Digg

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Thousands push back against ABC 9/11 propaganda movie

thinkprogress.org — I took a moment to send a message to ABC about how I feel about their upcoming "mocumentary" on the 9/11 attacks. Though I've not seen this show, conventional wisdom is that it is laden with partisan half-truths.

Bury

gimmecoffee 2 years 40 days ago, made popular 2 years 39 days ago

283 diggs
digg it

d1carter, on 10/12/2007, -32/+15Lame
- h4x0r1ng, on 10/12/2007, -29/+19Extremely lame. "Thousands" = 0.000001% of the population of the world. Thinkprogress has an excellent record for inaccurate stories on digg. "Though I've not seen the show..." enough said.
- PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8about that amount complained about janet jacksons nipple and look what they accomplished. Fines are now almost ten times
- pedro101, on 10/12/2007, -16/+11Lame.
- gambl0r, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20I agree. So only one opinion can be broadcast on TV? Why should this program be forced off the air just because you don't agree with it? You (digg users) are the same people fighting for net neutrality and removing censorship from the web, yet you want to censor an opinion piece from TV. Doesn't make much sense to me... so I'm reporting lame.
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Republicans politicizing an American tragedy? I'm shocked I tell you!
- BlakeEM, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@gambl0r
  
  The problem isn't that they voice their opinion but that they voice it and then state it as fact and non-partisan and based 9/11 Commission when it’s not.
- ryan_merket, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'll wait until I get it off a torrent (commercial free) or watch the best 10 segments on YouTube....
- BlakeEM, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7bah damn thing died before I could edit.
  
  The problem isn't that they voice their opinion but that they voice it and then state it as fact, non-partisan, and based 9/11 Commission when it’s not.
  
  It’s fighting to have them tell the facts and has to do with nothing else. I’m not a democrat nor liberal and this bothers me. I have a problem with media saying something is fact yet it clearly isn’t and is skewed in some way. This is called propaganda and although they have every right to broadcast whatever, I think people should fight against it and we have every right to do that as well.
- gambl0r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@BlakeEM - from the official website:
  
  "ABC will present "The Path to 9/11," a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event..."
  
  "The 9/11 Commission Report instantly became a national bestseller when it was published in July 2004. Writer Cyrus Nowrasteh ("The Day Reagan Was Shot") uses this historic document as the basis for a powerful story with action as gripping and far reaching as the source material itself."
  
  Yes, it says that the writer based the script from the Commission Report as well as other sources, but it also makes it clear that its a miniseries drama. I haven't read or heard anywhere that this is supposed to be a documentary. This looks like a made-for-tv 'World Trade Center' (the film), not something that should belong on the History Channel.
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html
john77, on 10/12/2007, -16/+39Questions for ABC about this fictionalized take on 9/11.

- Why, if this is a non-partisan project, is only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission being asked to front this project?

- Why were many of the principals of this film, like Richard Clarke, not shown relevant scenes from the movie early on, so that research and scenes could be vetted--and corrected, if misrepresented?

- Why did you provide the movie to only right-wing bloggers and mainstream media in your advance outreach for this project, and not to left-wing bloggers and media?

- Was it the network's or the PR firm's idea to reach out in advance only to right-wing blogs, and to exclude left-wing blogs?

- If you were truly intending to provide a non-partisan public service to the American public, why not produce and air a true documentary actually based on the 9/11 Commission Report and vetted by both Democrats and Republicans?

- Did you know about Cyrus Nowrasteh's and David Cunningham's extreme conservative views?

- Will you consider pulling scenes proven to be false?

- Will you consider removing the "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" imprimatur from promotional materials, and from the miniseries itself on the air dates?

- Will you consider giving Richard Clarke and/or prominent Democrats, who disagree with this airbrushing of the 9/11 story, the opportunity to point out the movies flaws on network time?

- Will ABC News report on the controversy over this project in the one-hour news special scheduled to air on September 11, following the movie?

And some questions for Tom Kean:
Did you have any reservations about promoting this movie without the Democratic co-chair of your Commission?

- Were you a paid consultant on this project, and if you were, do you have any misgivings at this point about trading in on your Commission role?

- Do you think it's in the best interest of this nation to offer up this docudrama, which directly contradicts your own report in several instances, as being "based on the 9/11 Commission Report?

- Did you recommend to the screenwriter, director and producers that there should be Democratic vetting of this project as well?

