ABC changes 9/11 show

[Soldier4Christ]

ABC changes 9/11 show
under Democrat pressure 
Network says it includes 'very slight alterations'
in scene of Berger nixing plan to kill bin Laden

ABC has changed its "The Path to 9/11" television special, set for a commercial-free broadcast Sunday and Monday, because of pressure over the message it carries, according to a report on a television blog site.

The network heard from a number of leading political figures, many of them Democrats, who complained of alleged inaccuracies and bias in the production, according to the report in the Los Angeles Times' CalendarLive.com website.

The report said the five-hour docudrama also is in the middle of an information war between a left-wing organization that wants changes made in the film and conservative blogs defending the portrayal.

An advocacy group called The Center for American Progress Action Fund is leading an effort to have ABC cancel or change the show further.

In a statement the group said the production "presents an agenda that blames the Clinton administration" but ignores the many failures of the Bush administration.

The movie takes what its makers have judged as intelligence and operational failures of the administrations of both Bill Clinton and President Bush and turns them into a drama portraying the prelude to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C.

Fox News reported former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey have written to Walt Disney Co., ABC's parent, making editing demands.

In a New York Times report, Albright said she'd been told the film "depicts scenes that never happened, events that never took place, decisions that were never made and conversations that never occurred."

The CalendarLive report said public records were used in the preparation, but Clinton supporters still were upset.

A Times' source told the newspaper ABC executives and producers have toned down a scene that was generating much of the criticism.

"That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source, who told the newspaper he didn't want to be identified, said. "These are very slight alterations."

At issue was a scene shown last week in a screening in Washington, after which audience members complained of the film's depiction of Clinton's pursuit of Osama bin Laden.

The Times said Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser, said the movie suggested the Clinton administration was in a position to capture the confessed terrorist leader in 1998 but canceled the mission.

Reports say that scene showed Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, declining to give the order to kill bin Laden.

As WorldNetDaily reported at the time Berger was the focus on a Justice Department Investigation for removing highly classified terrorism documents before the Sept. 11 Commission hearings that generated the report used for the television program.

FBI agents searched Berger's home and office after he voluntarily returned some documents to the National Archives.

Berger and his lawyer told reporters he knowingly removed handwritten notes he made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his jacket, pants and socks. They said he also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

The complaints also allege the film infers Clinton was preoccupied with the Monica Lewinsky affair instead of focusing on bin Laden.

The network also decided, the report said, to make the credits say the production was "in part" based on a federal 9/11 commission report.

The network has called the production a "dramatization" of the events.

"The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it's not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate," ABC said.

ABC said in a statement today the final version hasn't been viewed yet, editing still is going on and criticisms are "premature and irresponsible."

"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression," the network said. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."

Program executive producer Marc Platt reportedly told the Washington Post he worked to be "fair."

"If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously a concern. We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

9/11 TV film sparks Clinton outrage
3 members of former administration write Walt Disney Company

ABC's upcoming miniseries "The Path to 9/11" is generating a firestorm among members of the Clinton administration, who claim the two-part, made-for-TV film is filled with factual errors and lies.

Three members of the administration — former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, former National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger and Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey, who now heads the Clinton Foundation — have sent letters to Walt Disney Company, parent of ABC, demanding that it re-edit or pull the five-hour film, scheduled for air Sunday and Monday nights without commercial interruption.

Albright, who is featured prominently in the film, wrote a letter to Disney chief Robert A. Iger, complaining that she had requested a copy of the film, but that ABC had not given her one, according to a New York Times report.

Albright wrote that she had been told by people who had seen the film that it “depicts scenes that never happened, events that never took place, decisions that were never made and conversations that never occurred.”

“It asserts as fact things that are not fact,” she wrote, according to the Times.

[Soldier4Christ]

Now this one gets me. ABC is willing to edit this show because it "offends" a few democrats with the truth. Yet CBS has a 9/11 program that is to be aired this coming Sundaythat contains a whole lot of obscenities that are clearly against FCC rules. CBS has said they absolutely will not mute the obscenities.


