9/11 Dramatization

September 8, 2006

ABC's "Path to 9/11" Treads on Clintonites' Feelings

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Several of Clinton's minions, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and the former President's personal attorney and Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey have put pen to paper this week asking Disney CEO Robert Iger to yank the ballyhooed miniseries.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

While ABC is sticking by the TV movie, one of its key partners isn't. Spooked by the firestorm the film has provoked, Scholastic Inc. announced Thursday that it was scrapping a Path to 9/11-branded "field guide" intended to allow high schoolers to use the movie as an educational tool. Instead, the publisher will distribute discussion materials focusing on "critical thinking and media literacy skills."

My question is, "Why not just make it accurate and let folks argue with the facts?"

September 9, 2006

They should have thought of that when they made this ludicrous debacle. [Edited by Gail]

September 9, 2006

Something that is a little disturbing is that there are sitting politicians trying to get ABC not to air the program. It reminds me of two other factally inaccurate films: The Reagon movie and Farenheit 9/11.

Now the Reagon family and the conservatives in the media made a big stink and CBS pulled the Reagon movie from the public airwaves and buried it on one of its cable channels. However it was not the Bush Administration or Republican leaders asking CBS not to air it.

Simularily Micheal Moore put togther and marketed his 9/11 film with no efforts at all from the Bush Administration or Republicans to stop it or discourage theaters from showing it. The conservatives in the media made a big stink and even came out with their own version but they were not politicians sitting in positions of power.

The freedom of press is one of our most precious liberties so it is a little disturbing when leaders in government start preassuring a television network not to run a program like this.

Of course it would have been so much better if ABC would have made an accurate movie. The same can be said of the CBS Reagon movie and the Micheal Moore film. Who wants to see a made-up or twisted version of historical events?

September 9, 2006

Shane, what precisely was "factually inaccurate" about F 9/11?

September 9, 2006

fahrenheit fact

September 9, 2006

From that website

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"But there is a well-documented Iraq/Al Qaeda connection"

From the Senate Intelligence report today

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

"WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq.

Released Friday, the report discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that before the war, Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

Saddam told U.S. officials after his capture that he had not cooperated with Osama bin Laden even though he acknowledged that officials in his government had met with the al-Qaida leader, according to FBI summaries cited in the Senate report.

"Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden," Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi leader's top aide, told the FBI."

Don't get me wrong - Michael Moore does NOT do accurate documentaries, he warps facts very severely to make his point.

But the Senate report today makes it abundantly clear that Bush and Chaney REALLY REALLY screwed up going after Iraq. In fact they actually attacked someone who would have been an ally with us in going after the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups.

On the other hand, Halliburton et al and Bush's oil buddies have made $Billions in profit - so both the pres and the VP are happy.

The Dept Homeland Security is in the process of wasting $1900 per EMT buying us all fancy Motorola digital radio's that we don't need. Since NH has about 1000 EMT's, that is about $2M right there that the Bush administration is taking from gullible tax payers and handing to Motorola et al. This is on top of the wasted millions on small-pox vaccines that no one needed or wanted, and the anti nerve-gas kits that we don't need, and the ...

Bush is in charge - the looting and the stupidity continues.

No wonder the Republican politicians are trying to distance themselves from the lead weight in the upcoming elections.

Looks like Tony Blair is going to sink. What a legacy - personally responsible for the most stupid war Britain has got into in over 100 years.

/Bevin

September 9, 2006

Let's not derail this thread into a Micheal Moore defense or attack Bush. The point is, niether Bush Administration officials nor Republican leaders did anything to infringe upon Micheal Moore's freedom of the press.

September 9, 2006

I don't think Bevin was defending MM - he DID say MM stretches stuff.

I'll read the link Shane and get back to you with my thoughts when I can ... got a lot on my plate these days! <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

September 9, 2006

I don't think Bevin was defending Micheal Moore but that seemed to be the way things were headed. I am not defending ABC either. I think it is stupid to make a fictious film about a historical event. But I don't think our elected leaders need to be trying to stop such a stupid thing from being broadcast.

Those who are being portraited wrongly in the film are no longer in power (from what I understand) and have every right to publically object to the film and do whatever the want as long as it be legal. Those that are in power should back off lest their actions appear to impose on the freedom of the press. So far I have heard that both Harry Reed and Hilary Clinton have gotten involved as well as the DNC.

