Political Punch

The question that everone has is when are we going to capure Osama. I find it hard to understand with the sofisticated equipment that we have now we still cannot capure this mad man.

For those of you claiming 'The Path to 9/11' is right-wing propaganda which places too much blame on President Clinton and the Democrats for the terrorist attacks prior to and on September 11th, let's talk about 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. This film was labeled 'a documentary' and Democrats encouraged every American to rush out and buy a copy. Yet it was filled with lies from a hateful American who wanted nothing better than to place full responsibility and blame on a president who had been in power for mere months prior to the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. 'The Path to 9/11' was labeled 'a movie', yet it still held more truth than 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. I often get the feeling Democrats complain and claim bias about anything and everything that makes them look like the bad guys, yet how much uproar do you hear from Republicans over the unmistakably biased, left-wing media? Very little despite having it thrown in our faces everyday in newspapers and news broadcasts across the nation. It's time to stop pointing fingers and fighting against one another and start uniting against a common enemy. The terrorists will stop at nothing until they are defeated and they will not be defeated until we can put politics aside and admit that they are a threat which we cannot ignore. Claiming our fight is ‘unjustified’ and ‘illegal’ only encourages the terrorists to fight harder and demoralizes our troops. Don’t think bumper stickers and signs claiming ‘Support our Troops: Bring them Home’ truly show support for our troops at all. It’s difficult enough for our soldiers to fight for our safety and freedom without them hearing that half our nation doesn’t support the cause they’re fighting for. It’s films like ‘The Path to 9/11’ which remind us why we’re in the Middle East in the first place and encourage our defenders of freedom to continue spreading democracy to those who’ve been oppressed for far too long.

Dear ABC members,

I would like to extend my thanks for a television movie events presented with no commercial interruptions of the movie " THE PATH TO 9/11 "

I have learned after watching this movie yesterday night that so many things might have prevented it.

Thank you ABC and your staff members.

AKBER A. KASSAM.

For those of you claiming 'The Path to 9/11' is right-wing propaganda which places too much blame on President Clinton and the Democrats for the terrorist attacks prior to and on September 11th, let's talk about 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. This film was labeled 'a documentary' and Democrats encouraged every American to rush out and buy a copy. Yet it was filled with lies from a hateful American who wanted nothing better than to place full responsibility and blame on a president who had been in power for mere months prior to the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. 'The Path to 9/11' was labeled 'a movie', yet it still held more truth than 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. I often get the feeling Democrats complain and claim bias about anything and everything that makes them look like the bad guys, yet how much uproar do you hear from Republicans over the unmistakably biased, left-wing media? Very little despite having it thrown in our faces everyday in newspapers and news broadcasts across the nation. It's time to stop pointing fingers and fighting against one another and start uniting against a common enemy. The terrorists will stop at nothing until they are defeated and they will not be defeated until we can put politics aside and admit that they are a threat which we cannot ignore. Claiming our fight is ‘unjustified’ and ‘illegal’ only encourages the terrorists to fight harder and demoralizes our troops. Don’t think bumper stickers and signs claiming ‘Support our Troops: Bring them Home’ truly show support for our troops at all. It’s difficult enough for our soldiers to fight for our safety and freedom without them hearing that half our nation doesn’t support the cause they’re fighting for. It’s films like ‘The Path to 9/11’ which remind us why we’re in the Middle East in the first place and encourage our defenders of freedom to continue spreading democracy to those who’ve been oppressed for far too long.

I was very moved by the movie The Path to 9/11. I watched it with my children. It moved me to see the courage of those who have tried to protect our country. It saddened me to see the waisted time that we could have gotten Bin Lauden, and faught against Al Quieda. How sad it is still that we cannot unite as a country and understand the enemy we face. I so appreciated what our president had to say to us. I admire him for his conviction and strength. We cannot let terrorists defeat us. I applaud ABC for showing us our weakness in the years leading up to 9/11. If we learn from history it will not repeat itself. I pray that as a country and most importantly our leaders learn from history.