Rick Jordan, General Manager and Vice President of CBS affiliate WBOC-TV in Salisbury, Maryland, had this to say concerning the obscene language:

    "This program contains elements which CLEARLY violate the Federal Communication Commission’s NEW indecency guidelines and policies. While this program has aired two other times on our station in past years, this program's content is now in direct violation of the FCC's recently revised and enacted indecency rules.

    "WBOC is granted a license to serve the public by the FCC, and as a federally licensed television station, the station is required to adhere to the rules and regulations set forth by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC has refused to make any exception to their new rules for stations that choose to air this show and violate these new policies. WBOC intends on complying with our requirements as public trustees by airing an alternate program."


There is no planned action to be taken against CBS. Where is the outrage from those "offended" by the ABC 9/11 show?

[Soldier4Christ]

Shameless Senate Dems threaten ABC’s broadcast license

This has to be read in its entirety to be believed. Via the donkey’s mouth:

    September 7, 2006

    SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP URGES DISNEY CEO TO CANCEL MISLEADING 9/11 MINISERIES
    Washington, DC — Urging him to cancel the grossly inaccurate upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11, the Senate Democratic Leadership today sent the following letter to Disney President and CEO Robert Iger. Disney’s subsidiary ABC erroneously claims the misleading miniseries is based on 9/11 Commission report and is planning to air it on September 10 and 11. Shockingly, the network is also planning to use the program as a teaching tool through Scholastic, potentially misinforming thousands of children about the most important event in recent American history.

    The text of the letter, signed by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, and Senators Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, and Byron Dorgan, is below.

    September 7, 2006

    Mr. Robert A. Iger

    President and CEO

    The Walt Disney Company

    500 South Buena Vista Street

    Burbank CA 91521

    Dear Mr. Iger,

    We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

    The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

    Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

    Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

    Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

    Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

    Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

    Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

    Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
    That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

    These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

    Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

    As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

    Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

    Sincerely,

    Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

    Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin

    Senator Debbie Stabenow

    Senator Charles Schumer

    Senator Byron Dorgan

At first, I bought some of the comparisons to the CBS Reagan miniseries and the Right’s response (although the Right reacted to lies CBS would air and the Left seems to be reacting to the truth that ABC is planning to air). That’s over. The response to CBS which eventually forced the network to sell the cheesy Reagan show to a cable network was a purely consumer-based revolt. THIS is a far more indious scene. The Democrats who made this mafia-type threat to ABC and the Clinton hacks who’ve absolutley LOST THEIR MINDS should be ashamed of their conduct. Imagine a Republican Administration or a Republican Congress doing this — the screams of “jackbooted censors” would reverberate, Leftist pundits would be pounding the table about the public’s right to decide for themselves, the New York Times would editiorialize that the GOP is just afraid of the truth because, after all, the factual basis for the production was the venerated 9-11 Commission Report, network executives would be invited for hour-long sit-downs with every News Face in the industry to lament about the NeoMcCarthyite Darker Night of Fascism, Hollywood would march, the Left-o-sphere would mobilize “sheeple power” (like they’ve done AGAINST this show) and the ACLU would elbow its way in to defend the free speech rights of the network (like they did with the NY terror broadcaster recently arrested for doing business with the enemy). I wonder where the ACLU is on this one? Silent? Absent? Or will they do the right thing and come out in support of ABC’s right to air the UNEDITED version of this program?

[Brother Jerry]

I have learned over the years that when some few people get up and scream about an injustice they are categorized into two different types of people.  And they are easy to spot. 

1) Those that scream because they believe they are correct based on evidence.  They will site the exact inaccuracies and their screaming will point to the possible flaws.  This is a logical process which allows other to either identify with the pointed out error or be able to reply to those objections and quite the screaming.

2) Those that have something to hide and fear the truth.  They yell and scream about what an injustice something is.  They talk about how wrong it would be to do this or that, about how terrible something is and how it will affect people for generations.  They will also often talk about all the work that has been done to get us to where we are today and how that is all going be to tore down and destroyed.  They may even be able to provide opinions from well known people that share the same opinion they do.  But they will not point out any one glaring error concerning what they are calling an injustice.