September 9, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I think it is stupid to make a fictious film about a historical event.

Well there goes a lot of films starting with "The Ten Commandments" and finishing with "The Right Stuff".

Graeme

September 9, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I think it is stupid to make a fictious film about a historical event

Hollywood and other producers do this A LOT and book writers do it too. "Pearl Harbor", "U 257 (or whatever the number was)", "Hotel Rwanda", "The DaVinci Code", ...

Unfortunately these movies have two very bad effects

(a) They teach people things about history, science, etc that simply are not true - leading to stupid behavior

( They encourage a "rah rah USA, we a great" attitude that again causes stupid behavior

Unfortunately Christian churches do it to - I have heard as much nonsense from the pulpit as I have heard from Hollywood.

Unfortunately Bush and Chaney and other politicians do it to. Chaney has repeatedly lied about Al-Q connections in Iraq, Bush has repeatedly lied about WMD in Iraq.

So - question - what should we do to counter this flood of misinformation that we are exposed to every day?

Sue for libel/slander? Certainly, if we are involved.

Pass laws forbidding such lying?

Try hard to communicate the truth?

/Bevin

September 9, 2006

I intend to watch the miniseries and reserve judgement until then. The magazines I have read have given it high marks for accuracy. Much of it is based on the 911 findings investigation.

There were a lot of mistakes made by the US government and missed opportunities to stop the attack before it started. Now we do not ignore such clues. It is what stopped the plot to blow up several airliners going from Britain to the USA recently.

September 10, 2006

Well yeah, but what is the proportion of the US public that the polls show still believe Saddam was behind 9/11?

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Unless it is specificly produced as a ducumentary or a written as non fiction, its primary purpose is entertainment! If people start believing in theories or ideas presented in such, then they are the 'dum-dums'! Don't fault the writers or producers! Of course, people always love a conspiracy more than the truth, or even a half truth.

Within the last 48 hours, I have seen one former FBI consultant for the movie claim to have quit due to the a few of the gross errors of the movie not being corrected. While the producers were willing to change some things, the writer was adiment that the script stay the say, compleate with errors and all....

Sounds to me that some neo-conservative got his script filmed to boalster the neo-conservative view point. And how some neo-conservative got his docu-drama filmed is a lesson in first degree politics within hollywood.

Ah, buts that my opinion...And who cares about my opinion!!!?

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Unless it is specificly produced as a ducumentary or a written as non fiction, its primary purpose is entertainment! If people start believing in theories or ideas presented in such, then they are the 'dum-dums'! Don't fault the writers or producers! Of course, people always love a conspiracy more than the truth, or even a half truth.

Within the last 48 hours, I have seen one former FBI consultant for the movie claim to have quit due to the many gross errors of the movie not being corrected. While the producers were willing to change some things, the writer was adiment that the script stay the say, compleat with errors and all....

Sounds to me that some neo-conservative got his script filmed to boalster the neo-conservative view point. And how some neo-conservative got his docu-drama filmed is a lesson in first degree politics within hollywood.

Ah, buts that my opinion...And who cares about my opinion!!!? [/tic]

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Neil D said:

Sounds to me that some neo-conservative got his script filmed to boalster the neo-conservative view point. And how some neo-conservative got his docu-drama filmed is a lesson in first degree politics within hollywood.

Ah, buts that my opinion...And who cares about my opinion!!!? [/tic]

Hey Neil,

I care!! <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

September 10, 2006

I am not aware of any "neo-conservatives" working on the project. I think Bevin is right when comparing it to other films like Pearl Harbor. Hollywood rarely gets things right. Flight 93 seems to have been an exception to that.

BTW: Since the term "neoconservative" is used often by critics as an insult, one should understand what the term refers to. It does not refer to traditional conservatives or moderates that lean conservative.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance... For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

September 10, 2006

I know nothing of the content of this ABC film, but while I too have several problems with MM I disbelieve Bush on 9/11 and am glad few celebrities in the film industry back Bush either. The google video Loose Change gently suggests that we may and should all be suspicious of the Kean Commission's report, and now a former long career CIA agent has publicly backed the alternative research that's been published:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Propaganda_Matrix/message/95607

How many of you here, indeed throughout North America and even the western world, believe the official explanation? Thank God for free speech that something credible can be communicated regarding the destruction of 9/11, since knowing the facts can help to relate to history and politics with a healthy state of mind.

