Clinton’s lawyers are now demanding ABC cancel its docudrama “The Path to 9/11.” Here’s the letter:
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 FoundationDouglas J. Band
Counselor to President Clinton
Office of William Jefferson Clinton
My God, this guy’s got an ego. This movie really isn’t about him. It’s about Ramzi Yousef, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, and the others involved in committing the atrocities on 9/11. When will this guy stop making everything about him?
Note: there are a number of typos in the letter. I don’t know if that is because the person I am sourcing typed this in himself or if they are part of the orginal letter.
Oh shoot…I forget that the blockquote tags on this site close after each paragraph… should be:
FN, I usually assume that the truely wacked out “righties” are “lefties” having fun. Sort of like “Liberal Larry” of Blame Bush blog.
Hugh, All accounts are that the film is every bit as critical to Bush as to Clinton and from everything I’ve heard about it so far it’s nothing that I didn’t see a year ago on the History channel in a show about Bin Laden. People who have *seen* the movie say it’s not about Clinton anyhow, but about the terrorists. I can’t see myself crowing about boogieman Bill when absolutely none of it is news to me.
And I’m not trying to change the argument because I’m arguing what everyone else, except you, is arguing. That an attempt by government persons to intimidate the private sector into censoring speech is wrong. You are the only one trying to claim that it’s quite all right for members of the government to try to intimidate people if the threat is an empty one.
I, like many others here, find this incomprehensible. It’s the same sort of incomprehensible as the Muslim student interviewed who said that free speech doesn’t include the right to insult someone’s religion, only that *is* comprehensible assuming that the young lady wasn’t from around here and wasn’t familiar with the concept of free speech.
This should be an absolute no brainer for anyone who opposes censorship. It should be an easy answer for anyone who understands the concept of free speech.
Yet it’s not. And it’s confusing and unsettling that it’s not. Rather than the high road, see how much more careful of free speech *we* are than all you who protested the Reagan thing, it’s the equivalency road. What? Liberals aren’t any *worse* than conservatives because the Reagan movie got shoved off to Showtime? (And never mind that Michael Moore’s manipulative BS gets shown as documentaries.)
Freedom of speech isn’t a comparative issue. It’s a principle itself and it is to that principle that actions need to be compared. He who is without sin, throw the first stone? And since no one is sinless… what? Screw freedom of speech?
Where on God’s green Earth did people get the idea that it was okay for members of the government to use their positions to silence criticism if only that criticism seems unfair? “This is untrue and people should not be allowed to view it.” is right out of a very *very* bad dystopic novel. I’m impressed, actually, that you’ve been saying “show it”. Thank you for that. But the fact is that you haven’t been able to actually *say* that elected officials should not use their positions to bully the private sector in order to shut them up.
It should be an excessively simple statement to make.
For *anyone*.
Man, I was late to this party.
Here is my favorite part of the letter sent to ABC:
“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.”
This is hilarious!!!! The only reason it’s being edited is baecause of the threats made to ABC!!!! What arrogance these people have.
My take on the whole thing is that now it doesn’t really matter if ABC shows the movie or not. Bill Clinton (and the Democratic party) as usual have gone over the top on this and whatever potential fallout there would have been from the movie is now smaller than the fallout from Americans seeing the left engage in blatant censorship. From what I understand from those who have seen it, you come away from the movie angry at the terrorists, not Bill Clinton (of course being mad at the real enemy is not something that the Dem’s like either). So Clinton probably should have just kept his mouth shut but when you’re a malignant narcisist, that’s impossible (by the way that’s a Tammy Bruce coined term).
The irritating thing to me is that as we come up on the 5th anniversary of 911 we should be coming together as Americans and remembering a tragic day. But Bill Clinton and the left couldn’t give a damn about that so he’s dividing the country (which of course liberals always do and then blame it on conservatives).
We need to make sure these people stay in the political minority for a long, long time.
Field Negro-Let me inform you of the real conspiracy,Osama Ben Laden is dead he has been dead since Tora Bora,we only keep him alive to taunt you idiots on the nutso left.It’s working real good.Rove you magnifisant Bastard.
Yes, Rove has Osama Bin in a box in his office. Waiting until the October Surprise!
Faith + 1, amen brother. FN knows how to latch on to that “enlightened” Dem. crowd who’ve done so much for his “race” since LBJ in 1960’s.
Ahem. Well, at least he is consistent, if not real clear about what his party has done for him and his Peeps.
Jesus H., why can’t we get over the color thing and MoveOn.org.com.edu?
“First Amendment? We don’t got no First Amendment!
We don’t need no stinking First Amendment!”
So the Clinton mob is now emulating the Corleone Family.
Don Clinton: So ABC, that’s a pretty license you got there, you wouldn’t want anything to happen to it, would you? I’ve got friends in Washington, powerful friends.
