Thanks for posting the REAL site for the miniseries (the DNC has a fake one) -- This is only the top portion, squished:
Posted on 09/07/2006 4:12:34 PM PDT by Mo1
Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
by John in DC - 9/07/2006 06:02:00 PM
This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.
Read it, then read my analysis of it below:September 7, 2006
The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.
Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521
Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.
Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.
Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]
Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.
Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.
As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
This raises the stakes incredibly for Disney.
Remeber something that was said to me on FreeRepublic...
If you are not taking flack you are not above the target. They are nervous as hell. And they know the truth is coming out and it scares them.
"So what if he isn't dead? He is reduced to sending out rehashed video of his glory days. He may not be dead but unlike when Clinton was "after him" he is actually on the run now. He knows for sure that Bush will not pass up a chance to turn him into red mist, he also knew that Clinton would take a poll before acting. You can be "disappointed' for all I care but his impotence is probably better for the WOT than his death."
This whole thing starts as criticism towards ABC, for probably distorting Clinton's efforts, or lack thereof in getting bin Laden.
My comments simply warned that trying to make too much of that exposes the Bush side to counter-criticism that Bush hasn't gotten him yet, either.
There is a big contingent of Clinton followers, eager to identify and headline his every misdeed and fault. Many of them make FR their home.
Clinton and Bush aren't running for President in 2008. But a bunch of Republican candidates must run on Bush's record, to some extent.
I'm merely suggesting a bit of political caution, as far as overplaying this issue.
Surely we haven't heard or seen the last of this.
A HUGE BTTT!!!
Thanks for posting the REAL site for the miniseries (the DNC has a fake one) -- This is only the top portion, squished:
On "The Grapevine" section of that show, "Special Report With Brit Hume" Brit reported that "Democratic bloggers plan to 'Google bomb' the 9/11 docudrama" so that anyone trying to look it up will only find moonbat putdowns among the first several dozen search results. So make sure your blog and website entries have "The Path to 9/11" "miniseries" "ABC" "9-11" "WTC" "twin towers" the URL of the REAL website ( http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/index.html ) and anything else you can think of, and submit your site at http://www.google.com/addurl/?continue=/addurl.
Thanks for the courtesy "ping", hoosiermama. I've been out in the "bush", so I'm trying to play catch-up on the latest news. Am heading out to moose camp (hunting) tomorrow so I'll be gone for another couple of weeks. Keep on fightin' the good fight and I'll be checking in again towards the end of September. Til then, be safe, be vigilant, and.....be happy. :)
Have a wonderful time, Chena!
Indeed.
| "[Bill Clinton is] timid, indecisive, wishy-washy, and a chameleon who tries too hard to get everyone to love him." -- John Brummett, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette | |
| "Decision making is an excruciating process for Clinton. He almost invariably seems determined to delay a final decision for as long as possible. He likes to ponder publicly all his options, consult people, make a decision, consult anew, change his mind, then change it again. He's a veritable symphony of equivocation." -- David Shaw, Los Angeles Times, 9-17-93 | |
| "Clinton never makes up his mind." -- Clinton supporter Jeffrey Klein, editor-in-chief of Mother Jones, on C-SPAN | |
| "The chaos and paralysis of the Clinton presidency reflect the chaos and paralysis of Bill Clinton's mind. ... But Clinton is not separable from the chaos. It is his chaos. Left to his own devices, Clinton always generates chaos around him." -- Edith Efron, Reason, Nov., 1994 | |
| “Aside from scandals and investigations, [former FBI Director Louis] Freeh says Clinton let down the American people and the families of victims of the 1996 Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia. “After promising to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds, Freeh says Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody — the only way the bureau could secure the interviews, according to Freeh. “Freeh writes in the book [My FBI], 'Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis’ reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.' ” -- 60 Minutes, Oct. 6, 2005 |
|
| Interview On Orange TV 7-15-2003: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: "We didn't need to have 9-11. 9-11 happened because during the last administration Mr. Clinton didn't do his job. I was just talking to an ambassador from Sudan who tried to give us all of the records on bin Laden. He had all of the details of the entire terrorist network, and Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton personally turned it down -- wouldn't even let the FBI copy them!" Rep. Tom Feeney: "In fairness, they were busy building nuclear plants for North Korea." Rep. Rohrabacher: "Right. Precisely." |
|
| "Remember, Osama Bin Laden was offered to the United States on a silver platter and the Clinton administration said no." -- Neal Boortz, 3-2-2004 HERE and: "A former CIA official told NBC News last week that [Clinton] White House orders to spare Bin Laden's life cut the chances of getting him in half. Once again, they viewed terrorism as a law enforcement problem, worrying about Bin Laden's rights instead of just unleashing the CIA to exterminate him." -- Boortz, 3-25-2004 HERE | |
| "I've been to Sudan. And I was in Khartoum and met with some of the higher- ranking people with the Sudanese government. They told me personally -- I had heard that before -- that they actually offered [him] up to the Clinton administration -- that is, Osama bin Laden -- if they wanted him." -- Sen. Richard Shelby of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to Chris Matthews 7-22-2004 | |
"At the time, 1996, [bin Laden] had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." -- W.J. Clinton as quoted by Mansoor Ijaz in an editorial in the Los Angeles Times Dec 5, 2001 |
|
| Peter M. Leitner, a senior strategic trade adviser at the Defense Department ... says the previous [Clinton] administration rubber-stamped the shipment of top-end military-related telecommunications equipment to Syria, which is on the FBI's list of sensitive countries that pose a threat to U.S. security. ... 'We're giving them spread-spectrum radios, which are almost impossible to break into. We're giving them fiber optics. We're giving them a high level of encryption. We're giving them computer networks that can't be tapped,' Leitner said. ... Leitner posits that the NSA wasn't able to detect the Islamic terrorists' plot because of the 'high quality of the communications gear that they've been acquiring over the last couple of years, thanks to the Clinton administration's decontrols on advanced telecommunications equipment.' " -- Paul Sperry, Sept. 12, 2001 | |
| "No president did more to ignore the mounting threat of Islamic terrorism than did Bill Clinton, and 3,000 people paid for his policies with their lives." -- Neal Boortz, 8-10-2005 |
4)Clinton has files on them and they're afraid;)
"If this is what they do when they're out of power,......."
Just REMEMBER what they did when they were in power."
That is exactly what Newt Gingrich implied in an interview with Greta this evening. It was priceless! and they didn't even know about this letter yet!!!
Isn't it the truth, Mr. Robinson!!
The grimmest film by far that Disney has ever made. I keep wondering, why Disney, it is not their genre.
glurge theology?
Jeez, I hope that was a joke!!
We, as individuals, have the right to complain. U.S. Senators, acting in that capacity, DO NOT have the right to complain, much less THREATEN an entire television network!! There is no parity in the two instances whatsoever.
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.