Slaughter Calls for ABC to Come Clean on New 9-11 Docudrama

[Stephanie]

Divisive and Politicized Accounts of September 11th Attacks and National Security Issues Endanger Nation


Washington, DC - Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY-28), Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee, today called for ABC to make clear to viewers that its upcoming television mini-series The Path to 9/11 is not a documentary account of the events and political decisions that preceded the terrorist attacks of that day.



"ABC has a responsibility to make clear that this film is not a documentary, and does not represent an official account of the facts surrounding the September 11th attacks," Rep. Slaughter said. "Disclaimers noting that The Path to 9/11 is a docudrama should be shown throughout its airing. We have yet to establish the impartiality and accuracy of the people behind this film and the claims it advances, and the American people need to know that."



Rep. Slaughter also expressed concern over the timing of the mini-series, as well as recent Republican rhetoric on the issue of national security and its connection to the war in Iraq.



"But what is far more important is the timing of this movie," Rep. Slaughter continued. "The anniversary of the attacks is an emotional time, and it is wrong for anyone to play on those emotions and use them to advance a political agenda."



"This is, regrettably, what many top Administration officials are doing with the rhetoric we have heard of late," Rep. Slaughter said. "We have been told we are in a fight against a new kind of fascism, and that individuals who question our current path in Iraq are morally equivalent to Nazi appeasers and those who would justify slavery."
"Such claims are more than just morally reprehensible and deeply irresponsible. They are also damaging to our country, making it difficult, if not impossible, to have a serious, non-partisan discussion about how best to protect our nation."



"Democrats have always worked to promote a more peaceful and secure world, and we will continue to do so, regardless of this divisive Republican rhetoric," Rep. Slaughter said.



"The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we stand for real security: real implementation of the 9-11 Commission's recommendations, a real commitment to securing threats against the homeland, and a real plan for the future American military commitment in Iraq - not just more wishful thinking and empty justifications, which are what this Administration has been content to offer us."



"What America needs is real security based on an honest view of the world and the threats against us, not more divisive, pre-election rhetoric that slanders political opponents while doing nothing to make our nation more secure."

A FILM OF QUESTIONABLE INTEGRITY



Director of The Path to 9/11, billed as "an objective telling of the events of 9/11," admits that film is "not a documentary": The director of the film, David Cunningham, posted on the show's official blog that his work was "not a documentary..." For unexplained reasons ABC has already taken down its blog promoting the show. [Think Progress, 9/2/06]


the path to 9/11 makes numerous questionable claims - such as that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or capture bin laden - that have already drawn criticism: Reviews of the film have shown it to contain questionable claims. According the reviewers of the film, who include Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and now counterterrorism advisor to ABC, the film's distorted version of history is inconsistent with the 9/11 Commission Report, upon which it claims to be based. [Think Progress, 9/5/06]


film's writer is a noted conservative activist: The writer of The Path to 9/11 is an unabashed conservative named Cyrus Nowrasteh. Last year, Nowrasteh spoke on a panel titled "Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift." He has described Michael Moore as "an out of control socialist weasel," and conducted interviews with right-wing websites like FrontPageMag. [Think Progress, 9/1/06]






THE TIMING OF THE PATH TO 9/11 IS TROUBLING GIVEN VITRIOLIC AND IRRESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATION RHETORIC CONCERNING WAR ON TERROR



Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld Compares War Critics to Nazi Appeasers: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has compared critics of the Bush administration to Nazi appeasers before World War II, warning that the nation is confronting "a new type of fascism." Speaking at the American Legion convention in Salt Lake City, Utah, Rumsfeld compared the skeptics of the Bush administration's foreign policy critics to American officials who had hoped to negotiate with Adolf Hitler. [Julian E. Barnes, "Rumsfeld Says Critics Appeasing Fascism," LA Times, 8/30/06]


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Equates IRAQ War Critics TO Slavery Supporters: Secretary of State Rice compared the Iraq war with the American Civil War, telling a magazine that slavery might have lasted longer in this country if the North had decided to end the fight early. "I'm sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold," Rice said in the new issue of Essence magazine. [Bill Hutchinson, New York Daily News, "Condi Uses Civil War to Slap Iraq Critics," 9/5/06]



Excerpt rest at...
http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=679&Itemid=

 

[Hobbit]

Uh, nobody said anything about Fahrenheit 9/11, so they can quit their bitching.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I think Rep. Slaughter will have a hard time proving that this docudrama is not factual.