Notice in that letter they talk about how inaccurate it is.  How it is a travesty.  How it will harm the children.  How all these other people consider it terrible and wrong.  But there was not one citation of an actual scene/phrase/conversation/etc that was brought up.

[Soldier4Christ]

Hi Brother Jerry, It's good to see you here. I have to agree with your assessement of this. I think it is right on target.

[Soldier4Christ]

Clinton aide says
9/11 film 'correct' 
Producer consulted with military attaché
who saw aborted attacks on bin Laden

A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script.

In an interview with WND, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty" as a source for the drama.

Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of "The Path to 9/11" to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor.

Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said.

"I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur," Patterson declared.

The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11.

As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson was one of five men entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football," which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons.

Reached by phone at his home in Southern California, Nowrasteh affirmed to WND he consulted with Patterson and gave him a preview of the drama.

During the interview this morning, Nowrasteh took a moment to watch as President Clinton's image turned up on his nearby TV screen to criticize the movie. The director did not want to respond directly to Clinton's comments, but offered a general response to critics.

"Everybody's got to calm down and watch the movie," Nowrasteh told WND. "This is not an indictment of one president or another. The villains are the terrorists. This is a clarion bell for people to wake up and take notice."

Patterson pointed out the Bush administration also is depicted in an unfavorable light in the months before 9/11.

An ABC executive who requested anonymity told the Washington Post the network has made "adjustments and refinements" to the drama that are "intended to make clearer that it was general indecisiveness" by federal officials that left the U.S. vulnerable to attack, and "not any one individual."

Yesterday, the New York Post reported Clinton wrote to ABC officials, complaining the "content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely." Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, according to the Washington Post, has described a scene, in which she is depicted, as "false and defamatory."

The Senate Democratic Leadership sent a letter to Robert Iger – president and CEO of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co. – urging him to cancel the "grossly inaccurate" drama.

The Democratic National Committee today said it delivered a petition with nearly 200,000 signatures to ABC's Washington office calling on the network to drop its "right-wing factually inaccurate mocudrama."

Democrats have been particularly critical of a scene that depicts Berger refusing to authorize a mission to capture bin Laden after CIA operatives and Afghan fighters had the al-Qaida leader in their sights.

Nowrasteh acknowledges this is a "conflation of events," but Berger, in a letter to Iger, said "no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it."

Patterson contended, however, the scene is similar to a plan the administration had with the CIA and the Afghan Northern Alliance to snatch bin Laden from a camp in Afghanistan.

The scene in "The Path to 9/11," as Patterson recalled from the preview version, unfolds with CIA operatives at the camp on the phone with Berger, who is expressing concern that an attack could result in innocent bystanders being killed. An agent says he sees swing sets and children's toys in the area. The scene ends with Berger hanging up the phone.

Patterson says his recollection is that Clinton was involved directly in several similar incidents in which Berger was pressing the president for a decision.

"Berger was very agitated, he couldn't get a decision from the president," Patterson said.

Patterson noted wasn't sure what Berger wanted to do – whether the national security adviser wanted the answer to be yes or no – but the frustration, at the very least, was based on the president making himself unavailable to make a decision.

In "Dereliction of Duty," Patterson recounts an event in the situation room of the White House in which Berger was told by a military watch officer "Sir, we've located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike."

Clinton, according to Patterson, did not return phone calls from Berger for more than an hour then said he wanted more time to study the situation.

Patterson writes: "We 'studied' the issues until it was too late-the window of opportunity closed."

In another "missed opportunity," Patterson writes, Clinton was watching a golf tournament when Berger placed an urgent call to the president. Clinton became irritated when Patterson approached him with the message. After the third attempt, Clinton coolly responded he would call Berger on his way back to the White House. By then, however, according to Patterson, the opportunity was lost.

