken the call. The execs and studio bosses are dyed in the wool liberals and huge supporters of Clinton and the Democratic Party in general. They had no idea any of this could happen. As I understand this, the lawyers and production team spent literally months corroborating every story point down to the sentence. The fact that they were the attacked and vilified by their "own team" took them completely by surprise; this is the first time they've been labeled right-wing, conservative conspiracists.

The scramble caused by this backlash was so all consuming that the execs spent their holiday weekend behind closed door meetings and revamped their ad campaign. But at the end of their mad scramble, they found only a handful of changes they could make and still be true to the events. The changes are done only to appease the Clinton team - to be able to say they made changes. But the blame on the Clinton team is in the DNA of the project and could not be eradicated without pulling the entire show. A $40 million investment on the part of ABC is enough to stem even Bill Clinton's influence.

An exclamation point on this event is the fact that Oliver Stone will endorse the project this week. Not known for his conservative leanings, he loves the project. Perhaps this and the fact that the production company that made Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" are endorsing it would underline just how far out or touch and scared the Clinton Admin is about the revelation of the facts as portrayed in this project. Is it just that Clinton is continuing to re-define his legacy? Or is it his fears for this election cycle and 2008? Or both?

Thanks for getting the word out. It's made a significant difference in getting this broadcasted as it should be.

[pbear8]

To be aired September 10 and 11.

[CedarDave]

An exclamation point on this event is the fact that Oliver Stone will endorse the project this week. Not known for his conservative leanings, he loves the project. Perhaps this and the fact that the production company that made Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" are endorsing it...

Ok, so far this would imply it's favorable or at least not harmful to the Clintons. But then what follows does not make sense:

[These facts] would underline just how far out or touch and scared the Clinton Admin is about the revelation of the facts as portrayed in this project.

Are Clinton and his cronies complaining because it isn't 110% favorable to his legacy? Or am I reading this all wrong? I can not believe Oliver Stone and Al Gore sycophants would endorse the film if it portrayed the Clinton years in an unfavorable light.

[ArmstedFragg]

It's never too late for Democrats to swoop in and ruin something.

They've just gone on to step two. They're now demanding that a disclaimer to the effect that the film is a work of fiction be shown after each commercial break.

[Liberty Valance]

[PA-RIVER]

soooo right.

I bet Team Clinton has all the FBI files they need to twist a few arms.

That was project number one when they got the white house.
Was it Craig Livingstone who collected them for Madam Rodham?

[lawdude]

"Yeah!...figured this one out.....damn those Clintonoids,they seem to win out every time!!!"

Rush has a copy of the unedited version and will not allow wholesale changes without comment.

[Jonah Johansen]

It just does not compute for me.
Disney/ABC spending 40 million on a movie which they know will have a major emotional impact on a large number of people, broadcasting it 6 weeks before an election

and
it is critical of liberal icon Bill Clinton,thinking and acting like a liberal.

I wish I wasn't so skeptical. I feel something has to be going on behind the scenes. The networks are the Democratic Party's sock puppets. I can not believe that ABC after all these years of promulgating the "big lie" has suddenly chosen to tell the truth

[Lancey Howard]

BUMP!

[Cheburashka]

Do research, check your sources, check them again, try to make sureyou're telling the truth, and the Dims will call you an extremist. Is anyone surprised?
---
ABC is. That's the whole point of the story.

[Lancey Howard]

Imagine what might have ended up in the report and in the movie if Sandy Burglar had not been successful in spiriting those original Clinton memos, complete with margin notes, out of the National Archives in his socks and underwear and then destroying them.

[Signalman]

It just does not compute for me. Disney/ABC spending 40 million on a movie which they know will have a major emotional impact on a large number of people, broadcasting it 6 weeks before an election

I've been thinking the same thing. I think that, possibly, ABC realizes that one reason C-BS consistently loses in the network news ratings race is because everyone perceives them as being way too liberal. So with this show, they are trying to appeal to the broad base of conservative viewers. It's about ratings.

[Yaelle]

That picture makes me want to be sick. However, I do find it far less of a joke than the subjects do.