ABC: Please Don Clinton, I don’t want a Special Prosecutor! I don’t want an FCC drive-by! The broadcast license is all I have!
Don Clinton: Good, very good. We understand each other. By the way, my friend Michael Moore wants to speak to you about broadcasting his movie.
Don’t misunderstand me, people (alone or in groups)have the absolute right to protest the ABC movie or boycott ABC if the see fit.
Senators, Congressmen and an ex-President, however, do not have the right to demand that anyone refrain from broadcasting, printing or speaking on a controversial subject. Especially when those demands are coupled with not-so-subtle threats. That’s censorship.
As a conservative I STRONGLY urge ABC to correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the upcoming “Path to 9/11” before it is shown. And I am not the only conservative saying this.
John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.
James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.”
Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.
Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.
Captain’s Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.
Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, “The Path to 9/11” is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.
Clearwater, I agree.
That is why we are better than the Democrats.
They would mortgage their souls for any false purchase they can get on “Bush lied/For Oil/Halliburton/etc” stupidity.
We’re better than that.
clearwaterconservative,
That’s a pretty impressive list of conservatives,
did the DNC provide it?
But the real story isn’t the truth or untruth of this movie, it’s the attempt by powerful politicians to censor it. Lots of people were angered by the misrepresentations and half-turths in Fahrenheit 911 but I don’t remember any Republican Senators, Congressment or ex-Presidents
issuing not-so-subtle threats.
To illustrate why we don’t have to lie”
“Sen. Rockefeller says Iraq would be better off under Saddam Hussein”
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topstories_story_252203351.html
Who needs to make shit up when you have the circus clowns that are the Democrapic Party?
Faith +1 you are exposing your ignorance and your lack of knowledge of history. But that’s to be expected. Let me clue you in on a little something. Just because I choose to use the handle field negro, does not mean I am some down on my luck black slacker looking for a hand out. Trust me, I don’t need one from repubs or anyone else. So spare me the pull yourself up speech, it’s kind of old now. It’s one that my good friend Mitchell uses all the time to convince himself that he has arrived. Because he is soooo past the race thing 🙂
I choose to look at the big picture, and I will always align myself with whoever has the best policies that will help all Americans. Truth be told, the repubs and their tax cuts would help me more than it would propbably helps you, but that’s the irony of this dabate. You are probably selfish in nature, so you align your self with the party of the selfish. Me, on the other hand, would like to help those who are not as fortunate as I am, so I choose the party or the politician who I believe will do the best job for ALL the people.
In this present discussion. That was one Bill Clinton, and not some coke snorting, born again frat boy, who cheated his way through school and life. [That’s who you should be giving your work ethic speech to,not me]
Get it genius? So the next time you want to impress “Charlie” take that sh$# somewhere else. Maybe to Mitchell’s house,cause I am not impressed.
In a word, go f#%^ yourself!
Oh lord, somebody hurt field’s feelings and he’s back to playing the role of “internet” big shot.
Just because I choose to use the handle field negro, does not mean I am some down on my luck black slacker looking for a hand out. Trust me, I don’t need one from repubs or anyone else.
To be blunt, your race is immaterial. You are a dunce. Skin color isn’t much of a mediating factor with that.
I choose to look at the big picture, and I will always align myself with whoever has the best policies that will help all Americans. Truth be told, the repubs and their tax cuts would help me more than it would propbably helps you, but that’s the irony of this dabate.
Advice: Bragging how rich you are on the internet is more than mildly pathetic.
Nobody ACTUALLY believes you. Most find it funny that you are so insecure that you have to toss that in when nobody gave a darn in the first place.
You are probably selfish in nature, so you align your self with the party of the selfish.
No, I’m fairly sure he’s not a Democrat.
Me, on the other hand, would like to help those who are not as fortunate as I am, so I choose the party or the politician who I believe will do the best job for ALL the people.
Ahh, so you confuse “making people reliant on the government” for “helping” them?
In this present discussion. That was one Bill Clinton, and not some coke snorting, born again frat boy, who cheated his way through school and life. [That’s who you should be giving your work ethic speech to,not me]
We had drug-addled, draft-dodging, and all-around total scumbag against Bush. We had a man who put blowjobs from a sow over the well-being of the country. A man who refused to push for investigations into the slaughtering of Americans in Arabia. A man who was so divisive that we saw domestic terrorism for the first time in a long time — and Bush, fortunately, mended the country enough to stop that nonsense.
In a word, go f#%^ yourself!
Keep your personal itinerary to yourself.
Again, nobody cares about you.
-=Mike
“In a word, go f#%^ yourself!”