I don't like Blair either...problem is the opposition leader isn't any good either!...Defending civil and religious liberties is my focus in British politics: the EU has nearly now completely destroyed national cultures here, like imperial measures and weights being banned from use in retail of food or other things (from 1/1/2010) and body weight & height(in official records; everyone converses in imperial measures...) but not for roads or pints of alcoholic drinks, while constitutions are also interfered with - the highest court in the land is not national but EU, and the EU is Roman Catholic in principle...The UK represents much better quality than that, including not being RC.

Right I'll say no more there unless someone asks, and freedom of speech is invaluable subject to common law limits of common sense.

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Naomi said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Neil D said:

Sounds to me that some neo-conservative got his script filmed to boalster the neo-conservative view point. And how some neo-conservative got his docu-drama filmed is a lesson in first degree politics within hollywood.

Ah, buts that my opinion...And who cares about my opinion!!!? [/tic]

Hey Neil,

I care!! <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I do not plan to watch the ABC movie about 9/11. From what I've read of the previews it's a rightwing propaganda piece, timed to influence the coming election.

I would, if I were a betting person, place money on the absence of Condoleeza Rice's receipt of the memo warning that Al Qaeda planned to use civilian planes and fly them into buildings. It's common knowledge that she received such a memo but thought the plot too preposterous so didn't pass it on. That, I feel, was unforgiveable--and was one of the most glaring lapses in the "homeland security" pipeline. Yet do we expect to see this incident included in ABC's "docu-drama" tonight??? I'll bet not.

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Jeannieb43 said:

I do not plan to watch the ABC movie about 9/11. From what I've read of the previews it's a rightwing propaganda piece, timed to influence the coming election.

I would, if I were a betting person, place money on the absence of Condoleeza Rice's receipt of the memo warning that Al Qaeda planned to use civilian planes and fly them into buildings. It's common knowledge that she received such a memo but thought the plot too preposterous so didn't pass it on. That, I feel, was unforgiveable--and was one of the most glaring lapses in the "homeland security" pipeline. Yet do we expect to see this incident included in ABC's "docu-drama" tonight??? I'll bet not.

Jeannie,

I think you've "nailed it"

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

That, I feel, was unforgiveable

And to me it seems perfectly understandable. But I was much more understanding of Clinton's mistakes with the Waco disaster too.

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

That, I feel, was unforgiveable

And to me it seems perfectly understandable. But I was much more understanding of Clinton's mistakes with the Waco disaster too.

I prefer not to use the word "unforgivable" however, in this case and for want of a better word, Waco was unforgivable and so was Condoleeza Rice's receipt of the memo warning that Al Qaeda planned to use civilian planes and fly them into buildings. As was the Katrina disaster!

When human rights and human lives are involved how can anyone justify leaving something/anything to chance? <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

September 11, 2006

Well I saw the 911 movie an ABC. It was very good. It was never intended to be a documentary. They had several captions all in the begining middle and end that said this is a dramatization of the findings of the 911 commission findings. Many events are fictionalized.

I think the basic plot of the movie of the missed opportunities to get Bin Ladin are true but the stories behind the scenes are fictionalized.

It was a long 3 hour movie with no commercial breaks. Part II is tonight.

September 13, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I would, if I were a betting person, place money on the absence of Condoleeza Rice's receipt of the memo warning that Al Qaeda planned to use civilian planes and fly them into buildings. It's common knowledge that she received such a memo but thought the plot too preposterous so didn't pass it on. That, I feel, was unforgiveable--and was one of the most glaring lapses in the "homeland security" pipeline. Yet do we expect to see this incident included in ABC's "docu-drama" tonight??? I'll bet not.

YOU LOSE!!!!!!! Better be glad you did not bet on that. LOL

They did have a scene in the movie where the actress playing Condoleeza Rice read the report about intelegence about Bin Ladin and his plan to hijack planes and all the warnings that were coming in. You could even read parts of the report as she sat at the desk reading the report.

Problem is although they knew an attack involving planes was being planed the when and how and where was unknown.

September 14, 2006

But did it show her stuffing the memo in a drawer and deciding not to warn anyone else?

Sign In

9/11 Dramatization

Recommended Posts

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Planey

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bevin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

CyberGuy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neil D

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Naomi

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Colin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jeannieb43

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Naomi

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Naomi

Link to comment

Share on other sites

CyberGuy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

CyberGuy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jeannieb43

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Browse