|
|
Posted by Lookingglass on 09/10/06 03:34
"Curtin/Dobbs" <curtin-dobbs@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pqOdnZQjsIYVBJzYnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> ===Examples of Bipartisan Hypocrisy===
>
> From "Variety":
> ...Criticism of "The Path to 9/11" carries strong echoes of the barbs
> hurled at CBS over "The Reagans." Reagan partisans railed against scenes
> showing Nancy Reagan consulting an astrologist and Reagan condemning AIDS
> victims.
>
> Conservative drumbeat against "The Reagans" started months before the mini
> was slated to air and intensified after a copy of the script was leaked.
> Eye ultimately decided to sell the project to sister company Showtime -- a
> move that, *ironically*, prompted howls of protest from liberal groups who
> accused CBS of censorship.
>
> Cliff Kincaid, editor of publications for conservative watchdog group
> Accuracy in Media, said the Democratic outcry is a bit of a surprise.
>
> "Usually Democrats can count on the support of big media in Hollywood," he
> said. "It's like things are upside down now."
>
>
>
> ===I say to the Libs, just let the miniseries air, after all, lefty,
> Oscar-winning film director Paul Haggis is producing the official Richard
> Clarke approved mini-series of events leading up to and after 9/11.
>
> ...Curtin/Dobbs
This copied from a post from another NG...
What the CONSERVATIVES are saying about it:
John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor:
The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and
an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn't
deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and
truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton's national
security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint. [NYPost,
9/8/06]
James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor:
The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was
on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch "The Reagans."
[OpinionJournal, 9/7/06]
Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt's blog:
One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to
[fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative
analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their
credibility doing so. [Hugh Hewitt blog, 9/6/06]
Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:
When you put somebody on the screen and say that's Madeleine Albright and
she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think
it's slanderous, I think it's defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney
should be held to account. [Fox, 9/8/06]
Captain's Quarters blog:
If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every
right to protest it - and in this case, they had a point. [Captain Quarter's
blog, 9/7/06]
Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:
Look, "The Path to 9/11? is strewn with a lot of problems and I think
there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that's no reason to
falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his
leading people and you know it just shouldn't happen. [CNN, 9/8/06]
Seth Liebsohn, Claremont Institute fellow and produce of Bill Bennett's
radio show:
I oppose this miniseries as well if it is fiction dressed up as fact,
creates caricatures of real persons and events that are inaccurate, and
inserts quotes that were not uttered, especially to make a point that was
not intended. [Glenn Greewald's blog, 9/7/06]
Richard Miniter, conservative author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill
Clinton's
Failures Unleashed Global Terror":
If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there's things they
could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in
1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there's
zero factual basis for that. [CNN, 9/7/06]
Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research
Center:
I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes,
important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit
them, I think they should edit them. [MSNBC, 9/6/06]
Bill O'Reilly, Fox News pundit:
Ok, we're talking about the run up to 9-11 and this movie that they're
re-cutting now - and they should because it puts words in the mouth of real
people, actors playing real people that they didn't say and its wrong.
[O'Reilly
radio show, 9/8/06]
And here's what the 9/11 Commissioners who WROTE the report are saying
about it:
The people who wrote the 9/11 Commission report disagree. Here's a review
of their comments -
9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick:
"I do have a problem if you make claims that the program is based upon
the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report when the actors, scenes and
statements in the series are not found in - and, indeed, are contradicted
by - our findings." [Link]
9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste:
Some scenes in the film "complete fiction. . The mischaracterizations
tended to support the notion that the president [Clinton] was not attentive
to anti-terrorism concerns. That was the opposite from what the 9/11
commission found." [Link]
9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer:
In the scene, CIA operatives have Osama bin Laden cornered and are
poised to capture or kill him until National Security Adviser Samuel Berger
refuses to give the go-ahead. . [M]embers of the 9/11 Commission say none of
that ever happened.