The path to 9/11 is an opener. It shows how politics, beaurecracy and favoritism can harm a country even with the best inteligence. Clinton handlers were afriad that Republicans will say he wanted to shift attention from Monica Lewinsky saga if he had bombed yemen and Bin ladin when unmanned dome spotted him in the mountains of Afghanistan. Politics was the reason why Bush Administartion refused to protect and meet Massoud's demands, Massoud knew Bin Ladin were up to something sinister. How do you explain why we the preferencial given to Saudis?, why didn't CIA work with FBI, I just cannot see any rational behind the refusal on the side of FBI to act wnen a CIA field operative in Arizona sent a fax to FBI informing them about some middle east men who wanted just to fly without taking off.Kudos to ABC, no matter how many deficiencies the mini series has, at least we have an idea how our leaders and their handlers think. They placed politics above the most important aspect of their job which is potecting the territorial integrity of our nation. Shame on Clinton and Bush.

This 1998 CNN story should have been included in the movie to remind people how Clinton had the the very same views as Bush on WMD, regime change in Iraq, and unilateral military action. It's only after the fact that the Dems are trying to change history so they have no accountability.
Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance

President Clinton addressed the nation from the Oval Office
Clinton spells out Iraq's non-compliance
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.

Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors.

US Forces:
There are 15 U.S. warships and 97 U.S. aircraft in the Persian Gulf region, including about 70 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. More than 12,000 sailors and Marines are in the region.

U.S. sources said eight of the warships, equipped with cruise missiles, have been moved into the northern part of the Gulf, within easy striking distance of Baghdad. More troops and jets have been ordered to the region.

More than 300 cruise missiles are available for use against Iraq, and there are air-launched cruise missiles aboard 14 B-52 bombers on the British island of Diego Garcia, sources said.

Britain has 22 strike aircraft in the region.

ALSO:
Pentagon unveils details of Operation Desert Fox
Transcript:Text of Blair's remarks on Iraq attack
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike


December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

ABC MUST NOT AIR PARTISAN PROPAGANDA ON 9/11!

SHAME ON YOU, ABC, FOR TRYING TO SPREAD MORE RIGHT-WING PROPOGANDA ACROSS OUR COUNTRY BY EXPLOITING 9-11 IN THE FILM, "THE PATH TO 9/11".

SHAME ON YOU, INDEED! THE SPEECHES BY BUSH AND MILLIONS OF ADVERTISING DOLLARS IS AN INSULT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

SHAME ON YOU! THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DESERVES TO KNOW THE R.E.A.L.TRUTH.

SHAME ON YOU FOR NOT AIRING THE DOCUMENTARY: "LOOSE CHANGE"!

SHAME ON YOU FOR BROADCASTING FABRICATED SCENES TO BLAME DEMOCRATS AND DEFEND REPUBLICANS FOR 9/11.

YOU AND ABC MUST N.O.T. AIR SUCH PARTISAN PROPAGANDA USING 9/11

I have a suggestion. Why not put Path to 9/11 on DVD? Those who want to buy it can. I know we can just switch channels, but as a country are we not responsible enough to respect the memory of the heroes who died and the families who lost them? Why should the dollars I spend on goods and services go into the making of such a controversial tale with misrepresentations that some people will view as the truth.?

Put it on cable with a warning that the film doesn't portray the facts as conservarives did with the Reagan movie which they claim was not consistent with actual events. Even with a disclaimer, the film will be in the minds of millions who believe everything they see on TV and who will forget that disclaimer half way into the movie.

Is this what we want said about our country over the public airwaves?

The world is watching.

Carly

It's not bad enough that ABC plans to air a five- hour infomercial aimed at persuading the American
people that primary responsibility for failing to prevent the most horrendous act of terrorism in the nation's history lies not with the incumbent
President, despite repeated warnings, but with his predecessor. Even worse, ABC apparently does
plan to interrupt the right wing fairy tale for a
a twenty-minute political speech by the culprit
himself. Why doesn't ABC simply endorse the Republican senatorial and congressional candidates
and get it over with? It would be fascinating to
discover how much ABC and Disney executives have
profited over the past six years from the Republican tax cutting schemes benefitting the rich almost exclusively while plunging the nation
into new horizons of debt. It certainly seems to
have been a good investment of taxpayers' moiney
for the GOP.
into
In answer to the above Carly well tell me if they were saying it was all Bush’s fault would you be the 1st one to turn on the TV?? And your remark that ABC is right wing is really a laugh. And all the ones that I have read refer to it as Limbaugh that’s even a bigger laugh. Carly and the rest of you leftist I say to you B.S. ABC is and always will be the biggest Maxist Network in the nation