[Cheburashka]

Are Clinton and his cronies complaining because it isn't 110% favorable to his legacy? Or am I reading this all wrong? I can not believe Oliver Stone and Al Gore sycophants would endorse the film if it portrayed the Clinton years in an unfavorable light.
---
Yes, Billy Jeff is pissed because this brings into question his legacy as the greatest president of the 20th AND 21st centuries (January 1st through the 19th, 2001 were in the 21st century. And in his mind no one could ever match him for the rest of the century.)

I don't know about Oliver Stone, but just because he's a leftist doesn't mean he likes Bubba.

As for Algore, remember that the Presidential candidate normally has a great deal on influence in his party even if he loses, so Gore should have a lot of say in how the Democratic Party was run after 2000. He was ignored and shut out by the Clintons. This might be payback time.

The next ten days could be very interesting. I know that a lot of FReepers have come to believe that Billy Jeff will never get what he deserves for his years of misrule, and I tended to believe it myself. Maybe, just maybe, the first installment of retribution is now coming due.

[Tail Gunner John]

Craig "nobody hired him" Livingstone. Had he been a Republican he would still be serving the first of his 900 consecutive felony sentences.

[satchmodog9]

bump

[Shelayne]

I think you're right. The bottom line is ratings. The producers went through it with a fine-tooth comb to make certain all the i's were dotted and t's crossed. Then the Clinton cronies found out about it and screamed foul.

As Hugh Hewitt says, not even ABC is willing to swallow 40 million to protect the Clinton "legacy". The tweaking-the- movie-bit, though, is nauseating. How many calls has the Bush Administration made to ABC to stop this, to label it fiction, to re-write? The answer is obvious, because if they had, that would be a number one story--"Bush Wants to Quash Whistleblowing Film" I can see the headline, above the fold, in every major newspaper.

Clinton is such a whiner. Let the truth be told. Finally.

And what DID Sandy Berger stuff down his pants and in his socks and "accidentally" destroy anyway?

[TheCornerOffice]

The movie's blog is back on the ABC site now. It is a moderated blog, so any posts there will not immediately appear.

The posts there so far (mostly from Sept 1-2 before the blog temporarily disappeared) are overwhelmingly vicious and hysteric, while the posts from director David Cunningham and writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh are reasonable and consistent in urging people to watch BOTH nights of the movie before making judgments.

Evidently, while the first night hits the Clinton administration pretty hard (although showing some successes), the Bushies will probably look bad in the second night.

If anyone chooses to make a post there, I suggest that you try to refrain from equal and opposite hysteria and name-calling -- just to make the attackers appear to be as unreasonable as they clearly are.

http://blogs.abc.com/thepathto911/

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

NEVER FORGET


KFI 640-AM Los Angeles Radio's JOHN ZIEGLER is reporting tonight that BERGER & ALBRIGHT have been calling ABC-TV for changes in the final version of this 9/11 exposee for the last week. And that they succeeded twice..!!

The 1st change came when ABC took out the 'Based on the 9/11 Commission Report' part of this program's advance TV Commerical promotions.

The 2nd change edited out was BERGER's pulling all our Agents out of Afghanistan during the 1990's.


A BERGER who was the contact man for CLINTON's 3 refusals to bring OSAMA bin LADEN here when freely offered the CLINTON White House by the Sudan during the 1990's. This per the man who personally arranged these 3 OSAMA offers, MONSOOR IJAZ, who shared all this on the Fox News Channel to a stunned nation on September 12, 2001. In the nodding in agreement presence of former CLINTON CIA Chief JAMES WOOLSEY..!!!

A BERGER who also was the Chief Washington, D.C. Lobbyist for COMMUNIST CHINA before being made National Security Advisor by a CLINTON that was on the side of Communist North Vietnam, and against US, during the Vietnam War..!!!


The Enemy is now Within,
...and always has been,

...STILL..!!!



Signed:.."ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer
Veteran-1st Major Battles for Freedom of the Vietnam War, 1965-66

http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_collection.htm


NEVER FORGET

.

[Intolerant in NJ]

The fact that they were the attacked and vilified by their "own team" took them completely by surprise; this is the first time they've been labeled right-wing, conservative conspiracists...slowly, slowly it may be dawning on the leftists, as it apparently did recently on Lanny Davis, just how vicious and totalitarian the Clinton bunch with whom they've been running can become when they believe themselves crossed...can wisdom be far behind.....

[highlander_UW]

We can only be thankful that Albright chose to cover her face in this picture.