Meltdown: Dean, Berger, Albright, lefty historians demand “Path” be edited cancelled (Update: Clinton’s lawyers, too)
posted at 10:19 pm on September 8, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Nothing else will do at this point, it seems:
Former national security adviser Samuel R. Berger and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, whose depictions are at the center of the controversy, asked Thomas Kean, the Republican ex-governor of New Jersey who led the commission looking into the attacks, to use his influence with filmmakers to pull it.
“You can’t fix it,” Berger said on CNN. “You gotta yank it.”…
In a statement Friday, former Vice President Al Gore said, “I am deeply concerned that ABC is considering going forward with their plans to broadcast this so-called docudrama.”
Several Democratic senators have also urged that the movie be canceled.
The message sent out this afternoon by DNC Executive Director Tom McMahon also ended with a call for ABC “to keep this cheap right-wing miniseries off our airwaves.”
This was all said today, after ABC agreed to edit the controversial scenes. So it’s not about getting them to correct the record anymore; if it were, they’d be asking for only those scenes to be changed or cut. They’re obviously after something more, and they either don’t grasp or don’t care how thuggish it makes them look — presumably the latter, since the fightin’ nutroots is forever begging them to be more venomous and intractable. It doesn’t even pay to call them thugs because they’ll either wear it as a badge of pride or dismiss it as invective designed to cow them into backing off. It isn’t, sincerely. I say it because they’re genuinely goddamned thugs, whatever their reaction to that term. And if I had to guess, I’d guess that the only point of this browbeating at this point is as a demonstration of raw political power. Either that, or it’s an exercise in Lakoffian “branding,” whereby they’re finally going to show America that they too can demand unconditional surrender from an enemy. Just like Harry Truman. Except with Mickey Mouse in place of Hirohito.
Again: the New York Times has seen it and pronounced it evenhanded. One of Time’s TV critics saw it and said, if anything, he’d expected Bush supporters to be the ones throwing fits. Webloggin reports that one of the producers of the anti-Bush war-for-oil agitprop “Syriana” wrote today on the film’s official website that it’s “absolutely essential viewing” (and that his post, for unknown reasons, was subsequently purged). With that as background, go check out the DNC’s official blog and just start scrolling. All the way down. The only bump you’ll hit is a post about the drug trade in Afghanistan that principally targets the GOP, not the Taliban.
Here’s what’s at the top of the page as I write this. From the Chairman himself:
It’s deeply disappointing that ABC would put something on the air that has been proven to have factual inaccuracies about one of the most important events in our nation’s history. ABC should not air this distortion of history.
“The fact that the writer/producer of the piece is a well known conservative raises additional concerns and questions. The American people deserve to know who funded this $40 million dollar slanderous propaganda. Use of the public airwaves is a privilege conferred upon broadcasters in the public interest. It comes with a responsibility to the American people and a responsibility to the truth.
That’s yet another threat to ABC’s broadcast license, if you’re keeping score at home. The key here, though, is his suggestion that the screenwriter’s conservatism is evidence enough to warrant an investigation into a possible right-wing conspiracy. Never mind that George Mitchell is chairman of the board at Disney, that Bob Iger attended a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton as recently as five months ago, or that Marc Platt, the film’s producer, has actually donated money to Bill Clinton’s campaigns in the past. One drop of conservative blood is enough to cast doubt on the entire production. And in fact, up-and-comer Max “Son of Sid” Blumenthal claims in a post at — where else? — HuffPo to have discovered “the Secret Right-Wing Network Behind ABC’s 9/11 Deception”:
Early on, Cunningham had recruited a young Iranian-American screenwriter named Cyrus Nowrasteh to write the script of his secretive “Untitled” film. Not only is Nowrasteh an outspoken conservative, he is also a fervent member of the emerging network of right-wing people burrowing into the film industry with ulterior sectarian political and religious agendas, like Cunningham… [But unlike the producers of, say, "Syriana." -- ed.]
While this network claims its success and postures as the true victims, the ABC network suffers a PR catastrophe. It’s almost as though it was complacent about an attack on its reputation by a band of political terrorists.
Max unravels the whole scary-smart conspiracy, except for the identity of the heroic liberal saboteur who somehow snuck into the editing suite and made the film evenhanded enough for the New York Times. Among the “political terrorists” named are David Horowitz and Jason Apuzzo and Govindini Murty of Libertas, so head on over post haste and breathe deep the controlled-demolition theory of how “Path” came to be.
But then come on back. Because I’ve saved the most repulsive bit for last.
