Skip

Bill Clinton foils plot for Disney to make Mickey Mouse tee vee
September 8, 2006 7:19 AM   Subscribe

ABC agrees to take the lies out of their 9/11 miniseries. previously discussed here
posted by tsarfan (107 comments total)

 
Eh. I'll believe it when I watch it. Which I, you know, won't. But you know what I mean.

Don't expect the worst bits to disappear, by the way. Given that Limbaugh and 900 or so right-wing pundits were given screener copies I'm sure Michelle Malkin's little video project will have clips up on YouTube by the end of the week.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:26 AM on September 8, 2006


Did you read the article? They are making minor revisions:

The Washington Post reported Friday that an ABC executive, who requested anonymity because the network is making only written comments, said small revisions have been underway for weeks.

The work itself will still be broadcast as Grade-A, Government-Approved, Government-Scripted Myth.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:26 AM on September 8, 2006


I have been more than a bit surprised and disappointed by Tom Kean's role in this, as well as his attitude. He has expressed (feigned?) surprise that someone might take umbrage with composite characters and fictionalized/dramatized/distorted represenations of actual events that affected so many, so deeply. I really had thought that he was one of the good guys, but I guess not.
posted by Hypnic jerk at 7:28 AM on September 8, 2006


"ABC Altering 9/11 Film After Clinton Officials Express Outrage"

Clinton still has officials? What's an "official" anyway? In this context I mean? I thought only politicians had 'officials'. Is he running for public office again? Is 'official' another word for "intern"?
posted by ZachsMind at 7:34 AM on September 8, 2006


"Altering." I wonder how many people only read headlines.
posted by leapingsheep at 7:40 AM on September 8, 2006


All ex-Presidents have foundations and staff. The letter to ABC was written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton's office, as a simple Google would have revealed. Ex Prezzies don't just sit on the porch and whittle sticks, you know. Although Bush may.
posted by unSane at 7:41 AM on September 8, 2006


They're people who worked for him when he was president.

ABC hasn't committed to taking the lies out, just making some alterations. Apparently the first version of it was atrocious-- it led John Podhoretz to defend the Clinton officials involved.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:42 AM on September 8, 2006


Tom Kean, co-chair of the 9/11 Commission:
Asked if he had apologized to Clinton for inaccuracies in the movie, Kean quipped, “No, he was out campaigning against my son yesterday, so I didn’t reach out to him at all!”
Yup. No chance of bias there.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:46 AM on September 8, 2006


To be replaced by truthiness.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 7:48 AM on September 8, 2006


Ex Prezzies don't just sit on the porch and whittle sticks, you know. Although Bush may.

If we're lucky we'll live to see him breaking rocks.
posted by peeedro at 7:48 AM on September 8, 2006


He's breaking my rocks.
posted by ColdChef at 8:05 AM on September 8, 2006


“It asserts as fact things that are not fact,” she reportedly wrote.

So, it's a Republican version of "Fahrenheit 9/11". Cool.
posted by tadellin at 8:06 AM on September 8, 2006


President Bush whittling? My opinion of him rises dramatically...
Oh - wait. I get it. That's just a fictionalized scene for dramatic and narrative purposes.
posted by speug at 8:11 AM on September 8, 2006


No, I'm right where I need to be. Sorry if that bothers you. Have a nice day!
posted by tadellin at 8:12 AM on September 8, 2006


No, I'm right where I need to be.

And that's the truthiness!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:19 AM on September 8, 2006


Who controls the past, etc
posted by matteo at 8:20 AM on September 8, 2006


Need is a strong word. You might want to read over the previous discussion, as you seem to perceive F:9/11 and TPT:9/11 as analogous products promoted and dispersed in an identical fashion. Maybe I'm missing an elaborate facet of your initial comment, and if so, I'll be pleased to be advised otherwise.
posted by prostyle at 8:22 AM on September 8, 2006


So, if this movie is as biased and inaccurate and un-American as Farenheight 911 was accused of being...
posted by jdfalk at 8:28 AM on September 8, 2006


Wow...that'll teach me to try to spell before coffee. I didn't even notice in the preview.
posted by jdfalk at 8:29 AM on September 8, 2006


So, it's a Republican version of "Fahrenheit 9/11". Cool.

Weren't most of the claims in F911 that were debunked by the right later determined not to be bunk at all?