- Do you believe that American children should be treated to well-documented and balanced accounts about 9/11, or do you give your blessing to students being served up lesson plans based on this movie, which has been proven to directly contradict your own Commission's findings?
MyHappyClam, on 10/12/2007, -31/+17So the liberals are also for censorship too?
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -20/+14Proof: You're being dugg down :).
- Jadix, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14that has nothing to do with censorship...its simply INACCURATE.
- Corvidae, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Not censorship, just accurate labeling.
  
  Trying to pass off a mockumantary as an accurate depiction of events just before an election has only one motivation, altering the vote outcomes. Also there are much more stringent laws concerning political speech within 90 days of a federal election. A film promoting republican ideals could be seen as a monstrous political donation, wich may or may not be legal this close to elections, or ever for that matter. Given the bias of the makers of the film, there is very little chance it's a balanced movie, even if they wanted it to be. Simply because they didn't have the opposing input while making it.
- Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9You've seen it then?
  
  No. It's censorship. Because you haven't seen it and you're trying to prevent it from being shown.
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4""ABC will present "The Path to 9/11," a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event...""
  
  Seems pretty clearly labeled to me. Yet libs will continue to call Moore's propaganda "films" "documentaries" with a straight face...
readme, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6Buried for partisan FUD.
drftjgoj, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Constant analogies to WW II + ridiculous reenactments of 9/11 make me despise politics more than I thought was humanly possible. Whether or not they intended to slant against one political party or the other is a mystery until people can actually see the show, but that doesn't make them trying to make a profit off of 9/11 any less despicable.

STOP TRYING TO TURN A PROFIT ON A NATIONAL TRAGEDY. Go back to making crappy remakes of old movies and lame sitcoms.
- Guncrazy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7Said drftjgoj, "Go back to making crappy remakes of old movies and lame sitcoms"
  
  Yes. Pander to the lowest common denominators. Make television that publically-educated liberals can understand.
Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -15/+11Good news:

ABC just announced that you were successful and the Path to 9/11 Movie has been censored of material that you find objectionable. Congrats!

(Not really. Stop trying to censor other viewpoints.)
- aburd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Censoring viewpoints is bad. Censoring inaccuracies is good. We (the people, not the government) should attempt to keep misinformation from spreading widely. I feel the same way about Michael Moore and Alex Jones. Why is it bad for the citizenry to keep people from spreading bad info?
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Facts are facts, they are not "viewpoints."
- Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8You haven't seen it. You don't know.
- AMCer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Why is it bad for the citizenry to keep people from spreading bad info?"
  
  What's bad info to you is good info to someone else. Who should be the arbitor of what's good or bad?
  
  It's a slippery slope when you want to "KEEP people from from spreading bad info".
- iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Some scenes have been released and at least one is a complete fabrication as has been admitted to by the film makers.
  
  So, do we need to see the entire film before taking the film makers at their word that they've fabricated at least one key scene and complaining that they not claim it as being based on the 9/11 commission report?
fraggle35, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12I don't think you should comment on something, if like you say, you havn't even seen it.
- iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5The film makers have already admitted to fabricating a key scene which they know never happened.
  
  Why can't we complain that they are lying when they've admitted it?
  
  If someone points a gun at you and threatens to shoot you are you going to wait to see if they really do it before taking steps to stop it? That would be really stupid.
  
  Luckily many Americans around here are not as dumb as that and are doing something to prevent the lies.
zhatka, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Left-Wing/Right-Wing....does it matter? Seems kinda cruddy to exploit this horrific event for $$$, but then again this is America.

So if you don't like it. Just don't watch it. If people wanna watch it, and believe it, that's their right.

I am going to do something more constructive that evening......browse digg.
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I agree. It's too soon for this... let alone to make money (advertising) off of it. Although it is good they removed the commercial breaks.
h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Wait. I don't feel like going to some conspiracy kook website. What sort of "propaganda" would they prefer this time:

A. It was an inside job.
B. America deserved it.
C. Muslims are peace loving and never wish ill on any living being.
D. Jack Bauer was laid up in the hospital with pneumonia from 9/10/01 to 9/12/01 and couldn't stop it from happening?

Dig needs a "Conspiracy Kook" option for burial.
- noliberalbull, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4amen
zwilliams, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7As mid-term elections come about, all the terrorism related media (movies, documentaries, books, etc.) pops out. Gee, wonder why.
- Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -3/+95 year anniversary of 9/11/2001 maybe?
- plaunie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Because 9/11 happened sometime in September?
- Guncrazy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Perhaps it's because throughout the rest of the year, liberals deny that there is a terrorist threat.
- zwilliams, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ Kohath/Plaunie: More like using it as an excuse to try and reenact history on people instead to get them to follow you. There are other ways to remember an event besides playing nonstop recreations of the event over and over to try and bolster patriotism.
  