In order to convince the public that this is all about factual accuracy, not politics, the Dems enlisted a few of America’s leading historians — all of a decidedly “Olbermann-friendly” bent, shall we say — to draft a letter to Bob Iger. Read it for yourself at TPM Cafe; it won’t take more than 30 seconds. After you’re done, read it again and ask yourself where that very same letter was when Michael Moore was releasing “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Some leftists have been trying to downplay comparisons to F9/11 on grounds that it was a private theatrical release whereas “Path” makes use of the public airwaves, and therefore demands a higher standard of accuracy. That’s nonsense on stilts, of course; if CBS wanted to air F9/11, you could count on one hand the number of American liberals who’d demand that they pull it. (It’s doubly foolish since more people likely will have seen F9/11 here and abroad than will see this.) But even that’s besides the point: from the historian’s perspective, one hopes, it makes little difference whether propaganda appears in a public or private forum. Facts is facts and lies is lies, and posterity suffers either way if the two are confused.
The top signature on the Dems’ letter belongs to Arthur M. Schlesinger. Has Arthur M. Schlesinger seen Fahrenheit 9/11? Yes, he has. And what did Arthur M. Schlesinger think of Fahrenheit 9/11? Quote, from a June 2004 issue of the New York Observer:
The day after the film, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., the 87-year old Pulitzer Prize–winning historian, former special assistant to President Kennedy and former film critic for Vogue, said, “I think it was a powerful film showing the folly and futility of the war against Iraq, but it seemed to me it could have been more effective if it had any perceptible structure. I think it could have an effect: It crystallizes a lot of apprehensions and anxieties about the war. And because the media have been in favor of the war, I think it’s very useful.”
Rarely will you see an example of hypocrisy as shameful as that. But even that’s besides the point. The real point here, quoting from the letter Schlesinger et al. sent today, is that instead of demanding that Iger re-edit the controversial scenes in “Path,” they told him they “strongly urge you to halt the show’s broadcast and prevent misinforming Americans about their history.” Consider that. ABC’s done a great public service here by putting together a big-budget, big-name showpiece about a critical period in American history. They could educate a lot of people with it. But they screwed up some facts that have liberals angry — and rather than simply ask them to correct those facts and preserve an otherwise valuable teaching tool, this gang of ostensible educators would have them tear the goddamned thing down entirely. It’s as though someone printed up free textbooks for the public, and upon finding some political bias in it — correctable political bias — they decided it’d be better to just pile them up and light them on fire.
We’ve gone from Fahrenheit 9/11 to Fahrenheit 451.
Update: Patterico thinks we’re all fools for being surprised.
Update: Top of the page at Drudge. Goddamned thugs.
Update: Moran unloads on Mad Max. Take it easy, Rick. If Sid Blumenthal was your pops, you’d be a disingenuous partisan hack too.
Update: Mary K joins the pessimists.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Hey! I believe that I was the fool who expressed his surprise here. Grrrr…
I ran across a blog that makes the point about the Progresso-fascist senators abridging the freedom of speech in this case. It was pretty good.
The reactions of the libs over an inaccurate movie still seem a bit over the top to me, and causes me to think they truely are in a panic over the upcoming races. Maybe they know how to read the polls better than we do. At least I hope that is the case.
Waiting for ABC to cave.
DannoJyd on September 8, 2006 at 10:35 PM
Meanwhile, this piece suggests that the miniseries is 100% accurate.
lawhawk on September 8, 2006 at 10:38 PM
So…Spike Lee can produce a “documentary” that whispers of a plot to blow up the New Orleans levees to flood black neighborhoods to spare white neighborhoods, and that “documentary” can run on HBO, and not one single liberal comes out to denounce it or demand that it be pulled from the airwaves. The DNC doesn’t stir up a chorus to get it pulled. No leftwing blogs mount a campaign to impugn its producers, writers or the network that airs it. There is of course no evidence on this earth that Lee’s levee theory is right, so accuracy doesn’t seem to be an impediment to running his film.
But…if Sinclair or ABC tries to run a documentary or docudrama that liberals don’t like because in their minds the work is inaccurate, the goose-stepping left threatens the licenses of both broadcasters in both cases. They demand capitulation. They literally repress dissent from their point of view.
Never mind what they’ve already done to free speech (with McCain’s help) via campaign
free speechfinance reform.Never in my life have I thought the Constitution itself might truly hang in the balance of a Congressional election. I’ve always that thought that somewhere deep down, bedrock American values held sway among majorities in both parties. I don’t think you can really say that anymore, though. It just doesn’t square with the left’s thuggish campaign against ABC.