The biggest example of this was Moore's claim that the bin Ladens were given free passage out of the country after 9/11, when all other aircraft were grounded. This was roundly denounced as being false by the GOP, but then the 911 commission confirmed it later on.

It's been a long time since I'd seen F911, but I don't seem to recall many factual inaccuracies in it. It was overwrought, to be sure, and meant to elicit a strong reaction, but I don't believe it was ridden with many (if any) falsehoods. Can anyone with a better memory than I stand up to defend F911?
posted by Hypnic jerk at 8:31 AM on September 8, 2006


Also I'm pretty sure F911 was never distributed to schools, to be show as a "historically accurate documentary".
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 8:35 AM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


Why the hell is Harvey Keitel in this weak movie?
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:38 AM on September 8, 2006


And F911 had a narrator and actual footage, not "actors" portraying events that never happened.

The F911/TPT911 analogy is old and busted.
posted by Big_B at 8:40 AM on September 8, 2006


Keitel is speaking out against it.
posted by interrobang at 8:41 AM on September 8, 2006


Why, in the middle of the article, is this link?

Click here for FOXNews.com's War on Terror center.

Has the War on Terror been outsourced to FOXNews?
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:42 AM on September 8, 2006


Don't confuse them with facts. Facts are planted by the devil to mislead us and lead us astray from the path of righteousness. It's more important to believe things. Such as Iraq was behind 9/11 and had vast (or even measurable) quantities of weapons of mass destruction; that giving away rights and denying them from others is bravery; that Osama is the most evil and dangerous person on earth but it makes good sense to ignore him while we send the military into a quagmire within Iraq.
posted by substrate at 8:43 AM on September 8, 2006


Why the hell is Harvey Keitel in this weak movie?

Well, at least he got himself out of Eyes Wide Shut.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:46 AM on September 8, 2006


Hey, not to double-derail, but let's not dismiss Eyes Wide Shut too hastily...
posted by hermitosis at 8:52 AM on September 8, 2006


Point One: Even if F911 contained falsifications, two wrongs don't make a right. But I can't think of anything in that movie that turned out to be factually incorrect. Anyone?

Point Two: Remember CBS pulled the Reagan mini-series because it was factually incorrect.

Point Three: It makes me sick that anyone, right or left, would sit by and let history be distorted for their own immediate personal goals. Is there a single honorable person anywhere in our political leadership?
posted by JWright at 8:56 AM on September 8, 2006


I'm still and will always be a little fucked up by "the events of" 9/11 (sorry parts of the world where worse things happen all the time, it was a bad day by local standards) and I do feel for the people who lost loved ones and if going on tv makes them feel better, then fine, ok, good. However, as each year passes and the MAWKISH, TREMBLING UPPER LIP, THE HEROS THE HEROS, THEY ATTACKED US OUT OF THE BLUE FOR LOVING FREEDOM, WEEPING EAGLE SITTING ON A BATTERED FIREHELMET or whatever and the fucking disaster tourists who come to the city (seriously, fuck all of you who do that, fuck every single person who makes a day of coming to NYC and buys a NEVARFERGIT t-shirt at ground zero right in the pooper, fuckers.) get totally out of hand and makes me like Americans less and less all the time. Normally I would chalk it up to the media playing to the lowest common denominator (local fox news is basically a squatting grunty Crisco circlejerk on the corpse of a dead fireman right now)
but people actually buy this shit and this one-sided drama nonsense is going to go and BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS?

It was a bad thing that happened, bad things happen all the time. I'm always saying people wouldn't hate the US as much if it didn't practice this naked economic imperialism, but I'm starting to think even if we knocked that off people would still want to kill us for being giant weeping tubby trembling whiny snot-glazed babies who can't fucking shake off a bad hit and move along. It's the victim culture and the bully culture that are going to kill America in the end.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:57 AM on September 8, 2006 [7 favorites]


Don't kid yourself- Harvey Keitel is among that class of actors who works CONSTANTLY. For love of the work or the paycheck, they'll appear in just about anything they think will get distribution. Look at his IMDB profile. A fairly well-known, respected actor once, in conversation with my fiancee, referred to himself as "the biggest whore" in the business.