Pssst, dude, that’s three words…
The reaction from some of the members of the former Clinton Administration can only be labeled ridiculous. They want to say because events depicted in the movie did not happen as shown somehow changes the fact that the 9/11 Commission asserted that several opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden presented themselves during the Clinton Administration and that he and his trusted advisors dropped the ball. And how Sandy Burglar can somehow come forth on this issue after his dispicable act (stealing classified Clinton Administration documents from the National Archives before he was to testify before the 9/11 Commission) while this country was making an effort to get at the truth behind the 9/11 attacks is laughable to say the least. While events have been dramatized (there is almost no way to show what actually happen because there may be no written record of them – maybe Berger got rid of the evidence…) I think the spirit of the 9/11 Commission’s findings is still demonstrably intact.
The bottom line is this: the Democrats once again want to politicize 9/11 to gain maximum political advantage (just as they are doing with Iraq) and this film reveals what a lot of Americans shockingly don’t know about what the Clinton Administration did and didn’t do to combat the growing problem of global terrorism. And while this may be off topic for some people, this constant refrain from Democrats that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 is a complete joke and only shows how Democrats don’t understand the big picture. Would these same people be questioning why we were waging WW II against the Germans because they weren’t the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor? I can just hear them now: “How could we have possibly gotten ourselves bogged down at Normandy when the real enemy is Imperial Japan? The war against Germany is a tragic diversion of our nation’s resources. FDR lied and thousands died…” President Bush never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 – Iraq was a case where they and many others felt that they could be a future threat and they needed to be dealt with so that they won’t be a problem for us in the down the road. The Bush Administration recognized that Al Qaeda was only one threat we needed to be concerned about and turning a blind eye to other potential enemies is a very dangerous policy in this day and age where WMD’s could destroy entire cities. In any case, it is hard to imagine how a real war on terror can be fought if one chose to ignore Saddam Hussein’s flagrant violations of the original Gulf War cease fire agreement and countless UN resolutions. Iraq had to be dealt with in order to protect what was left of the UN’s credibility. How can countries like North Korea or Iran take threats of action from the UN seriously if no steps are ever taken to actively enforce those penalties for non-compliance? Is it that hard for the left to grasp such a simple concept? Wake up people…
I have to agree with Hugh on this one. It’s a political issue, that’s it. Perhaps some actually believe that the Dems would really attempt to pull ABC’s broadcast license if they showed the Path to 9/11. Given the likely response of ALL the networks, I think that beyond unlikely.
However, it’s pretty obvious that the Reps are using Reid’s letter to illustrate what Dem control would look like. That’s smart politics on their part. But come on, there’s no way ABC is going to go dark anytime soon, regardless of what happens in the election.
I think the most likely “retribution” would be some cold looks at a fundraiser.
Field Negro’s new nickname: Mr. Big.
Snort!
“Advice: Bragging how rich you are on the internet is more than mildly pathetic.
Nobody ACTUALLY believes you. Most find it funny that you are so insecure that you have to toss that in when nobody gave a darn in the first place.”
That’s funny I don’t remember bragging about how rich I am. So Mike, keep your petty insecurities to yourself. And the fact that the people who posts here don’t believe the things I post, is not causing me any sleepless nights my man. But I have said this before, and you, or any one posting can take this bet. Anything you want to prove about me or my station in life can be handled with a friendly wager to your favorite charity or to mine. But I repeat, it won’t be taken, because first, repubs don’t have charities, and second, I doubt if you even believe half the crap you post. You are obviously a down and out loser who probably spends his life in a public library somewhere trolling on the internet. But enough about you.
This debate is about your frat boy president and the terrible job he has done and continues to do. What country did the frat boy mend, and when has the country been more divisive? I will tell you when; never! So stop trying to paint one of the worst presidents in American history as anything but the stupid moronic imbecil that he is.
And thanks for the attempt at advice, but I will pass. I do, however, have some for you. Turn the T.V. off FOX, go outside the nursing home and mingle with some other people, and don’t forget to take your meds.
Loser!
Pssst cybrludite; since you are the resident grammer and spell checker for this thread, you might want to get with your boy Mike. I think his spell checker was off.
Oh, and you can go and f%$# yourself as well!
How many words was that?
Field Negro’s new nickname after last post:
Mr. Go F#ck Yourself
One word describes him: Angry Black Man!
I like that new one word title from you.
AngryBlackMan. Thank you Mitchell, I will wear this new title like a badgeofhonor 😉
Ah FN, just as I expected, you aren’t really a minority after all. Probably just another Ivy School “enlightened” lefty living off mom and pops dime with illusions of relevance. My knowledge of history is sound. The best you can do is tell me to “go fuck myself” because, as usual, you have absolutely no point or clear thought. Just unjustified, immature anger born of ignorance.
I can now see you are simply too irrlelevent to even bother reading or responding to. I can get your opinion from any intolerent, racist, elistist leftist website out there.