Here's an interview Front Page Magazine had with the writer and producer.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/printable.asp?ID=23865.

Please note his comment about this production: "Early last year (2005) I was approached by ABC and asked if I'd be interested in writing/producing a miniseries based on the 9/11 Commission Report. I met with executive producer Marc Platt and Governor Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, who agreed to serve as a consultant on the project. I was provided an incredible amount of research materials and high-level advisors from the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Diplomatic Security, etc."

How could anyone think the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Diplomatic Security, etc. were not credible sources? I don't think the Clintonistas are going to have much luck discrediting this one because the public already suspected the truth right after 9/11 happened.

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

Uh, nobody said anything about Fahrenheit 9/11, so they can quit their bitching.

thank you- hell they invited Micheal "fatass" moore. the man sat next to Jimmy cater- i mean wtf.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Clinton Demands ABC Fix 9/11 Movie or Pull It

An angry Bill Clinton is demanding that ABC "correct all errors” in its upcoming miniseries "The Path to 9/11” — or pull it from the air.

In a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger, Clinton refuted several of the miniseries’ assertions, including that he was too preoccupied with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about Osama bin Laden.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely,” reads the letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton’s office.

The letter — obtained by the New York Post — also charges that the miniseries is a "fictitious rewriting of history.”


Clinton aides have seen only a trailer from the six-hour miniseries, which airs on Sept. 10 and 11, the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They have also received reports from political allies who have seen it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/7/102122.shtml?s=al&promo_code=253C-1

President Clinton still trying to secure a good place in history.

 

[jillian]

Clinton Demands ABC Fix 9/11 Movie or Pull It

An angry Bill Clinton is demanding that ABC "correct all errors” in its upcoming miniseries "The Path to 9/11” — or pull it from the air.

In a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger, Clinton refuted several of the miniseries’ assertions, including that he was too preoccupied with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about Osama bin Laden.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely,” reads the letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton’s office.

The letter — obtained by the New York Post — also charges that the miniseries is a "fictitious rewriting of history.”


Clinton aides have seen only a trailer from the six-hour miniseries, which airs on Sept. 10 and 11, the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They have also received reports from political allies who have seen it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/7/102122.shtml?s=al&promo_code=253C-1

President Clinton still trying to secure a good place in history.

Maybe Clinton just wants it to comport with the findings of the 9/11 Comission?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Maybe Clinton just wants it to comport with the findings of the 9/11 Comission?

Have you seen the film? Do you know for fact that it doesn't comport with the 9/11 Commission? Hell, Clinton hasn't even watched anything more than the trailer for the film.

It's just Clinton being Clinton. Moore blamed it on Bush with his flick and now a movie has been made that puts some blame on Clinton. We can get away with calling President every name in the book. We can blame him for everything from the weather to Herpes, but we place Clinton at fault for something the "shares" the blame for and the entire left gets their panties in a wad.

 

[Mr. P]

Maybe Clinton just wants it to comport with the findings of the 9/11 Comission?

More likely he just wants it to comport with his version.
Since it won't he doesn't want it shown?

 

[Kagom]

From the way things seem, Clinton wants the facts to be portrayed, not so much as censor it.

Also, somethings to consider: the screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh is a personal friend of Rush Limbaugh's (already showing bias) and ABC asked only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, Sr., to advise the makers of "The Path to 9/11". Yet bill the miniseries as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report." This is also a docudrama and ABC has put at the beginning that there are some scenes that never happened and are dramatized. So this isn't necessarily based on anything other than some bullshit and patches of the 9/11 Commission thrown in here and there.