Personally, I eagerly await the scene where GWB hears about the attack, an immediately drops "My Pet Goat" so he can rip off his suit to reveal a Superman outfit, whereupon he flies off to save the day.
posted by mkultra at 8:57 AM on September 8, 2006


Why the hell is Harvey Keitel in this weak movie?

Yes, because Harvey Keitel has previously shown so much restraint in his choice of film roles. He was robbed at the Oscars for Little Nicky, you know.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:57 AM on September 8, 2006


Has the War on Terror been outsourced to FOXNews?

outsourced? i thought it was sponsored by them...
posted by troybob at 9:00 AM on September 8, 2006


Ex Prezzies don't just sit on the porch and whittle sticks, you know. Although Bush may.

I'm pretty sure our ex-Presidents aren't just sitting around whittling on the porch.
posted by NationalKato at 9:07 AM on September 8, 2006


Eyes Wide Shut is a minor masterpiece.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:13 AM on September 8, 2006


Is there a single honorable person anywhere in our political leadership?

Why would there be? We're a nation of dishonorable shamblers, for various reasons. As below, so above.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:17 AM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


EWS is a flawed work, certainly not one of Kubrick's best efforts. I mention it only to perhaps counter some of the "Keitel-as-actor-whore" talk. /derail
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:19 AM on September 8, 2006


I understand the impulse, but this FPP wasn't warranted. The "event" linked is just one more dance step in a big, ongoing story, not any kind of watershed moment; the language of the FPP and page title oversell its significance.

I'll consider this a worthwhile thread if and when some additional links from ericb make their appearance.
posted by soyjoy at 9:20 AM on September 8, 2006


I just received this in my email. Yes, I get NM state press releases.

Seal Of The State Of New Mexico
State of New Mexico
Office of the Governor

Bill Richardson
Governor

For immediate release
September 8, 2006

Governor Richardson Issues Statement on Upcoming ABC "Road to 9/11" Film

(Santa Fe, NM) – As he traveled to Khartoum, Sudan to meet with Sudanese President Lt. General Umar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir and urge him to release journalist Paul Salopek and two colleagues on humanitarian grounds, Governor Bill Richardson released the following statement today on the ABC TV film, "The Path to 9/11" slated to air nationwide this weekend.

"I am very concerned about reports I have heard of fictional events inserted into ABC's upcoming "Path to 9/11" film. As a former senior member of the Clinton Administration, I know first hand of the efforts that were made to capture and eliminate Osama bin Laden. This includes the trip I made as United Nations Ambassador in April 1998 to Kabul, Afghanistan. During this trip – the first by a U.S. cabinet official to Afghanistan since 1974 – I met with high ranking officials of the ruling Taliban regime and directly requested that bin Laden be expelled or extradited. The Taliban refused, but I know this sort of muscular diplomacy got bin Laden's attention since he threatened to kill me.

This was only one of many, many efforts made by the Clinton Administration to combat terror at home and abroad.

On the fifth anniversary of the worst attack our nation has ever experienced, we shouldn't be pointing political fingers; we should be recommitting ourselves to the sort of strong, bipartisan diplomatic efforts that have served our country well in the past."
posted by taosbat at 9:35 AM on September 8, 2006


JWright: Is there a single honorable person anywhere in our political leadership?

Political leadership consists of two things: (1) the vital "real" skills needed to actually run the country, and (2) the bullshit "marketing" skills needed to get and maintain political position.

The people find (1) to be boring and uncomfortable, so they vote and act based on (2). This has always been true to various degrees, but now it has gotten to the extreme point where anyone seeking political office must develop (2) at the direct expense of (1). The leaders have basically become nothing more than enablers for the people's self-abusive habits.

Until the collective national character wakes up from its comfortable laziness and starts actively pursuing "the real thing", instead of just demanding "The Real Thing (tm)", there will be no place for honor in the political leadership.
posted by PsychoKick at 9:35 AM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


Keitel is speaking out against it.

Good for him. Yeah, he's appeared in a lot of crap, but I always thought of him as a decent, intelligent guy, and I'm glad he's at least realized after the fact that this stinks.
posted by languagehat at 9:44 AM on September 8, 2006


I'll consider this a worthwhile thread if and when some additional links from ericb make their appearance.