In the rightwing neocon universe any criticism of the fearless brush-clearer-in-chief, no matter how reasoned, is automatically written off as hatred. It’s a lame dodge that avoids defending the indefensible. Does 65% of the country hate Bush? On the other hand, this crowd has been clamoring for Clinton’s head on a stick for more than a decade, with no end in sight. They couldn’t throw him out for having consensual sex, so they desperately keep throwing dirt at him to divert attention from the current mess. It’s all they’ve got. It’s projection on a mass scale, the stock in trade of Rovian politics.
Let’s say Clinton took out OBL in the 90’s. Where’s the slightest shred of evidence suggesting that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened? Maybe it would have been worse. Who knows?
I just want the entire government to start restructuring its priorities, representing the people and keeping us safe. This will not happen until the decider…whoops, I mean the divider and his nefarious cronies are history.
Call me an Angry White Man
I’ve always prefered to call him Theo Huxtable.
“In the rightwing neocon universe any criticism of the fearless brush-clearer-in-chief, no matter how reasoned, is automatically written off as hatred.”
Do you believe this?
Maybe you should let all the “rightwing” bloggers know that they aren’t supposed to criticise the president. I think they missed the memo.
A better nic for “field negro” might be “self important negro”, he’s so full of himself. A guy with lots of opinions and very little first hand knowledge or historical perspective.
Yeah, we all know your a well to do lawyer on the public payroll and you want to help ALL Americans. But somehow you come across as another opinionated schmuck.
Am I being judgemental? Hey you’re the guy who just wrote: “You are probably selfish in nature so you align yourself with the party of the selfish.”
In four words, take a hike, bozo.
Color me amused everytime I listen to a Leftist sneer “selfish” at someone who believes in property rights.
See, when a robber takes your wallet or car, they don’t ask for your moral sanction or tell you that you’re being “selfish” if you resist their predations. Ironicly, they are more honest in their thievery than all the Leftists like FN who want the absolute power to decide who’s property gets confiscated and who it gets “donated” to (while taking their cut, of course).
That’s funny I don’t remember bragging about how rich I am.
Truth be told, the repubs and their tax cuts would help me more than it would propbably helps you, but that’s the irony of this dabate.
A reminder for you, Sparky.
So Mike, keep your petty insecurities to yourself.
Projection is ALSO not a pretty thing to do on-line.
And the fact that the people who posts here don’t believe the things I post, is not causing me any sleepless nights my man.
Good. Hate for you to think anybody takes you seriously.
But I have said this before, and you, or any one posting can take this bet. Anything you want to prove about me or my station in life can be handled with a friendly wager to your favorite charity or to mine.
Your point is…?
For a guy who doesn’t remember bragging about how rich he is, you spend a lot of time bragging about how rich you are.
But I repeat, it won’t be taken, because first, repubs don’t have charities, and second, I doubt if you even believe half the crap you post.
Well, my favorite charity of “Make Field-Negro Infertile” is a very worthy cause. But, fortunately, I doubt you need the help to make sure you don’t procreate.
You are obviously a down and out loser who probably spends his life in a public library somewhere trolling on the internet. But enough about you.
Yup, ya caught me. Darn you’re clever.
Does your prison have broadband access or are you working on dial-up?
Oh wait — stereotypes are bad only if they’re done to you, eh?
This debate is about your frat boy president and the terrible job he has done and continues to do. What country did the frat boy mend, and when has the country been more divisive?
I don’t see domestic terrorism now.
I did see it under Clinton.
Thus, Clinton — demonstrably more divisive.
So stop trying to paint one of the worst presidents in American history as anything but the stupid moronic imbecil that he is.
I stopped trying with Clinton years ago. Thanks again.
And thanks for the attempt at advice, but I will pass. I do, however, have some for you. Turn the T.V. off FOX, go outside the nursing home and mingle with some other people, and don’t forget to take your meds.
Don’t drop the soap, sparky. And a carton of cigarettes really isn’t SO valuable that kneepads should be needed to achieve one.
Just some advice for ya.
In the rightwing neocon universe any criticism of the fearless brush-clearer-in-chief, no matter how reasoned, is automatically written off as hatred.
Wow, I think I heard that with the last President, too. Funny how that works.
Of course, the right didn’t blame Clinton for the ME chaos or natural disasters, but c’est la vie.
Let’s say Clinton took out OBL in the 90’s. Where’s the slightest shred of evidence suggesting that 9/11 wouldn’t have happened? Maybe it would have been worse. Who knows?
Whoa. Clinton knew OBL wanted to attack America. His refusal to go after him shows that he wanted America attacked.
Wow, moonbat logic is fun.
Call me an Angry White Man
All of you people are just Sparky.
-=Mike