  Would you go to a grieving widow and replay a reenactment of their beloved one's death in say a car incident, or a fatal disease? I think there are better ways to remember people than to replay the horrific event over and over for sensationalism.
  
  @ Guncrazy: As your nickname here would imply you obviously sit in one camp and accept it as complete, infalliable truth. I think without that fall back on "terrorism is here, we have to stop it" mantra, conservatives wouldn't have much to back yourselves up on.
  
  Get over it, regardless of what you do to strip away our nation's freedoms, to try and police the state under fear mongering, its not going to stop other people from having differences that they will resort to violence and terror to express. Terrorism is defined as: "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." and that sure as hell seems to be the current administration's method of operation. Every time I turn on the television I'm bombarded with fear mongering. Just this morning I turned on the TV to get the local weather report (because its noticeably a lot more accurate than what I find on Weather.com or Accuweather) and sure enough they are talking about death and how you can die from biological warfare over meat.
insinuate, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I worked at an ABC affiliate...and I remember watching on the closed circuit TV from ABC them showing their work in progress on it...like it would show a scene and then with captions at the bottom put "place audio of women and men screaming here" and the movie looked pretty dumb...I won't waste my time watching it
portwojc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Isn't this really a docudrama?
crackhammer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4check and mate - the system works - we're all talking about "terror" and left wing vs. right wing when we should be looking for topics that aren't hot button issues. like your kids school system and your behavior towards others and possibly the price of food and gas.

maybe I'll get dugg down but I think that the political machine drives us like cattle.
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Do you mean a divided populace is easier to control?
nixr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I'll reserve judgment until after I have seen it. It's intellectually repugnant to attempt to sway my opinion of the piece before I have a chance to view it for myself. Who's slinging propaganda now?
- iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The film makers have admitted that they've invented a key scene which never happened.
  
  By all means, watch the movie if you want. Just know that the film makers have admitted that they were not constrained by the facts in their effort to tell the story they wanted to tell.
- thinkingbear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But how are you going to know which parts are true and which are completely totally made up? If you were not aware of the controversy you would look at the marketing as see "9/11 Commission" and think it must be true. Plenty of people out there have seen it, and there are two out right lies I know of and many half truths that amount to propaganda to blame Clinton for 9/11. I don't have a problem with conservatives wanting to make films and I will watch as long as they are good. But to obfuscate truth with lies is just wrong, put I guess that's what conservatives are willing to do to stay in power.
- iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"But how are you going to know which parts are true "
  
  Well that's the problem. Once they start making up scenes you don't know what to believe and what not to believe.
  
  I think the safest thing is to doubt the entire movie but then, why watch it at all?
Sidzilla, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I am thinking that ABC may have it right for once. Liberals are frothing at the mouth because the fact is that Clinton did blow it. So did Bush, and every president since Carter, which is when the terrorist campain perpetrated by Muslim fundamentalist whackos first started. With the exception of the Ford administration there have been terror attacks during every president's term, both liberal and conservative. Wake up and smell the coffee. It's not conservatives fault, nor liberal's fault. It is the terrorist's fault. They say that we should convert to Islam or suffer the consequences. I say the consequences should be us kicking their asses ceaselessly and mercilessly until they realize that God isn't on their side. That is the only way to handle fanatics.
- fleischner, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Bravo. Why anyone would digg you down says ridiculous things about *themselves*. You used the two most important things: avoiding partisanship and naming the enemy. Digg this person down and you're one or the other, in my opinion.
- portwojc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5What I want to know is how would converting to Islam help? They kill those people as well.
nailz420, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why have thousands when you can have....Hundreds!
toddhenkel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I watched a documentary last night about the Iron Workers local that performed the cleanup at the WTC. Very moving and refreshing.

I don't need either left- or right-wing advocates to remind me what took place that day, why it happened or who did it. The memories are strong enough by themselves.

What I also remember and most regretfully miss is the camaraderie the events of that day did for us as a country and a world. It brought millions of us together and united us to move forward towards a better future.