The other thread became a Bash Matt thread, so this one is needed to get back on topic.
posted by jefbla at 9:48 AM on September 8, 2006


I’m sure the series is just compensating for the biased news coverage.
I don’t know what the Republican version of F911 would be. I don’t much care for Moore’s work, but he did bring up certain issues that needed to be brought up. If the Dems were in power, I’d be kicking their asses over the exact same issues. As it is, they’re not holding the reins right now, so this “underdog” bullshit doesn’t fly.
But the world has put up with a lot of the U.S. revisionist history. Look at a textbook on WWII and you wouldn’t think the Soviets had much to do with the defeat of the axis.
Hell, I talked to a kid (in August) and mentioned the August coup of ‘91 in passing and got a completely blank look. Some of it was a bit arch (a Bush “vacationing in Crimea” joke - remember he had that press conference recently?) but apparently a lot of people don’t remember the collapse of the Soviet Union in ‘91.

/I respect Keitel. No one jerks off like Keitel.
De Niro couldn’t jerk off like Keitel. His jerking off is one of the best and most distinguishable in the business. Fuck Olivier. They had to cut Orsino’s servant’s masterbation scene from “The Cenci” at the Empire Theatre in 1926 because Olivier didn’t have the chops (so to speak). And Welles? The studio wrenched Touch of Evil from Welles directorship, re-edited it, and re-shot around the masterbation scenes. He had Janet Leigh showing him how she sucked a cock and he still couldn’t pull it off (so to speak). And don’t get me started on Brando’s re-cuts as Jor-El. So let’s lay off Keitel here.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:52 AM on September 8, 2006 [3 favorites]


Hey they're taking out the lies, but will they leave in such myths as:

1. George Bush is a man of action

2. 8 months at the head of the most powerful nation in the solar system is not enough time to prepare for ultimate box-cutter plane-flying attack.

3. No one could have imagined this shit except al Qaeda, our intelligence agencies, and some novelists, who did.

4. The deaths of several hundred police and firemen conferred sainthood on all police and firemen. And all other uniformed people, incl. the mailman.

5. We will never surrender to terror! Let's be clear that when we say "we" we aren't talking about Pakistan.

6. Three countries that either hate each other or are so far removed politically, geographically, and psychically as to be on different worlds do an Axis of Evil make.

7. Putting the war on our Bank of China credit card was an awesome idea.
posted by Mister_A at 9:52 AM on September 8, 2006


Weren't most of the claims in F911 that were debunked by the right later determined not to be bunk at all?

Hopefully mathowie won't ban me or anything for linking to DailyKos, but that's where the debunking of the debunking was posted.

See also here and here.

"Fixing" some of the lesser lies is ABC's pansy-ass way of trying to look like they're doing the right thing. People planning to boycott should let ABC know that boycotts will occur if it gets shown at all. And people planning to boycott should boycott Disney as well.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:54 AM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


It sounds like they're not making the changes people are demanding at all. They released copies to tons of Rightwing people and media outlets and to the regular press already. Hewitt already said that any further changes are small and would not change the anti-Clinton bias that is intrinsically threaded throughout the movie.
posted by amberglow at 9:59 AM on September 8, 2006


How was this any different from when this TV movie completely rewrote the Laws of physics for purposes of melodrama?
posted by ZachsMind at 10:03 AM on September 8, 2006


This Fox thing is a lie:

Variety: Pols pound 'Path'
Under fire, ABC mulls yanking mini


And now they're reporting that Bush is doing a primetime speech on 9/11 which would conflict with it anyway.
posted by amberglow at 10:03 AM on September 8, 2006


That Gov. Richardson quote has me in knots of laughter. His proof that he "did something" to get bin Laden was that he made a trip to talk to the Taliban? The Taliban?!?! Oh my. Where did he think that meeting would get him? Ridiculous!
posted by markulus at 10:13 AM on September 8, 2006


Markulus:
You negotiate peace with your enemies, not your friends.
posted by Mister_A at 10:15 AM on September 8, 2006


You negotiate peace with enemies that you think have at least a shred of rationality.
posted by markulus at 10:34 AM on September 8, 2006


You know what, dumbass? Terrorists of all stripes do have a shred of rationality. If they were the robotic anti-American killing machines you seem to think they are, we would have been attacked over and over again since and prior to 9-11, non-stop.

