It's Censorship!
By Erick Posted in Hollywood — Comments (54) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
When CBS produced a miniseries on the Reagans that was filled with fictional scenes meant to convey a smear against Reagan, conservatives howled in protest. The response from Hollywood and the left was that the right was engaged in censorship and thuggery. Hollywood and the left declared that they had a right to show their version of history, which this depiction of Reagan apparently was. CBS eventually moved the show to Showtime where it was widely panned.
No word yet from Hollywood and the Left about Bill Clinton's demands that ABC not show its 9/11 docu-drama with several fictional scenes meant to convey the reality that Clinton was too distracted by Lewinski to give an honest days chase to Bin Laden.
A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.
Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.
The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.
Where are the guardians of the free press on this one?
« So tell me, Al, what caused all those *other* storms in Earth's history? — Comments (17) | Michael Bay And Wal-Mart — Comments (19) »
It's Censorship! 54 Comments (0 topical, 54 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
From CNN's article on the Clintonista's letter to ABC:
The letter writers said that the miniseries contained factual errors, and that their requests to see it had gone unanswered.
It seems the Clintonista's doth protest too much. If they haven't seen it, and are objecting on the basis of heresay, could it be they have a collective guilty conscience?
I predict the miniseries will show, but that we wil all be treated to a two hour special, featuring the whole Clinton foreign policy team and the big man himself, defending their record on terrorism. Look for it around October 30.
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
...by the Clintonistas' transparently lame miseriseries. Maybe Jane Hamsher will get some work out of it.
The only concession Clinton will get from ABC is the insertion of a Fast-Talking Legal Disclaimer, which will satisfy him, since lawyers are the only ones who think FTLD's are effective and not annoying.
Erick
This is unworthy of you. They are right where they always are, in the pocket of the liberal left and their handmaidens the DNC.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
From Today:
'The letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton's office, accuses the ABC drama of "bias" and a "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."'
From 1998:
THE THREAT TO LINDA TRIPP
BY TONY SNOW, Creator's Syndicate, Inc.
FRIDAY, JULY 31, 1998
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/msg...
excerpt:
Tripp had alerted her White House superiors that Michael Isikoff of Newsweek was about to print Willey's claim that the president assailed her sexually. The administration wanted Tripp to observe the old rule of omierta.
So the messages came: "(Talking to Isikoff) is a dangerous thing to do."
"Team players don't do this. You need to be a team player."
"You have two children to think about."
"This is not a good career move."
She says presidential fixer Bruce Lindsey told her she would be "destroyed" if she went public with anything she had seen.
Who wants to see fictional-dramatized-revisionist history about anything as important as a President, - such as Reagan - or a life changing moment - like 9/11?
I wholeheartedly agree that this propagandist bunk should be protested by everyone.
I am certain that Republicans will do what is right: protest this money grubbing 9/11 docu-drama.
I'm just glad that someone is complaining about this attempt to make money off such a sensitive moment in our history.
Thank you,
-Gando
Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Farenheit 9/11? Anyone?
"Everybody needs money! That's why they call it money!"
You are exactly right. We don't need anymore drama added to this piece of history, nor any history.
We should not stand for propaganda the likes of Fahrenheit 9/11 nor this Disney/ABC docu-drama.
-Gando
Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God.
that the Clintonistas want this thing "corrected" to remove the negatives about Clinton. They are perfectly happy to leave the negatives about BushCo to air.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
I didn't know there were Bush falsehoods in this docu-drama. I must admit my news sources are a bit lacking in that, do you have any info about what the docu-drama points out?
I personally don't care if something shows the "negatives" of someone - as long as they are true. I'd like some balance, but it is difficult to make everyone happy in that arena.
I would guess that if there are any falsehoods that portray the United States in a false way, we should ask that it be corrected or not aired.
I hear that they are sending it out to teachers. Does anyone want our children in history classes that use docu-dramas of this type?
-Gando
Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God. -Jesus
That is unknown and will continue to be unknown until the show actually airs. I have no reason to expect this thing will be kind to Bush. The reports have said that only the first part was screened for a few people and that is when the Clinton gang started hyperventilating... and of course the Clinton stuff is going to be at the beginning.
The Clinton gang is also much more apt to complain, since that is just how they are. I'm sure if they had Berger stuffing classified documents in his pants to go home and destroy you would see the same reaction. They have much to be embarrassed about.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
You guys already not only stood for F/911, you rewarded its producer with a prime seat at your presidential convention.