Ron

This is all I'm gonna say!! Do any of you squawkers’ even remember 911??? Do you remember that we are at war?? Do you remember that the United stats has something called a Constitution??? Now lets put something right here, 1 ABC has the right to put on any mini series they wish even if we don’t like it!!! Imagine that!!!!! Don’t mean we have to watch it hell most all of you have cable or satellite TV and god know you have a off button if you don’t want to watch it now don’t you? Who on this board has already seen the movie other that WHAT BILL CLINTON, M. ALBRIGHT AND SANDY BERGER has been crying about?? Docudrama is NOT a Documentary it’s fictionalized get a grip I’ve read here where your gonna boycott ABC and Disney and all there sponsors Hmmmm so Your gonna starve to death hey and park your car and jus do nothing well I think not seems to me that all you cry babies need to jus GROW UP! Oh yeah, the Constitution thing it’s called the 1st amendment and that’s the 1st in the bill of rights and that’s what makes this country AMERICA.

To Gary in Alaska:

I am not at all pro-censorship. That's not the issue. ABC has a responsibility to stick to the facts of the Commission if it is claiming it is based on the Commission. ABC ought not to change the facts of the Clinton administration only, when clearly the report says all of the administrations failed us.

To those who compare this movie to Michael Moore's movies: It's not the same thing. Michael Moore has never claimed to be anything other than a liberal. Repeatedly in interviews he said essentially that F9/11 was not "fair and balanced" but rather the truth as he sees it.

ABC, as a news provider, ought not to have a political bias. Yes, this is produced by ABC entertainment division, but since there is already so much blurring of the news with entertainment, this so-called "docu-drama" ought to face the highest scrutiny. They ought to fully disclose who paid for this movie, too, since they are not going to be making advertisement movie. After all, they force disclosure in campaign ads. I don't see this as much more than a two-evening long campaign ad for Republicans.

And to the person who brings up Reagan and OBL: Yes, we cannot forget that we were so quick to get in bed with OBL and the Taliban when it suit our needs against the Soviets. WE gave THEM the idea to make it a holy war against the godless communists! Let us not forget!!

ABC calls this documdrama the "Official True Story" in its trailer. It is well known that many parts are not the truth, in fact some are 180 degrees off from the truth. This isn't speculation -- these errors are so bad that those personally involved -- including conservative Republicans -- have commented on the gross inaccuracy of the film.

Yet it rolls right ahead, without commercials, bankrolled by God knows who, with the added feature of a 20 minute talk by Bush himself.

For those of you who keep comparing "Path to 911" to "Farenheit 911" read the following.

Published on Thursday, July 8, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Disney Goofy to Pass on Fahrenheit 911: Shareholders Expect Moore
by Blaine Townsend

Most companies scoff at the notion of a social contract. Doing the “right thing”, they claim, will cost them money. But The Walt Disney Co’s decision to block its Miramax Films unit from distributing the Michael Moore political documentary Farhenheit 911 set a different precedent. This time, the company did the wrong thing, and it cost them money. Now Wall Street can join progressive groups in trying to figure out why.

When the news first broke that Disney was blocking Miramax from distributing the film, sensational theories abounded: it was to protect tax incentives in Florida or because of the influence of Saudi investors. But it was Disney that offered perhaps the least plausible of all: it was too partisan a project to release during a Presidential election cycle.

True, Disney is best known for family entertainment. But the company has demonstrated no other philosophical opposition to generating revenues from partisan political content or advertising during this election cycle. In fact, the approximately $1.2 billion in revenues Wall Street estimates Disney will earn from its broadcasting operations in 2004 are being bolstered by election year political advertising. Disney also produces extremely partisan content on its ABC Radio Network. ABC Radio’s website, in fact, touts conservative Sean Hannity as a “gutsy” talk show host who always “lands on the right side of the issue.” And like many major corporations, Disney is giving money directly to political action committees – the definition of a partisan project.

So it is unlikely that sanitizing Disney of partisan politics drove this decision.

It is also unlikely that the decision was based on a lack of commercial viability for the film. Michael Moore’s films have excellent track records. In fact, the previous record for cumulative gross receipts for a documentary was Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine. Its nine-month run in 2001 grossed nearly $22 million. In addition, the content and timing of Fahrenheit’s release certainly guaranteed marketing costs for this film would be much less than normal – making it even more attractive.