The fact is, just killing random people does not advance their causes, only symbolic attacks do, so they rationally pick their fucking battles. Even terrorists have smarts enough to pick their friends according to their goals.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:40 AM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


Point Three: It makes me sick that anyone, right or left, would sit by and let history be distorted for their own immediate personal goals. Is there a single honorable person anywhere in our political leadership?

They all left, so no.
posted by hoborg at 10:41 AM on September 8, 2006


You negotiate peace with enemies that you think have at least a shred of rationality.
posted by markulus


That's a pretty irrational statement. Also pretty ignorant, but whatever.
posted by NationalKato at 10:57 AM on September 8, 2006


Dear Mr. Markulus:

Thank you for your recent application for a position with the United States Department of State. Despite your stellar performance on the US Foreign Service Examination -- though we did notice some irregularities with regard to how your signature was completed versus the one on your picture ID --, we regret to inform you that you really cannot offer you a position at this, or any other time. We have determined that you really do not possess the aptitude or temperament for this sort of work. We suggest a career in professional wrestling.

Sincerely,
Director of Human Resources
Office of the Undersecretary of State
posted by Hypnic jerk at 10:59 AM on September 8, 2006


Amen, Divine_Wino.
posted by cass at 11:22 AM on September 8, 2006




On a lighter note...

Sudan's president agreed Friday to release a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist and two Chadians jailed on charges of espionage after meeting with a U.S. governor, a spokesman for the governor said.

Chadians? Fer real? Why not Chaddites.
posted by Mister_A at 12:13 PM on September 8, 2006


I watched United 93 last night.

Why bother playing fast and loose with the facts, if you're not intentionally being dishonest for reasons that have nothing to do with drama?

Why not just show this film uninterrupted? Why not teach to it?

As much as one can be, it is truthful. As much as one can be, it is apolitical.
posted by sparkletone at 12:13 PM on September 8, 2006


NationalKato: you call my statement irrational and ignorant, yet provide no reason why. But then it all made sense when you said "whatever". Thanks.

sonofsamiam: you give the poor, little, idiot terrorists too much respect, my man. Have you stopped to think that the reason we haven't had any more attacks is because they have been prevented? Next.

Hypnic jerk: thanks for the tribute to my previous posts. love it.
posted by markulus at 12:24 PM on September 8, 2006


you give the poor, little, idiot terrorists too much respect, my man. Have you stopped to think that the reason we haven't had any more attacks is because they have been prevented? Next.

Good sir, you are clearly a retard. As it is not my cusom to bait and torment those punished for their parents' sins by Our Father, I shall take my leave.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:26 PM on September 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


Have you stopped to think that the reason we haven't had any more attacks is because they have been prevented? Next.


You could have said that anytime between the first WTC attack in 1993 and Sept. 10, 2001.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:45 PM on September 8, 2006


“Have you stopped to think that the reason we haven't had any more attacks is because they have been prevented? Next”

Er...Anthrax? Riyadh bombing? Paul Johnson? Danny Pearl? Charles Bishop? Hello?
posted by Smedleyman at 12:50 PM on September 8, 2006


I am personally responsible for the sharp decline in lion attacks in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Have you not stopped to consider that they've declined, sir?

Then I shall take to you.

vileknavewn1
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:56 PM on September 8, 2006 [2 favorites]


I bought a used car once and then I got drunk and wrecked it. The police arrested the previous owner.

Honestly, among the many hoodwinks pulled off by Rove and co. over the last six years, the biggest has to be that Bush and his people were completely free of blame for 9/11. Of course, they run around telling people there hasn't been attack since then (falsely) and then expect to take credit for that.

But ultimately, what part of "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" don't the American people understand? Condoleeza Rice was National Security Advisor at the time (what parts of "National," "Security," and "Advisor" don't the American people understand?) and she got promoted for her failure to head up State.

But now, instead of Bush having to play his own PR game, he's got ABC/Disney doing it for him. Unbelievable.

tadellin, when NBC or CBS decide to air a six-hour series made by Michael Moore and calles it a "docu-drama," and then distributes educational materials about the film to elementary schools, you'll have a point. It will be the first time for you on mefi, so I'm looking forward to it.
posted by bardic at 12:57 PM on September 8, 2006


Mayhap Astro Zombie possesseth a magical stone that fendeth off and repelleth the onslaught of suche beastes as Liones and Tygres. Would that I could obtaine such a stone as would be proof against the steeley clawes and fanges of stupid-ness and ineptitude!
posted by Mister_A at 1:09 PM on September 8, 2006


Open Letter to ABC (signed in part by Arthur Schlesinger): "Don't Airbrush 9/11"
posted by bardic at 1:10 PM on September 8, 2006


Have you stopped to think that the reason we haven't had any more attacks is because they have been prevented? Next.