It is the execution of that march forward that has once again divided us. I hope it will not take another such day to bring us back together. Instead, we must all search for the common ground and keep focused on not letting the terrorists terrorize us into paralysis.
BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Title should read "Millions upon millions do nothing about ABC 9/11 propaganda movie"
shagmasterzero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4docudrama? docudrama=lies

quote from ABC's website:
"It seems that people keep referring to this movie as a "documentary". A documentary is a journalistic format that gives facts and information through interviews and news footage. This is a movie or more specifically a docudrama. Meaning, it is a narrative movie based on facts and dramatized with actors. The team of filmmakers, actors and executives responsible for this movie have a wide range of political perspectives."
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"A documentary is a journalistic format that gives facts in a biased context and information through biased interviews and news footage (both real and conjured) with the intent to sway the viewers opinion into more closely resembling what you want them to think."
  
  M. Moore
gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You your self admit to not having seen the show. What in the hell gives you the right to comment on it?? Other people told me.... I've read that... According to other people...

Here's an idea...

Watch the show FOR YOURSELF. Then, THINK FOR YOURSELF. Come to YOUR OWN conclusions.

Don't let somebody else's agenda do your thinking for you.
- iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"You your self admit to not having seen the show. What in the hell gives you the right to comment on it??"
  
  The film makers have admitted to making up at least one key scene. Can we not comment on that?
- Bodacious, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"The film makers have admitted to making up at least one key scene. Can we not comment on that?"
  
  Could you please provide a link to that? Thanks
- KenLin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Made up scene:
  
  "In one controversial scene from "The Path to 9/11," Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton's national security adviser, and other unnamed officials are shown pulling the plug on a secret operation to capture Osama bin Laden just as CIA operatives have the terror mastermind in their sights.
  
  Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a paid consultant on the film, said he was all right with the made-up scene - even though the video is being peddled to high schools as a teaching aid."
  
  Source: New York Post 9/6/2006 (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/kean_oks_9_11_show_liberties_nationalnews_don_kaplan.htm)
- iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"post a link"
  
  It's all over the place. One example:
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06path.html
  
  Here's a relevant section
  =====================================
  Former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a consultant on the miniseries, defended the program, saying he thought the disputed scene was an honest representation of a number of failed efforts to capture Mr. bin Laden.
  
  “I pointed out the fact that the scene involving Afghanistan and the attempt to get bin Laden is a composite,” Mr. Kean said
  ======================
  
  "composite" = a scene fabricated to express a point of view not supported by actual facts.
- gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2you all missed my point...
  
  "could you please provide a link to that?" NO!
  
  watch the show for yourself when it's aired. then talk about it what was in it. don't guess. A "Composite" scene isn't necessarily false. It's a scene, based on multiple events, simplified, for the sake of time, which conveys the general meaning of the totality of actual events.
  
  I reject your characterization of the term "composite".
  
  I will withold judgement on the ACTUAL content until AFTER I actually see it.
- iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Fine gtiness watch whatever you want.
  
  A composite scene is a scene which did not happen. It's not a simplification. You can simplify a scene which actually happened if the truth is too complicated for you. I'd prefer the truth straight up.
  
  But go ahead and watch it and then judge it against... yeah, how will you judge it? By how good it makes you feel? Will your opinion about a representation of events you weren't there to see first hand, that were already admitted to be composites, have any value?
  
  Garbage in garbage out you know. Wallow in it.
appleann1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Whine, whine, whine, that's all we hear from the liberal kooks. Dozens of dispicable books , full of outright lies, written about Bush, many of the "authors", given a prime time spot on CBS's 60 min's, and not one Rep calling CBS crying and threatening them to have it cancelled. Same goes for Michael Moore and his ***** piece of propagander. BTW did you notice how the terrorist quote him? Something you can be proud of. You people can't take the truth when it bites you in the ass.

CLINTON SCREWED UP ON TERRORISM . GET OVER IT.
- iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We should get over something? You're the one yelling.
returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Well, at least they got the part where the planes crash into the Twin Towers right, but did Hillary really need to be the 11th hijacker?
- Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No, they made that up. And the month of September only has 10 days. Karl Rove had Haliburton print up fake September calendars in 2001 to trick people.
  
  Those weren't planes. There never was a World Trade Center. There's no such city as New York - it was made up as a set for the original King Kong movie in the 1930s. The real East Coast is in Ohio. Rand McNally (Dick Cheney's great uncle) faked all those maps. There's no such thing as air travel -- it's all a projection.
oldman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not nearly as lame as CBS not showing a Reagan Bio Pic that 1 website complained about.
BTW the world's population is irrelevant to something that is being shown on ABC, Try contrasting your B.S to America's population instead.
DrDabbles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Here's an idea. Watch it, then form your criticism. Jerks like you that don't even watch shows complain about them to the FCC because their "conventional wisdom" (what I like to call spoon-fed truths) told them they were indecent. Ass.