(I know, I know - you voted GOP in every election since FDR.)
Peacemakers be Upon Him.
http://www.circlekb.com/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=...
Of the two - "The Path to 9/11" and "Farenheit 9/11" - which is/was marketed as "docu-drama" and which is/was marketed as "documentary".
And yes, the distinction matters.
Take your time.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
who is abc to make up history, clinton screwed up enough that they don`t have to make up things. If this is a historical drama go with historical facts. Also it`s my understanding they leave bush pretty much alone and just go after clinton. Bush has a lot to answer for also,the 9-11 report blamed everyone.
"You guys already not only stood for F/911, you rewarded its producer with a prime seat at your presidential convention.
(I know, I know - you voted GOP in every election since FDR.)"
Actually, I saw F/9-11 (twice) and did not like it (either time). I complained about it because I felt it was too biased and lacking in fact.
I'm with you on the hat-wearing pompus-dude, we don't need those types in politics. We need bigger brains than that.
I don't recall voting for FDR.
-Gando
Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God.
I hope it was a bootleg, or you helped Michael Moore "make money off such a sensitive moment in our history."
"I don't recall voting for FDR"
What about the Republicans SINCE FDR?
"I don't recall..."hmmm, where have I heard that before?
I tend to learn best by the school of hard-knocks, and the harder I'm hit it seems the more I learn. SO, having to pay to see F/9-11 and knowing who got part of the money - well - I learned a lot.
And, for the record, I recall the very first time I voted, and I voted for Reagan. Not so many GOPs in my voting record, however.
-Gando
Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God. - Jesus
...in his biography!!
There's a passage in there where he talks about ordering the bombing of the aspirin factory, then is dismayed by the "Wag the Dog" accusations.
I'm going to the library to look this up.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
Talks about the juxtaposition of the Lewinsky testimony, his speech to the nation on same, and his decision to try to bomb al Qaeda.
These passages are particularly noteworthy:
(p. 802)I finished the [Lewinsky-related Grand Jury] testimony at about 6:30, three and one half hours before I was scheduled to address the nation. I was visibly upset when I went up to the Solarium to see friends and staff...
(p. 803) I spent the first couple of days [on vacation in Martha's Vineyard] alternating between begging for forgiveness and planning the strikes on al Qaeda. At night Hillary would go to bed and I slept on the couch.
He talks about implementing the attacks, and about additional plans for using commando forces to attack al Qaeda.
Then there's this:
(p. 805)The american people had to absorb the news of the strike and my grand jury testimony at the same time.
This was the Wag the Dog period. The commando raids on al Qaeda he mentioned never happened. He was too politically and personally damaged to carry them out.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
The leftists are clearly having a hard time separating idiots and comedians from verifiable facts. It's a course that can lead to insanity.
When the right went off the bridge with Clinton claims, at least the elected right for the most part ignored it. With the left, they think comedians represent truth and are in an all out embrace of it. The Democrats have clearly mainstreamed their kooks, and I am happy to see it.
It's a challenge for the right to not go down the emotional trail and do the same, no matter how much the temptation.
As soon Michael Moore and his movie are both swinging from the metaphorical light poles.
"...several fictional scenes meant to convey the reality..."
Maybe I just need another cup of coffee, but wouldn't factual scenes do a better job of conveying reality than fictional scenes?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
What if the scene encapsulates a long-series of interactions that created the net effect the scene depicts? (This, by the way, seems to be the case.) In that case, it would be impractical to show something that "really happened" because the actually events taken individiually might not paint the whole picture.
Think of it like a Frontline episode, when the deep-voiced narrator comes on to encapsulate a series of minor episodes. Example: "Throughout late 1997 and early 1998, the Clinton Administration was entangled in yada-yada, which field commanders believed weakened their ability to respond to x."
Happens every episode. And they never apologize for it or state that it's opinion not fact.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
"What if the scene encapsulates a long-series of interactions that created the net effect the scene depicts? (This, by the way, seems to be the case.) In that case, it would be impractical to show something that "really happened" because the actually events taken individiually might not paint the whole picture."
That is just great, as long as it is all the truth.
I don't think Frontline shows falsehoods as a way of telling you what really happened. Don't they draw conclusions from facts that they previously laid out?
-Gando
Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God.
I guess it comes down to whether or not the White house was indecisive when these opportunities arose.
The gist of the scene in question is that there were occassions when intelligence and special forces were in a position to kill Bin Laden, but the White House was hesitant for political reasons and Bin Laden escaped -- much to the chagrin of the forces on the ground.