Hmmmmmmm...Let me think.

Nah, that's not it. Next.
posted by leftcoastbob at 1:31 PM on September 8, 2006


By the way, Scholastic is pulling back on the supplemental materials for this ... thing.
posted by sparkletone at 1:35 PM on September 8, 2006


Have you stopped to think that the reason we haven't had any more attacks is because they have been prevented?

This is really dangerous and misleading thinking, but it also brings one of our principle weaknesses in this fight into specific relief: our short attention span.

As others have pointed out, there were nearly 7 years between the first WTC bombing and the (foiled) Y2K attack on LAX (not to mention 911 two years later). These guys are deliberate, patient, and don't really care how long it's going to take to plan the next one. My money is more on the fact that they haven't found the right opportunity to strike more than it is due to our brand new terror fightin' capabilities thanks to Mr. Bush and his Patriot Act.

Not trying to seem paraoid or anyting, but there clearly are people out there (somewhere over the horizon) conspiring to attack us, probably right at this moment, and to attribute the fact that there haven't been any attacks since 911 to the idea that they have been prevented is either naive or just plain foolish, and worse, causes people to be less vigilant than they should be.
posted by Hypnic jerk at 1:41 PM on September 8, 2006


I suspect it has more to do with the fact that they made their point on 911, and have turned their terrorist acts against more immediate targets than the more symbolic target of the United States. They can get us, we know it, and that's enough.

And so on to closer targets.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:45 PM on September 8, 2006


Mayhap Astro Zombie possesseth a magical stone that fendeth off and repelleth the onslaught of suche beastes as Liones and Tygres.

Perhaps our Zombie of the Starry Deepe might issueth forth a series of pamphlets describing his recent successes against Liones, Tygres, and even Villainous Ursines. If this be the case, I hereby express mine own interest in obtaining these regularly-issued pamphlets.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:51 PM on September 8, 2006


No matter where you lie politically on this topic, you have to admit: Who is the dumbass at ABC who thought it was a good idea to make a miniseries looking at the political causes of 9/11? And then take dramatic license with it? Fictionalize it? Create composite characters? And then air it on 9/11? Are they that fucking stupid?
posted by fungible at 1:55 PM on September 8, 2006


What I wanna know is who came up with the idea of doing a docudrama about Martha Stewart!?? And got Cybil Shepherd to play her? What were they thinking???
posted by ZachsMind at 2:06 PM on September 8, 2006


No matter where you lie politically on this topic, you have to admit: Who is the dumbass at ABC who thought it was a good idea

Seriously. Why not give the news section the ball and do some, I don't know, investigation into what's not known about 9/11? Or do a follow-up on all the stories which were reported that year, on the widows, the way NYC has changed, etc. There is so much rich material there.... but instead we get this tripe.

I really don't care all that much about the political aspect, but I do hate these re-enactments, especially since there is so much rich real stuff.
posted by cell divide at 2:32 PM on September 8, 2006


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_REPORT?SITE=LYCOS&SECTION=home&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
posted by Postroad at 2:38 PM on September 8, 2006


Save Martha!
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 2:52 PM on September 8, 2006


(anyone else think of Frau Farbissina? Just curious)
posted by Smedleyman at 3:15 PM on September 8, 2006


storyboards from The Poor Man ; >
posted by amberglow at 7:10 PM on September 8, 2006


...But I think it's appropriate that Bush reenact, in 20 minute form, his actions on 9/11.
1. He should sit there blankly for 7 minutes.