And with regard to who should get the blame? How about those that get on TV every night and spew the garbage lines "America being gripped by terror", "America never so afraid" and "our worst fear- Bin Laden". I don't know who in America is actually afraid. It sure as hell isn't me or anybody I've ever been in contact with. You can not single out any cabinet or candidate for blame in this matter. Everybody, right down to the clerk that sold them flight lessons messed up.

I love it when some moron tries to simplify a view about an oversimplified view.
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I somehow doubt you read many of the comments in this post before dribbling onto your keyboard.
KenLin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I believe Roger Cressey, for one, knows more about the path to 9/11 than any Digg users. Here is what he said on MSNBC's Scarborough Country yesterday:

“It’s amazing…how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong” and “then they got the big stuff wrong.” He added that a scene where the Clinton administration passes on a surefire opportunity to take out bin Laden is “something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.”

Roger Cressey "served as Chief of Staff to the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board at the White House from November 2001 to September 2002. From November 1999 to November 2001, Mr. Cressey served as Director for Transnational Threats on the National Security Council staff, where he was responsible for coordination and implementation of US counterterrorism policy. During this period, he managed the U.S. Government's response to the Millennium terror alert, the USS COLE attack, and the September 11th attacks."

Full bio here: http://www.goodharbor.net/about-cressey.html
- quetranza, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Wow, it's shocking that the people who failed to kill Bin Laden when they had the chance are now saying that they didn't actually have the chance. Shocking indeed.
leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1this story got burried.
quetranza, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2What a weak attempt by the left to cover up the fact that Clinton passed on several chances to kill Bin Laden. That is an historical fact, people, and no amount of lame-ass attempts at pressuring networks NOT to broadcast that fact (see "censorship") will change it. The answer to speech that you disagree with is more speech -- not censorship.
- iiftmlis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't think anyone's trying to cover up anything. The film makers admit to making up the scene you're refering to. Why not show us what actually happened if what you claim is true?
  
  What you're saying might be true but since the film makers could only tell a fabricated story I tend to think the case is not as air tight as you are trying to lead us to believe.
quetranza, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I want to know what the difference is between this campaign and the efforts by some conservatives to complain about the content of the Reagan miniseries earlier this year. I seem to remember much crowing about "censorship" from the left at that point. Now that it's Clinton under the microscope, they change their tune. Funny how that happens.
heathenx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2i suppose it's ok for michael moore to spead a bunch of ***** and sucker people into believing stuff but when ABC does it then it's not fair. boo *****' hoo...
sonofdy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The lefts jihad to suppress all thought not approved by the DNC continues.
gruvsf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the timing of this movies smells of political posturing for the GOP for the November elections as they are trying feverishly to sell their "we suck at everything else, but we are strong on National Security" motto so that Bush doesn't get impeached come November. Interesting timing of the movie, not to mention that the movie tries to blame Clinton for not killing Bin Laden when he did more to do just that during his two terms in office, while Bush pretty much ignored the problem until it was too late.
- Kohath, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1It couldn't be that it's the 5th anniversary of 9/11/2001 or anything.
  
  (Or is that an evil conspiracy too? Five years ago, Karl Rove foresaw the need for a political advantage at this time and scheduled the 9/11 terrorist incident so the 5 year anniversary would provide the Bushies a chance to use the national security issue now, when they need it. Karl Rove is a prophet.)
gruvsf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's obvious by most of the comments here that you don't read very much and would rather allow talking heads like Rush and Bill O'Rielly to be your source of info. Sad indeed. Try reading Ghost Wars by Steven Coll: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200076?v=glance

Ignorance is not an excuse.
HumanWaste, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I realize that the film is full of inaccuracies, but I believe that was the point. When I see "mockumentary" in the story description, I instantly think of satire. As long as they mention that it's a mockumentary during several parts of the film, I won't have any problem with ABC airing it. Sure, it's distasteful, sure, I'm not going to watch it, but taking this film off the air, technically, would be unpatriotic (1st amendment).
stilgar73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This has NOTHING to do with trying to censor people's opinions. It has to do with passing off fiction as fact. Just because ABC is going to add a disclaimer, there are people that will watch this and believe it because not only do they trust ABC, but also because they will not want to believe that a company like ABC is willing to mix fact and fiction with such an important and touchy topic as 9/11.