Case in point, the $21.9 million in gross receipts earned by Fahrenheit 911 during its first weekend eclipsed the opening weekend gross receipts for every other release by Disney this year. By the second week, the film had grossed $60 million. Before its run ends, Fahrenheit’s total gross (estimated at $100 million) will likely eclipse most of Disney’s 2003 or 2004 releases.

In the perplexing background of Fahrenheit’s stunning success, is the tepid execution of Disney’s studio operation. Far from growing the business, Wall Street analysts estimate Disney’s studio operation will be down 1% compared to last year. With Pixar Animation Studios (Finding Nemo, Toy Story) threatening to end its distribution relationship with Disney, Wall Street is looking for good news right now. Disney has not delivered.

To the contrary, while Fahrenheit was winning the “Palme d'Ore” at the Cannes Film Festival and becoming the most talked about release in the world, Disney was informing Wall Street that it was writing off three major releases, Home on the Range, The Alamo and Lady Killers and all but given up on a third, Around the World in 80 Days (which cost $120 million to make and has a total gross of $21 million).

So why punt this valuable asset? At the time, The New York Times wrote that Disney “loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse.” True, some conservatives might have stayed away from Disney World had the company released Fahrenheit. But it is a stretch to think releasing the film would have hurt Disney’s business. Yet Disney, which always been about making a buck, passed on tens of millions of them in this case.

Something is not right with this picture.

Maybe Michael Moore will make a documentary exploring Disney’s decision (Mickey and Me?). Based on the success of Fahrenheit, it should be a moneymaker. I am sure smart companies will line up for the chance to distribute it.

ABC needs to put a different kind of disclaimer on this heap of dung. No, not a disclaimer that they just made things up about the worst man made disaster of our times in America.

They need to put a disclaimer showing all the corporate handouts, tax breaks, etc they are expecting as a result of this campaign ad.

We think $40 million and think it's a lot of money. Compared to what Disney is expecting in return, it's chump change. People give $100,000 expecting millions in contracts in return. What exactly is Disney hoping for in exchange for this bribe? More deregulation? Tax breaks for sweatshops making Disney clothes in central america and the carribbean? Perhaps an educational campaign about sweatshop labor making those mouse ears is in order.

For those who keep comparing this to Fahrenheit 911...people had to pay to see that...this is being shown on Primetime TV.

Billing this miniseries as "The True Story" when obviously it is not,is shameful. The fact that it will come complete with an intermission by the President, can't do anything but lead one to think that there are internal politics at work here. I don't have a problem with showing facts, but this is just not right and you are going to have a lot of viewers to answer to, especially children who will be getting a distorted and semi-fictionalized view of history.

It's not bad enough that ABC plans to air a five- hour infomercial aimed at persuading the American
people that primary responsibility for failing to prevent the most horrendous act of terrorism in the nation's history lies not with the incumbent
President, despite repeated warnings, but with his predecessor. Even worse, ABC apparently does
plan to interrupt the right wing fairy tale for a
a twenty-minute political speech by the culprit
himself. Why doesn't ABC simply endorse the Republican senatorial and congressional candidates
and get it over with? It would be fascinating to
discover how much ABC and Disney executives have
profited over the past six years from the Republican tax cutting schemes benefitting the rich almost exclusively while plunging the nation
into new horizons of debt. It certainly seems to
have been a good investment of taxpayers' moiney
for the GOP.
into

It is important to remember that President Clinton had the watch for the 8 year period; almost the entire timeframe leading up to 9/11. Therefore, the bulk of the good or bad news, the failures or successes would have transpired during his watch in the White House. If we as Americans we ignore this fact, we are wearing political blindfolds.

I for one, look forward to watching "The Path to 9/11", just as I looked forward to reading the 9/11 Report. I am intelligent enough to distinguish between fact and fiction, and quite able to determine truths from falsehoods. I believe fundamentally that most adult Americans have the same powers of reason.

Why then should we as Americans allow an infringement on freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Why should we allow anyone to ban "The Path to 9/11" from television. Shall we also allow the banning of books, music, and other forms of expression and free speech? Shall we also revoke freedom of the press?

As an individual, should I allow any of you to decide what I can or cannot watch? Surely not. No more than I should be permitted to decide what you can or cannot watch.

ON WITH THE SHOW!