2. He should then run around the Oval Office, as far away from his desk as possible, for about 10 minutes.

3. He then brings in Laura and together they have themselves a good laugh for 3 minutes.

posted by amberglow at 9:57 PM on September 8, 2006


For Path to 9/11, the role of Dick Cheney will be played by Jack Black's stash.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:07 PM on September 8, 2006


Actually, I thought the Martha Stewart one was quite amusing. But, hey, maybe it's just because thousands of people didn't die because of her stock trade.
posted by fungible at 6:26 AM on September 9, 2006


I too was amused by Shepherd's portrayal of Stewart, but I don't think it was entertaining in quite the way those who made it wanted it to be entertaining. It was entertaining in that bad B movie kinda way. Which of course has merits of its own, but what were the producers and the moneybags behind that production thinking?
posted by ZachsMind at 7:34 AM on September 9, 2006


Clinton's people sent a letter Fri night to ABC: ... We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film....
posted by amberglow at 12:51 PM on September 9, 2006




... Naturally, the crank notion that Clinton had Osama dead to rights in his gunsights but cravenly failed to pull the trigger has been percolating for years in the fetid swamps and fever dreams of the American Right. But the significance of it being taken up like this by ABC, one of the old-line national networks – and being broadcast with such gravitas and fanfare (providing it to schools, airing it with no commercial interruptions for this important production, this vital historical lesson for the American people – as if it were "Schindler's List") – and being broadcast at such a crucial time, in the run-up to a national election – cannot be missed. It is a deliberate act of obesiance to The Leader and his faction. "We are with you, Leader," says ABC; "we will lie for you, we will re-write history for you, we will serve you!" ...
posted by amberglow at 1:35 PM on September 9, 2006


Bush had Zarqawi in his sites three times and failed to pull the trigger.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:44 PM on September 9, 2006




hah! Oops. I improvised.
posted by amberglow at 9:17 PM on September 9, 2006




The Clinton Administration had a plan to get Osama, but The CIA's senior management clearly did not think the plan would work. (9/11 Commission, Ch. 4)

also from that chapter: ...By the early hours of the morning of August 20, President Clinton and all his principal advisers had agreed to strike Bin Ladin camps in Afghanistan near Khowst, as well as hitting al Shifa. The President took the Sudanese tannery off the target list because he saw little point in killing uninvolved people without doing significant harm to Bin Ladin. The principal with the most qualms regarding al Shifa was Attorney General Reno. She expressed concern about attacking two Muslim countries at the same time. Looking back, she said that she felt the "premise kept shifting."45

Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20-30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. ...



Congress would never have approved a declaration of war on Al Qaeda---ever. Kerrey is insane to think that it was even possible.
posted by amberglow at 10:37 PM on September 9, 2006


Hopefully mathowie won't ban me or anything for linking to DailyKos

Uh oh. Time for a new thread, I guess.

posted by soyjoy at 10:41 PM on September 9, 2006


If I were going to make a film doing a hatchet job on someone, and I knew there was going to be major blowback -- but still wanted my propaganda to get through intact -- I'd make up a few extra bogus scenes, knowing full well that I would magnanimously "bow to pressure" and cut them later. See, that way the stuff I want to show slips in under the radar, unchallenged -- even fortified, since I demonstrated such fair-mindedness by excizing the most objectionable stuff.

/my prediction.
posted by RavinDave at 4:15 AM on September 10, 2006


Ravin...that's evil. I don't know why I didn't think of it.

When I'm the benevolent dictator, you are *so* in charge of our Ministry of Truthiness.
posted by dejah420 at 10:05 AM on September 10, 2006


RavinDave, that may have originally been part of the plan, but as I said here, I'm pretty sure it wasn't part of the plan to have this level of scrutiny at this point, which means that strategy may well backfire. With lefty bloggers now in possession of the original screeners (and already comparing how the different versions screen internationally), as well as righties watching possessively to see which of their favorite parts wind up not making thecut, there's going to be a post-mortem on this from both sides, with the producers called to account specifically for what they did or did not change.

Again, it's a good, cynical strategy that would work just about perfectly - if there were no blog network to shine such a glaring spotlight on it so quickly.
posted by soyjoy at 10:36 AM on September 10, 2006




Ravin, the shooting at Clinton on a big screen (what? in a cave in Afghanistan???) makes me think you're absolutely right---the pity and shame and abrogation of their public broadcast license is that ABC paid 40 million for all this, and that they say it's based on the 9/11 commission reports, which it's obviously not. Americablog says the first part already aired in NZ and none of the scenes Berger and Albright said were false were edited out at all, which is something ABC said they would do.
posted by amberglow at 11:49 AM on September 10, 2006


Who cares what Berger demands? He steals from the National Archives! Surely the 3 documents that he stole were evidence that he and his cronies were jerking off while Osama worked his magic. Guaranteed. Who steals from the National Archives!!!! Unbelievable.
posted by markulus at 2:55 PM on September 10, 2006


Does ABC/Disney Movie Include Bush Allowing Osama Bin Laden to Escape from Tora Bora?