The way I see it is this: Moore's F9/11 pissed off Conservatives and Republicans and they see this as an opportunity to throw the blame back at Clinton, though they go off some awesome bias as well as get a chance to claim they're only dramatizing things. But we know people will buy into this and bite the bait.

And one more thing: this isn't coming from Clinton, but "Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton’s office." That's in there on the actual site posted.

To back up my claim about Rush being friends with the screenwriter: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_083006/content/coming_soon.guest.html

Clinton supports CIA's actions: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030922-090026-8355r.htm

 

[musicman]

So, you find bias here:

...the screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh is a personal friend of Rush Limbaugh's (already showing bias)

But not here:

And one more thing: this isn't coming from Clinton, but "Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton’s office." That's in there on the actual site posted.

Fascinating.

Actually, I don't blame Clinton for being pissed. If unflattering news about his culpability - which somehow didn't make it into the sanitized commission report - is going to be splattered all over the airwaves, what was the point of having Sandy Berger steal and destroy the offending documents to begin with? It's got to be maddening - seeing such a fine effort go to waste.

 

[Kagom]

So, you find bias here:

But not here:

Fascinating.

Actually, I don't blame Clinton for being pissed. If unflattering news about his culpability - which somehow didn't make it into the sanitized commission report - is going to be splattered all over the airwaves, what was the point of having Sandy Berger steal and destroy the offending documents to begin with? It's got to be maddening - seeing such a fine effort go to waste.

Because people who work for him wrote a letter of outrage about the lies propagated, it's bias? I don't think so. When Farenheit 9/11 came out, Bush didn't express anger, but people working for him or were for his presidency did. It's not bias, it's expressing anger.

What proof do you have that someone stole and destroyed these "offending documents" you speak of? If anything, it's a smear campaign to make Clinton and his administration look bad.

 

[Mr. P]

From the way things seem, Clinton wants the facts to be portrayed, not so much as censor it.

....

Clinton wants facts portrayed, not censor? The same guy that lied to the US public on TV, right? The same Clinton that was impeached? The Clinton with the wife who hid records for years and then all the sudden an aid found them in her office? That Clinton? :rotflmao:

 

[musicman]

Because people who work for him wrote a letter of outrage about the lies propagated, it's bias? I don't think so. When Farenheit 9/11 came out, Bush didn't express anger, but people working for him or were for his presidency did. It's not bias, it's expressing anger.

But that's not the issue you raised. You claim that the screenwriter's personal frienship with Rush Limbaugh proves bias, but that Clinton's own employee is not acting in his behalf. I submit that this is preposterous.

What proof do you have that someone stole and destroyed these "offending documents" you speak of? If anything, it's a smear campaign to make Clinton and his administration look bad.

You can't be serious.

 

[Kagom]

Clinton wants facts portrayed, not censor? The same guy that lied to the US public on TV, right? The same Clinton that was impeached? The Clinton with the wife who hid records for years and then all the sudden an aid found them in her office? That Clinton? :rotflmao:

And that's worse than a president who lied about a country having WMDs and then goes to invade them? A president who wiretaps his people illegally and without warrant? A president who, being fed up with all the crap he got, wrote out 750+ notes so he could have a claim in being able to interpret them the way he pleases, including torture bills and laws?

I'll take Clinton over Bush.

 

[Kagom]

But that's not the issue you raised. You claim that the screenwriter's personal frienship with Rush Limbaugh proves bias, but that Clinton's own employee is not acting in his behalf. I submit that this is preposterous.

You can't be serious.

It doesn't. These employees are acting in his best interest and are trying to get the facts put out.

I am serious. Give me evidence.

 

[Bullypulpit]

With members of th 9/11 Commission faulting the production for its errors, ommissions and fabrications, it should be apparent that the production has some serious flaws that need to be corrected.

What is most amusing though, is the eagerness of right-wingers to jump on the "<i>It's Clintons Fault</i>" bandwagon. After all, its the right wingers that have had a total lock on power for the last four years. Not Bill "Goatboy" Clinton or liberals. We are living in a world made by the right-wingers under rules they chose. So why are they so bitter and angry?