If that was never the case, then the scene is unfair. If that was repeatedly the case, then the scene is efficient. My understanding is that it was repeatedly the case.
Would it have been better to see multiple scenes of this nature?
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
"Would it have been better to see multiple scenes of this nature?"
You certainly don't have to have multiple scenes in order to convey the history of an event. A decent writer can convey the long history of a problem in one scene.
I'm sure you can be efficient, as truthful as is known, AND include the dramatic moments while dealing with history.
-Gando
Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God.
What specifically do you think is false in the ABC show? Do you deny that Clinton passed up on multiple opportunites to catch Bin Laden? That is well documented fact.
... the administration's hesitancy was understandable. We were basking in the peace benefit. We would have reacted badly to a foriegn adventure that killed innocents and enraged the Arab street.
Clinton always had a sense for the best political move. Killing Bin Laden in the late 90s would have had both an upside and a probably a big downside in the court of public opinion.
The best proof of this is the current cut and run crowd.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
Clinton was first and foremost a politician. Each and every decision was weighed in how it would affect his re-election/Hillary's election/Al's election/the mid-term elections/etc.
His was a poll watching presidency, and as the American people did not yet see us at war with al Queda, Clinton couldn't do anything about their attacks. Now, if he had been a leader, he would have done what was right and explained it with those dewey eyes, bitten lips, and sincere pauses of his.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
In both good ways and bad.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
...in devoting two evenings to watching anything on television. However, now that the Clinton family bus is gassed up and hitting the road with blanket denials by Sandy Berger and indignant sputterings by MadAlb, I will not only watch "The Path to 9/11", I will make sure that everyone I know watches it.
The only time the Clintonistas EVER get this worked up is when they have something nasty to hide.
"Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything, is frivolous." - Hitchens to Maher
I can't imagine a scenario where I would have watched this without this brohaha to pique my interest.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
I read that as Muad'Dib for a moment, and I was very confused.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
(a/k/a "spinners deluxe") wants to screen the movie prior to its broadcast so they can obfuscate, explain away, or flat out lie about what the film portrays. There is little or any worry about inaccuracy, per se, only public relations and damage control. It is easy to forget how well these people managed it, and how poorly we have done in recent years--possibly because our crises involved life and death. The Clintonistas, though, were good because the MSM was so compliant with advance copies.
Have the mighty fallen enough to deprive their PR team? ABC apparently thinks so.
Clinton called his union buddies to send 25,000 e-mails demanding Eiger to redact or pull the movie entirely. Ominously "additional edits" are being made as I write. Guess this shows exactly how fragile the Legacy is that it can't stand up to a movie. Guess who won't be going to DWorld next year? Or sampling insipid new ABC sitcoms? Let's get one thing clear.... this is not another Michael Moore 'documentary'. He was praised and feted by mainstream media for what was an entire pack of lies and baseless innuendo that even he admitted was nothing more than entertainment. (And BTW, did that mean old Mr. Bush threaten to sue Moore or put any kind of political pressure to stop his deceit from being shown? No. Not even much comment as I remember.) Nor is this a hatchet job on Clinton. It doesn't even mention the FBI/CIA 'wall' BC constructed to protect his illegal foreign campaign contributions (a key in not reading Moussaouwi's lap top) or Sandy Burglar stealing sensitive Clinton documents before the 9/11 Commission could see them. Nor does Bush come off well. The single biggest point of contention in this historically based dramatization is the non-capture of OBL when surrounded by CIA in Afghanistan. Did it happen as portrayed? Who knows? But I wouldn't disbelieve it just because Clinton, Richard (can-we-call-you-Dick)Clarke, and Sandy Burglar said it didn't happen. Clarke still has hopes of becoming Terrorist Czar under Hillary if he plays good soldier. But we DO know that in essence it did happen though maybe not exactly that way. Clinton on at least SIX occasions turned down opportunities to either capture or kill OBL. He is even recorded giving a speech where he describes how Sudan wanted better relations and financial aid and offered to detain OBL until the CIA arrived. A well known Pakistani commentator on Fox said it did happen and he was the prime negotiator until Clinton pulled the rug out. Saying we couldn't charge him with anything, Bill wanted him turned over to the Saudis, who of course declined. On another occasion OBL wasn't hit because a friendly Arab leader was with him at the time. Later attempts were chronically delayed leaving only empty tents. So this isn't as much a fabrication as they'd like you to believe. So why DID Bill almost go out of his way time and again to let OBL slip through his fingers? No one has ever asked that question. Here is the answer and you won't read it anywhere else..... Bill needed OBL. Did he not bomb the aspirin factory the day Monica testified to get her out of the headlines? OBL was more valuable as a useful diversion and foil, that could be dialed up whenever needed. After 9/11 BC opined, "If only that had happened during my administration...[think of what I could have gotten away with]." Maybe Bush fumbled a chance in Tora Bora, but at least HE was trying. As I said in a previous post, Clinton had years to stop OBL. Bush had barely a few months after Dem delays getting his administration up and running. In a 5 hour movie on The Path to 9/11. One hour should be on Carter, 3 1/2 hours on Clinton, and a half hour on Bush. And that's not to say it was strictly all their fault. It was more a gutting of the CIA by Dems over decades, turf wars between them and the FBI made worse by Clinton's 'wall', and inability to take the unpopular actions needed to prevent what only might happen and had never happened. We still deal with that today.