Then what of the children? The right wing seems so quick to use this reason to go after freedom of speech on the Internet, TV and radio. The right wing seems concerned that children might see or hear something objectionable and then what terrible things might happen to these children's minds? However, what happens when children watch this movie and believe it as fact? The right wing seems to have no problem with that. You can't have it both ways.

Also, I seem to remember the right wing having a major problem with the "docu-drama" CBS produced about Reagan. They had no problem forcing it off the air.
bolerobell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This miniseries is conservative political propaganda. It is called "Path to 9/11", and all accounts say that it focuses on the Clinton Administration. Basically, Republicans are attempting to hang 9/11 around Bill Clinton and Democrats necks before the midterm elections as a last ditch effort not to get hammered in those elections.

Kean is a part of it, because his son, a Republican, is running for a Senate seat in New Jersey.
ClintonLie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Well let us just see how completely dishonest the Clintons and Thinkprogress.Org are:

First of all how many fools think that this is a grassroots movement by thinkprogress.org to get ABC to tell the truth? Are there any takers?

Or, how many of you come to think that thinkprogress.org is an arm of the Clintons? As such it is a shameless attempt by the most corrupt regime in history to silence their enemies.

Thinkprogress.org is an arm or front organization the American Progress Action Fund which itself was established by the Center for American Progress.

Are you liberals with me so far?

The Center for American Progress was established by none other than the wicked witch of New York, Hillary Rotten (to the core) Clinton and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta. It is also funded by an evil greedy rich billionaire robber barren named George Soros who is always thinking of a way to enslave the masses.

More information on the Center for American Progress can be found at DiscoverTheNetwork.Org. And if you follow the links you will fully smell the Clinton foul stench.

So, what we have here is organization dominated by Hillary Rotten Clinton running a stealth mass email campaign to silence their enemies. When you really smell the foul stench of the Clintons are you really surprised?
- thinkingbear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What color is the sky in your world?
ClintonLie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0When the stupid liberals can't refute the facts they resort to insults right. Not everone are as obtuse as liberals thinkingbear.

From:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15409&p=1

Regarding the alleged need for CAP, Hillary Clinton told Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine on October 12, 2003, “We need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democratic Party’s values.” Expanding on this theme, Hillary subsequently told The Nation’s Dreyfuss, “We’ve had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The center is a welcome effort to fill that void.

Regarding the alleged need for CAP, Hillary Clinton told Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine on October 12, 2003, “We need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democratic Party’s values.”[3] Expanding on this theme, Hillary subsequently told The Nation’s Dreyfuss, “We’ve had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The center is a welcome effort to fill that void.

Hillary Clinton tries to minimize the depth of her involvement with CAP – as indeed she does habitually in all matters concerning the Shadow Party. Beltway insiders are not fooled, however. Persistent press leaks confirm that Hillary calls the shots at CAP – not John Podesta. “It’s the official Hillary Clinton think tank,” an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International

Many ideological purists on the Left dismiss the Center as a platform for Hillary’s presidential ambitions. No doubt, they are right. Dreyfuss notes the abundance of Clintonites on the Center’s staff, among them Clinton’s national security speechwriter Robert Boorstin; Democratic Leadership Council staffer and former head of Clinton’s National Economic Council Gene Sperling; former senior advisor to Clinton’s Office of Management and Budget Matt Miller; and so on. Dreyfuss writes: “The center’s kickoff conference on national security in October [2003], co-organized with The American Prospect and the Century Foundation, looked like a Clinton reunion, featuring Robert Rubin, Clinton’s Treasury Secretary; William Perry, his Defense Secretary; Sandy Berger, his National Security Adviser; Richard Holbrooke and Susan Rice, both Clinton-era Assistant Secretaries of State; Rodney Slater, his Transportation Secretary; and Carol Browner, his EPA administrator, who serves on the center’s board of directors.” Hillary Clinton also attended the event, notes Dreyfuss.

This thread should have been titled: Thousands of Clinton’s Minions mindlessly Follow their Glorious Leader in an Failed Attempt at Silencing their Enemies.
zdux0012, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Dear ABC,
http://video.google.com/videohosted?docid=3898962504721899003 .

What was your role in the cover up? Who owns the airwaves that you use to spread your propaganda ? We own those airwaves not you.

ABC WE TAKE BACK those AIRWAVES . You no longer have our permission to continue to profit using the frequencies that you are using.

Dear Everyone, listen and support only alternative media, boycott all of commercial items these people are supported by.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Thousands push back against ABC 9/11 propaganda movie

Login or register to add a comment