ROEMER: There were plans, not an operation in place. Secondly, Osama bin
Laden was never in somebody's sights. Thirdly, on page 114 of our report we
say George Tenet took responsibility for pulling the plug on that particular
Tarnak Farms operation. [CNN, 9/7/06]
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey:
"If you're saying this is based on the 9/11 Commission report, there are
substantial factual discrepancies. You need to get [them] out. . You can't
sit there as ABC and say, 'Gee, we don't have any responsibility. They
should make a good faith effort to get this as close to the facts as
possible." [Link]
9/11 Commissioner Tom Kean:
"I don't think the facts are clear, whether it's Sandy Berger, or
whether it's the head of the CIA, whether a line went dead. I think there
are, I think there are a number of - they chose to portray it this way, but
my memory of it is that it could have happened any number of ways."
It IS clear...it was George Tenet!
Then there's the stealth director:
Cunningham Linked To YWAM. David Cunningham (the director) was contracted
by ABC to direct Path to 9/11. Cunningham is the son of Loren and Darlene
Cunningham, the founders of Youth With a Mission (YWAM), a Christian
evangelical group that actively tries to get "youth into short-term mission
work and to give them opportunities to reach out in Jesus' name."
YWAM Sponsored the Film Institute To Change Hollywood. YWAM created an
"auxillary" group called the Film Institute, which was explicitly aimed at
achieving a "Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and
Television industry."
Film Institute Began the "Untitled History Project." The Film Institute's
first project was simply referred to as the "Untitled History Project"
(UHP). In July 2005, Fox News reported that filming had begun on an ABC
miniseries about 9/11 that ABC officials and producers were referring to it
as the "Untitled History Project." A production company entitled "UHP
Productions," which was co-founded with Disney began filming Path to 9/11 in
late 2005.
UHP Became Path to 9/11. UHP Productions has only produced one movie.
Harvey Keitel, who stars as FBI special agent John O'Neill in the movie,
said that when he received the original script, "it said ABC History
Project."
As to the writer?
Writer and avowed conservative Cyrus Nowrasteh admitted that the films
most controversial scene was based on nothing at all. Nowrasteh told a
right-wing radio station that the scene was "improvised." From the New York
Times:
Mr. Berger's character is also seen abruptly hanging up during a
conversation with a C.I.A. officer at a critical moment of a military
operation. In an interview yesterday with KRLA-AM in Los Angeles, Cyrus
Nowrasteh, the mini-series' screenwriter and one of its producers, said that
moment had been improvised.
"Sandy Berger did not slam down the phone," Mr. Nowrasteh said. "That is
not in the report. That was not scripted. But you know when you're making a
movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted. Accidents occur,
spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place. It's the job
of the filmmaker to say, 'You know, maybe we can use that.' "
ABC is lying and backpedalling like crazy. First they claimed it was
totally based on the 9/11 Commission report. Now they say it is an amalgam
of various sources and dramatization, not a true documentary. Liars,
especially as they were in this from the very first development stages on
up, they KNEW.
Then they said:
ABC now is blasting critics of Path to 9/11, saying the movie isn't
complete. From a statement :
No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing
process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature
and irresponsible.
That's not what ABC told the National Review's Stephen Spruiell on
September 1:
I followed up on Andy's Corner post this morning by calling ABC, and
was told by a spokeswoman that the "Path to 9/11? miniseries is "locked and
ready to air," and that she hadn't heard anything about a pressure campaign
to reopen the editing process.
It's clear that the editing process reopened when people started
complaining. What's irresponsible is for ABC to lie about it.
They provided copies to all the right wingers like Rush Limbaugh but
refused to provide any for Clinton or his aides or any left leaning media.
WHY?
Enough prominent people from both sides have blasted the innaccuracy
given the recent tragedy and the need to get the facts STRAIGHT, not
dramatized. There was far enough drama on 9/11, it needs no help from hack
ideologists.
END QUOTE.......................
dave
www.Shemakhan.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|