No, since that was after 9/11. Maybe it'll make the sequel.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:23 PM on September 10, 2006


they say it's based on the 9/11 commission reports, which it's obviously not.

Obvious to me and thee, but, ahem...

(In fairness, that review was almost certainly written and paginated sometime early last week, before the whole brouhaha became widely noticeable.)

none of the scenes Berger and Albright said were false were edited out at all, which is something ABC said they would do.

They've edited out something, though...

Surely the 3 documents that he stole were evidence that he and his cronies were jerking off while Osama worked his magic. Guaranteed

HAW! Good one. Well played. Perfect parody of wingnut incoherence!
posted by soyjoy at 4:36 PM on September 10, 2006


OK, what do you think he stole? In all seriousness, I would like to know what you think.
posted by markulus at 5:50 PM on September 10, 2006


Oh my god, you weren't actually serious, were you? In the midst of this discussion of multiple egregious documented fictions presented as fact by one of the world's most powerful communications companies to rewrite the history of the most searing national tragedy of our lifetime, you actually want to start a conversation about Sandy Berger's pants?

Now I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
posted by soyjoy at 7:59 PM on September 10, 2006


I did watch that ...thing tonight. And I can't for the life of me decide if it was good or if it was valid, or 'truthy' or relevant or... what the hell did I just waste my life watching? It was like a really bad episode of CSI:NY or 24 or NCIS with a smidgeon of L&O SVU thrown in. Without A Trace, Cold Case, it just looked like an episode of any crappy cop show they got going now with the jiggly camera and the hodge podge horrendously bad in-your-face editing.

Does anyone know HOW to make a tv drama anymore? Where do they get these camera guys? Do they just randomly pick up guys off the street strung out on heroin and say "shoot this and hey if you can shake more that'd be great. Here's some Mountain Dew, and more heroin and here's some speed. Just keep shooting whatever goes on over there, see? See where I'm pointing? Shoot whatever those guys over - hey! I'm talking to you. Shoot those guys over there with your camera. Yeah shoot bang bang yah you're really funny here's some more heroin. Shoot over there, okay? Okay, action!"

I don't even know what was going on I was too busy vomiting and trying to keep my eyeballs in my head. Clinton had nothing to worry about. No one could understand what the hell that thing was trying to say anyway.

I'd just like to go up to the director and ask him if I can call his mother on the phone and ask her is she proud of him for making a piece of shit film. Is your mother proud of you? Is your daddy proud of you? How about God? IS GOD PROUD OF YOU FOR MAKING THIS FILM? HUH!??

God, I never thought I'd miss the days of Hill Street Blues and Saint Elsewhere. Now THAT was some primo television, huh? /snark
posted by ZachsMind at 10:29 PM on September 10, 2006


yes, of course I'm serious. I know its uncommon these days to see a different opinion than your own on this site but damn, there it was. Anyhoo, your response was what I expected.
posted by markulus at 1:29 PM on September 11, 2006




From the 2nd half: The film shows a scene, dated September 4, 2001, in which Condi Rice tells Richard Clarke and George Tenet that President Bush is very worried about the contents of the Presidential Daily Briefing from August, the one that says bin Laden is determined to strike the US, and that the president is tired of swatting at flies.

Only problem? It was back in March of 2001 that the president was tired of swatting at flies, with regards to terrorism. I can find no record of Condi Rice bring up Bush's supposed concern about the PDB at any September 4 principals meeting. Note that the movie also does not show Bush receiving the memo a month earlier and doing nothing about it - ...

posted by amberglow at 3:58 PM on September 11, 2006


Anyhoo, your response was what I expected.

OK, happy to help. Drive safely!

amberglow, if you check the thread for that entry there are multiple citations of a September 4th meeting. But the misappropriation/recasting of the "swatting at flies" phrase stands.
posted by soyjoy at 11:56 AM on September 12, 2006


« Older Sex baiting on craigslist   |   America Weakly Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post