I did not see an advanced copy, but could I assume the film include Reagan CIA involvement in training of OBL and founding of Al-Qiada, Bush Sr's placement of wetern troops on Saudi soil, or even Truman's support of Israel?
We allways hope to have elected leaders who are capable and competent. I have been sometimes proud and sometimes been painfully disappointed in America's leadership. Yet, I am still an American and I am resolved that my leaders should not be fools.
ABC is a historic broadcasting institution and should never attack the competency of America's leaders, past or present, during a time of war.
The story of 9/11 has come out to all those willing to read and watch the news. If this 6 Hour $40M propaganda spectacle is openly disrespecting to a past US administration, it will not stregthen America. It will cause us to doubt our leader's actions more. Please do not play into our enemy's hands. God Bless

It's nice to see you only quote right wingers, and then throw in a Clinton foe. I think you make the case about how the right-wing is given control of the media, at least at ABC. I don't give a darn what any right-wing propagandist thinks about this or anything else. Only people who deal strictly with fact and truth should have their opinions considered.

That is the issue with the mini-series as well, and now I get why you don't object to it - you have no issue with professional liars.

I have no connection to the tragic 9/11, other than being an American...I for one hope ABC does go on with the show...As Americans, I think we can form our own thoughts, as to what we believe or don't...It does not matter as to what party we belong to, both parties are guilty of not doing enough to prevent this, and maybe we can learn from your show as to what we can do as Americans to prevent it from happening again.The Republicans didn't like it when Michael Moore did his show and put down Pres. Bush, and we watched it , because it was our choice, now the Democrats don't like it, and it should be our choice again.

I get a kick out of these little right-wing neo-con robots(the ones who claim not to be republicans) crying "freedom of speech" and censorship" this from the same bunch that calls anyone who critises Bush a Nazi and wants evolution removed from school curiculums. Give me a break.

One problem with "The Path to 9/11" is that it has a political agenda. Its message, "Democrats gave us 911" isn't supported by the 9/11 Commisson report, although it dovetails nicely with the Republican's persistent campaign theme "If the Democrats win we'll have another 9/11"

1984 !

What ever happened to the Freedom of Speech the liberals and the Democrats insist on bringing up when ever Hollywood makes a movie "they" agree with or like?? Michael Moore called his movie a Documentary when it was NOT!! ABC says their movie is not a documentary--yet Bill Clinton and the like are really having a fit!! I say --Go ABC--

I just sent an e-mail to ABC and told them this: If it airs without ALL corrections made in terms of accuracy and bias, then no kidding around. I will not support ABC or the Walt Disney Corporation, their associated companies or their sponsors. I have a seven year old daughter - she loves Disney princesses and has been to Disneyland. But I'm not fooling around; Ariel, Belle and Cinderella will be persona non grata in my household. I haven't set foot in Walmart in five years, and everyone who knows me well knows exactly why. I'm not shy about it. I think ABC is making a HUGE mistake here - Walt Disney can kiss their $32 billion revenue good-bye. Sell your Disney stock if you've got any.

Part of the problem here is that the very airing of the film is a massive coup for Karl Rove and yet another deception forced on the American public. Rove knows that once the film has aired most viewers will not follow the fallout and the truth about who is behind it. While many of us are against censorship, what are we supposed to do with a 5-6 hour uninterupted Bush commercial complete with a live speech (not on West Coast) from Bush right at the climax? This has been planned for some time and all the spinmeisters really have to do is make sure it is aired. The truth be damned! As we will see in the next few months this agenda has only just begun.

If ABC edits, any of this series, then Clinton wins again. I don't blame just Clinton, it was the Presidents, before and after him, too. I am so tired of Democrats trying to white-wash the Clinton era and people turnig a deaf ear to what he stands for, I don't think he or Hilary would know truth if it came knocking. I believe in free speech and if ABC edits this, then I will realize, free speech is only if you don't critisize Democrats, just Republicans, of which I am neither. We all have been let down by the White house and neither party has shown to be best
or that old word we don't hear to often HONESTY.

Don't worry, Jake. Just ignore what all those mean people are saying about you and your parent company. Your cocktail wienies will still be waiting for you.

I have had it with the media. That ABC would bow to the pressure of the Clintons and the other liberals and "rewrite" the program so that it places them in a favorable light is the last straw with me.

We the American People can stand the truth and we actually know the truth and do not need anyone to water it down or make it a little more palatable for us. We need the truth no matter who it points out or paints in a harsh light. Bill Clinton in my opinion is trying to rewrite history books so that he will look good. Too late for that.