Without enemies, real or imagined, the right-wing cannot successfully replace reason with fear. And fear can make people do irrational things, even act against their own best interests. And that is the goal of the right-wing in America. Without enemies, their movement would collapse upon itself and they would begin eating their own. And I think we are beginning to see just that, as more and more people are coming to understand how they have been manipulated by a callous and cynical administration since 9/11. A majority of Americans are no longer accepting at face value the blandishment of Chimpy and Co as they try to conflate Iraq with 9/11.

Yes, there are many who still support Chimpy and Co. But this seems more a result of their initial enthusiam for Bush giving way to the reality of a morally and intellectually bankrupt administration. Rather than face the cognitive dissonance such a reality would cause, they deflect the reality and attempt to ignore it with their continued blind support of Chimpy and Co and increasingly rabid attacks against those who oppose the administration. I almost feel sorry for them.

 

[musicman]

It doesn't. These employees are acting in his best interest and are trying to get the facts put out.

I am serious. Give me evidence.

I think you're smarter than this, Kagom. That leaves only one other explanation for your apparent willful blindness: you have no respect for my intelligence. That's OK - I'll get over it. After all, Bill Clinton has no respect for my intelligence, either. But, I'll tell you one thing for sure: if he's so upset about all this, let him sue ABC, and let's see how your/his pathetic assertions do in the naked light of day - in a court of law.

I'll bet you a dollar it never happens.

 

[Kagom]

I think you're smarter than this, Kagom. That leaves only one other explanation for your apparent willful blindness: you have no respect for my intelligence. That's OK - I'll get over it. After all, Bill Clinton has no respect for my intelligence, either. But, I'll tell you one thing for sure: if he's so upset about all this, let him sue ABC, and let's see how your/his pathetic assertions do in the naked light of day - in a court of law.

I'll bet you a dollar it never happens.

I respect your intelligence. You're not some asinine poster here. But I really do believe that they are acting on Clinton's behalf and it isn't a bias thing.

Based on what I've read, Clinton himself isn't that bothered with it. I doubt he'd sue.

 

[Mr. P]

With members of th 9/11 Commission faulting the production for its errors, ommissions and fabrications, it should be apparent that the production has some serious flaws that need to be corrected.

What is most amusing though, is the eagerness of right-wingers to jump on the "<i>It's Clintons Fault</i>" bandwagon. After all, its the right wingers that have had a total lock on power for the last four years. Not Bill "Goatboy" Clinton or liberals. We are living in a world made by the right-wingers under rules they chose. So why are they so bitter and angry?

Without enemies, real or imagined, the right-wing cannot successfully replace reason with fear. And fear can make people do irrational things, even act against their own best interests. And that is the goal of the right-wing in America. Without enemies, their movement would collapse upon itself and they would begin eating their own. And I think we are beginning to see just that, as more and more people are coming to understand how they have been manipulated by a callous and cynical administration since 9/11. A majority of Americans are no longer accepting at face value the blandishment of Chimpy and Co as they try to conflate Iraq with 9/11.

Yes, there are many who still support Chimpy and Co. But this seems more a result of their initial enthusiam for Bush giving way to the reality of a morally and intellectually bankrupt administration. Rather than face the cognitive dissonance such a reality would cause, they deflect the reality and attempt to ignore it with their continued blind support of Chimpy and Co and increasingly rabid attacks against those who oppose the administration. I almost feel sorry for them.

Bully, Clinton was in office for 8 years prior to 9/11. Logic alone says the blame lays in his lap. Not totally on W who was only in office 6 months beforehand. Start in 1993 with the first attack and work forward.

 

[musicman]

I respect your intelligence. You're not some asinine poster here. But I really do believe that they are acting on Clinton's behalf and it isn't a bias thing.

Based on what I've read, Clinton himself isn't that bothered with it. I doubt he'd sue.

He wouldn't dare.