But I might drop a little note to ABC myself...
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
I asked if they planned to now add a series of scenes on the same subject that were more historically accurate.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
To attempt an understanding of Maud'Dib without understanding his mortal enemies, the *CLINTONS*, is to attempt seeing Truth without knowing Falsehood. It is the attempt to see the Light without knowing Darkness. It cannot be -from "Manual of Mad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
THE ABC DOCUMENTARY, PATH TO 9/11 IS MISSING!!!! IT CANNOT BE FOUND! RUMOR HAS IT A PORTLY MIDDLE-AGED MAN, KIND OF SLOPPY, WAS SEEN LEAVING THE STUDIO WITH A BULGE IN HIS PANTS!!!! HE TOLD SECURITY HE HAD JUST COME FROM THE HOUSEWIVES SET.
Maybe Bill can get 'caught' with Monica this weekend to distract viewers from PATH. Just trying to help, Bubba.
He could just send Sandy Berger over to get the job done. It worked in the runup to the 9/11 Commission, after all.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
for the next liberal to complain about the GOP and their freedoms...
As much as I am NOT a fan of the Clinton era. I would't know what is fact or fiction. I will wait for impartial reviewers for guidance. From the descriptions so far, the fireworks will start soon.
making out like the 9/11 commission is the be all and end all of truth and objectivity? Since several of the commissioners were partisan political hacks of the worse sort I put little weight on it.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
The 9/11 Commission wasn't exactly a paragon of truth, yet people cite it despite its many holes (Able Danger, on and on).
The mere fact Jame Gorelick sat on the commission condemns it.
If anything, the docudrama has laid bare a truth we all knew: Hillary Clinton cannot be president, and probably even her party's nominee, due to the weight of history.
In another complete non-sequitur (maybe), what were the documents Berger stuffed into his pants, or is that information still under seal? And if under seal, what was the court's rationale?
Sens. Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer, and Dorgan sent a letter to Disney today containing the threatening to pull Disney's broadcast license if they don't pull the mini series.
These are the people who will run the Senate if we don't wake up.
Why couldn't they have produced and aired a true and factual documentary instead?
The event was tragic enough that I see NO need to enhance or dramatize what happened that horrible day.
I'm just uncomfortable with a mini series about the greatest tragedy our nation has suffered being told as a DRAMA.
I think it is too soon for anything other than truthfull and accurate depictions of the awful terror attacks of 9-11.
I've read today on Yahoo, CNN and Google and from ABC's own website that this show was being promoted as 'based on fact' ,but now ABC is stating that NO, it is a DRAMA. Now they've even dropped the 'docu-drama' tag they were using.
I remember being angry that CBS was going to drop the Reagan show, but compromised and did end up showing it on Showtime instead.
Maybe ABC could shelve this show until AFTER the 9-11 anniversary...and promote it as only a Drama and show it later this year?
But it all depends on how it is presented. It's not clear to me if it's a bunch of reenactments with voiceover and graphics similar to shows like America's Most Wanted, or if it's a full on drama like Day After Tomorrow. The former might not be too bad. If it's the latter though, it is certain to be horrible. Made for TV movies do not have a good track record (Has there ever been a good one? One that would remotely be worth a rental?). Given the sensitive subject matter, that'd make it even worse.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Where are the guardians of the free press on this one?
They're too busy suing to keep the NSA from listening-in on overseas telephone calls with Jihadists to be bothered with this.
Priorities, after all.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"