I will not watch your program tomorrow night and Monday night no matter which version you air. I will not watch anything that has "had" to be made more palatable and censored by anyone.

Nor will I watch anything produced by cowards.

As far as I am concerned Bill Clinton and his wife and administration did more harm to this country than any other in our history. Certainly in my opinion they were the most corrupt. His wife now changes her tune in order to stay in public view hoping for a shot in the White House. One Clinton in the Whitehouse was too costly for me.

And the blame for 9/11 certainly lies squarely with the Clinton Administration and President Bush inherited it. Perhaps if Bill Clinton paid as much attention to presidential business as he did with Monica Lewinsky perhaps we would not be in the mess we are in right now.

I changed political parties because of Bill Clinton and his shenanigans. I can and will certainly change my television dial.

I am interested in who paid the 40 million for this right wing hit piece. I am also interested in how much T.Kean was paid. Was there governmental involvement?
Max Blumenthal has an excellent review of the motivations behind the production and the marketing of this conservative spun fantasy.

While ABC provided 900 DVDs of this movie to conservatives, Clinton officials and objective mainstream outlets were denied them. The email Liberty Film Festival co founder Govindini Murty sent out promoting this farce really says it all:
"Please do everything you can to spread the word about this excellent miniseries," "so that 'The Path to 9/11' gets the highest ratings possible when it airs on September 10 & 11! If this show gets huge ratings, then ABC will be more likely to produce pro-American movies and TV shows in the future!"
I will never look at Mickey Mouse again without picturing the 9/11 tragedy and its exploitation. I don't want to show my children propaganda disguised as entertainment. I value truth, not politics. I no longer value ABC. Goodnight and goodluck.

The reader who thinks we who support Bill Clinton are brainwashed, please think again. This White House has lied so often about really important matters, and if they were telling the thruth, we wouldn't know it. Why was Clinton impeached for a sex act, but Bush and co. continue to get away with all the lies? The right wing nut jobs make me ill.

I think both sides of this argument would be well served to read Mr. Scheuer's book. He explains it all nicely. The Clinton apologists are unwilling to consider anything but blind faith that Clinton can do no wrong, it is only evil Republicans. That is a very dangerous way of viewing the world.

ABC needs to step up to this issue big time. I would love to see scene by scene analysis with opportunity for participants to commend and discuss. Notice I didn't say censor it, I said call it what it is: FICTION. Unfortunately by blurring the line between history and fiction, ABC is eroding respect for its programming including its news organization.

“The Path to 9/11” controversy points out something that ought to be self-evident: a docudrama is a dangerous and easily abused art form. It is inherently dangerous to blend fact and fiction together and then pass it off as a serious portrayal of real events. The average viewer, who has no clue which details are factual and which are the figment of some writer’s imagination, will inevitably believe some or all of the fictional parts to be fact and be left with a warped understanding of history. Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebels, understood only too well how such techniques could be used to deliberately influence the minds of viewers to support the goals of National Socialism. Even if one were to somehow clearly mark all fictionalized scenes as “fiction”, there would still be some that would give undue credence to them.

Why do the news media create docudrama movies when the actual facts and actual events are for the most part known or available, and when those whom they portray in fictitious scenes are available to tell what really occurred? Probably for the same reason they cover major points of contention by presenting spokesmen from opposing camps who can’t even agree on the basic facts, much less solutions. Investigative reporting no doubt takes more time, effort, and money than just relying on self-proclaimed “experts” or on writers with a good imagination.

It used to be the job of the news media to do some investigative research to find out the facts, and not just let groups and individuals get away with distorting the facts to promote their own agenda. Opposing views are not of equal value when one is based on demonstrable falsehoods, and it is a disservice when the news media under the guise of “equal treatment” fails to do its homework and point out lies for what they are.

It would be better that docudrama be avoided wherever possible, but if not, the only semi-responsible way to do it requires scrupulously avoiding drama that contradicts known facts, or depicts people as taking actions or positions that contradict known facts, or substituting drama in cases where some serious research could be expected to uncover the real facts. The drama part should be reserved for details that are basically unknowable. All the evidence so far suggests that “The Path to 7/11” steps way over this line.