As WND reported, Berger was the focus of a Justice Department investigation for removing highly classified terrorism documents before the Sept. 11 Commission hearings that generated the report used for the television program.

FBI agents searched Berger's home and office after he voluntarily returned some documents to the National Archives.

Berger and his lawyer told reporters he knowingly removed handwritten notes he made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his clothing. They said he also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

Patterson said Berger's response to the "The Path to 9/11" is similar to his response to the accounts in "Dereliction of Duty," insisting the incidents attributed to him "never occurred."

Patterson said his book put him under intense pressure from Clinton officials – an aide even spoke of taking away his military retirement benefits – but when the title reached No. 1 on Amazon.com, "they shut up."

There are others who can corroborate his accounts, Patterson insisted, but they are still in military service and therefore legally bound not to come forward and make statements.

Three of the four other military aides who rotated being at the president's side were additional sources for his book, Patterson affirmed.

[LittlePilgrim]

This is censorship at its worst, a MAJOR infringement on free speech by the lunatic left-wing fringe.

I listened to a chat between Sean Hannity and the writer of 'A Path to 9/11'. According to him, most of those making the demands had not even SEEN the whole of the broadcast... Only night one, which covered the Clinton Administration's MANY faliures... Night two focuses on the faliures of the Bush administration, but none of the critics have bothered to watch it...

It is sad when a threat to our constitution comes from within... Just because some people are offended by what they see... Very sad.

[Soldier4Christ]

LP! You got back in under your original screen name. Good!

Yes it is just that. But then what else is expected from these people. Freedom of speech is supported only when it benefits them. We have seen that in all the wing nuts, ACLU, CAIR, Democrats .........

[LittlePilgrim]

I'm actually rather surprised that CAIR has not said anything about this... Unless you have heard something, Pastor Roger?

[Soldier4Christ]

No, nothing as of yet but I am sure that something will be said by them before it is over. Often CAIR is slow to say anything these days since they stuck their foot in mouth so many times before with quick, hasty statements.

[ibTina]

I have learned over the years that when some few people get up and scream about an injustice they are categorized into two different types of people.  And they are easy to spot. 

1) Those that scream because they believe they are correct based on evidence.  They will site the exact inaccuracies and their screaming will point to the possible flaws.  This is a logical process which allows other to either identify with the pointed out error or be able to reply to those objections and quite the screaming.

2) Those that have something to hide and fear the truth.  They yell and scream about what an injustice something is.  They talk about how wrong it would be to do this or that, about how terrible something is and how it will affect people for generations.  They will also often talk about all the work that has been done to get us to where we are today and how that is all going be to tore down and destroyed.  They may even be able to provide opinions from well known people that share the same opinion they do.  But they will not point out any one glaring error concerning what they are calling an injustice.

Notice in that letter they talk about how inaccurate it is.  How it is a travesty.  How it will harm the children.  How all these other people consider it terrible and wrong.  But there was not one citation of an actual scene/phrase/conversation/etc that was brought up.

  This is a really good assessement.   Amen!! Thanks Brother Jerry.

[Brother Jerry]

PR and Tina,

Thank you.  I have also found that assessment to be true when it comes to witnessing and speaking to the lost.  You will usually get one of a couple of reactions.  Ignorance as to what the Word says is one.  They think they understand what it means to be a Christian and have decided that is not for them.  They may even be able to site reported inaccuracies and hypocrisies and label the hypocrits as the representatives of Christ. 

Or you find them deep in the world of being possessed pretty much and as soon as you even begin to speak the true Word of God and site a verse they get near violent with you.  Their attitude goes from one who may appear ignorant to one who may get beligerant, and may even attack you personally (as in insults and such).  And even attack your beliefs with nonsensical arguements.  "How could you worship as God if He allows all this suffering?" is one that is common. 
"If there is a God then why does He not strike me dead now?"  Of course I immediately think of the time in which Satan attempted to tempt Jesus.

As far as this 9/11 thing goes...I did not get a chance to watch it tonight since we are in our revival and that is much much more important to me...plus I forgot to record it