The movie is completely ridiculous. Where is it mentioned that the actual scene they are trying to depict was the scene between George Tenet and Dick Cheney. The CIA counterterroism operation in Afghanistan had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora. Tenet called direct to Dick Cheney for assistance from the Pentagon, and he got nothing!

bin Laden escaped Tora Bora because of the political power play that Bush Cheney have been making in DC. AND that is the bottom line.

If ABC airs this blatant propaganda, it will be the last time this American family spends any money for Disney, Touchstone, Miramax, Hyperion, Baby Eintein, ABC or any of their subsidiaries or advertisers. My economic relationship with the Disney Corp is over!

don't want PathTo911 censored, but Judith Miller can go to jail over the Plame CIA story.

demanded Clinton tell the truth, but not Bush.

purport to support the troops, but won't let them obey the Army Field Manual.

i want freedom.

ABC needs to play the movie the way it was made. Censoship leads to loss of freedom of speech and our way of life. How are we the people to believe the media when they choose to edit the movie and show it their way. I didn't see anyone change farenheit 911 when Michale Moore put it out there. Its seems that the democratic party makes ABC's executive decisions.

I have lost all respect for ABC and Disney. It's just disgusting... this is what they are presenting as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report?" Jake why aren't you taking a stand against this or are you too afraid. If you support what ABC is doing, your readers would appreciate it if you state that for the record as well. What is YOUR view -- should ABC air this piece of garbage or not??

ABC's marketing in Australia says "The story of exactly what happened" Oh really? From Americablog...

1. American Airlines had Mohammad Atta at its ticket counter and a warning came up on the screen when he tried to check in. The AA employee called a supervisor who said, just let him through. The first employee said, shouldn't we search him? And the supervisor says, nah, just hold his luggage until he boards the plane. This is clearly intended to make American Airlines look negligent. Is this true?

Did this happen?

FACT: This kind of happened, buy they still got a lot wrong. First, they've got the airport wrong. The warning popped up in Portland, not at Boston Logan as the tv show claims. Second, the rules at the time said nothing about searching him, they only required that the bags be held until he boarded - the tv show clearly tries to imply American Airlines violated their own rules in letting Atta go, which they clearly did not.

Second, Atta didn't fly American from Portland, he flew a US Airways Express affiliate. It was the US Airways Express folks who held his bags but didn't do more, not American. So, when the film tries to pain American Airlines employees in Boston as morons, it's really the US Airways employees in Portland who are the relevant parties. I'm only ten minutes into this film and we're already getting the wrong cities and the wrong players.

Jake, while I am not able to address the accuracy of your contact, Michael Scheuer, I do agree with the idea of transparent government and accountability. By all means -- release *all* documentation and testimony to a special prosecutor to persue. We seem to be living in an age of no acountability, and if that is truly the case, how are we (as a country) every going to learn from mistakes in policy (both strategic and tactical)? Why don't those who want acountability in education (No Child Left Behind) also demand the same of all government?

as a postscript

Whatever in the world was it that Sandy Berger sutffed in his pants?

It is inadequate for ABC to “Dramatize”, and play fast and loose with facts, while presenting recent history in a quasi documentary. I agree with Bennett.

Right is right. Do not air fake history.

If there are flaws in the commission report they should be revealed. If our leaders were remiss and received bad advice that should be revealed. I agree with Scheuer.

Surely there is enough meat in this story so that events do not have to be made up. If there is an opinion to be aired state it as such and have fun.

This smacks of the Rather biased “Fake but Accurate” National Guard Memos, but what I do not like the most is the penchant for elected officials to run at the mouth, threaten and sue, resulting in the “book being pulled from the library”. Nor do I like screaming banshees determining what I see or don’t see.

We used to laugh when the Soviets did this exact thing.

What's your point JT? Still saying it's OK to run this movie because ONE of the conservatives quoted would like to blame 9/11 mostly on Clinton? "Whitewashing" on the 9/11 Commission?? Are you really trying to imply that the failures of the 9/11 Commission were some how in favor or painted a better picture of the Clinton Administration? Please! Let's not forget that Bush and Cheney fought this commission every single step of the way, and just as many witnesses from the Republican administrations as from Clinton's administration were allowed to get away with testifying without being under oath. And let's not forget Bush and Cheney were allowed to testify TOGETHER! OMG! Give me a break. Every time you add another blog entry on the subject, JT, you sound more and more like the wonks on Fox!