And I do think the Constitution itself does hang in the balance of the election in November and the one in 2008. The Democrats are making their contempt for the Constitution and rights it protects crystal clear.
Bryan on September 8, 2006 at 10:39 PM
Screw it, pull this show, and just run this quote for the entire time slot:
I wish I had access to Clinton to ask if he’d prefer that the real story were revealed (and that quote is not even scratching the surface), rather than some fictionalized scenes in this docudrama. How about instead of airring the show, they air a point by point review of the book “Losing Bin Laden”? Would the Dems like that better? How about we start talking about Able Danger?
RightWinged on September 8, 2006 at 10:43 PM
Why is anybody surprised? These are the very people that think that we should willingly submit to slavery -oops, dhimmihood – because WE(the American people) are the evil, mean, wicked and nasty people who decided a century-and-a-half ago that WE (the American people) had decided that kind of crap was NOT acceptable.
As for Sandy Berger, he is nothing more than a un-convicted felon. That means that he is absolutely the equivalent of a street-level narcotics distributor (in normal terms, a “drug distributor,” or in the vernacular, a “drug-dealer”) who has not been convicted yet of the actual offense, of — notwithstanding any amount of legalistic BS that shrouds his — what? being a non-political, non-partisan? a crotch-and-ankle-sharing destructor of official government documents? If the Government had any actual testicles, it would have prosecuted this bastard to the fullest. Alas, too many similar scum-bags inhabit the former and CURRENT members of government to bring a criminal to justice.
If you think that YOU are disgusted….
Not a Dhimmicrat on September 8, 2006 at 11:01 PM
I love to laff. From time to time I watch the BET Comedy hour ( not sure what they really call it ). I remember a lot of comics calling Bush a ‘Thug’..lol…I bet 50 cent would be proud of the dems are doin…..
fishizle my nizzle
lsutiger on September 8, 2006 at 11:15 PM
The writer was on Hannity today, says that the whiners did not even see the whole thing,if at all.He said it was clear that the enemy in this is the terrorists,so maybe that is what they’re mad about? The whole “inside” job industry taking a hit?
The more they complain the more questions people will ask, even if it does not get aired the Dems have eaten their own once again.
bbz123 on September 8, 2006 at 11:25 PM
Oh! I agree, ten-thousand percent! Let the media portray the TRUTH absolutely! Use the censorship threat to FORCE ABC to portray EVERY single failure of the Clinton Adminstration to kill Osama Bin Laden to fullest.
In the end, I personally do not think that it would have made a difference. Based upon their political/religious beliefs, they WANT war with the Western secular powers. Their imperative is to convert the world to their belief system — they have said so too many times to discount. As for myself and my family, I am searching for low-priced, but reliable, ammunition for my non-PC cache of non-PC guns so that we can shoot them here, instead of “there.”
Not a Dhimmicrat on September 8, 2006 at 11:25 PM
Just another example of the libs, dims, progressive lunatics showing that like three year olds on a playground with helicopter parents, if you don’t play our way, we’ll take our ball and go home. If this doesn’t wake up the sleeping giant of the Red States to action, then this whole ship is sinking faster than the Titanic on a cold April morning. I called ABC today and asked that they run it and they “appreciated the input”.
Catie96706 on September 8, 2006 at 11:26 PM
Ok, I’ve had enough.
I want a divorce.
Let the lawyers argue over who gets what,
I just want out of this.
rockhauler on September 8, 2006 at 11:31 PM
Aren’t these the same yahoo’s who gave Michael Moore *pitooee! I speet on Michael Moore!* a front row seat and place of honor at the DNC… after F-911 was; premiered just in time for elections, and freely distributed on the internet (in ripped form) at Moore’s urging, just in time for elections???
Do they even see that correlation? More importantly, and God I hope so, do the VOTERS OF AMERICA see what these selfish, self-centered, self-entitled, and self-loathing pillow-biting bedwetter fools are doing to us ALL with this pity party they’re throwing?
Censor THIS! /right hand bird – left hand self grope!
…someone pass the excedrine please :/
SilverStar830 on September 8, 2006 at 11:33 PM
Exactly Silverstar (re: your comments on Moore/F911), I’ve been saying the same thing in other threads on this story.. WTF, right? I guess I’m not as upset at the dishonesty and double standards because after all, we are talking about Democrats here… I’m upset at the fact that 99% of people won’t piece it together.
Isutiger:
It’s called Comic View… I mean……. I don’t know, I’ve never heard of it…. Seriously, I used to watch it a little… Hosted (or used to be) by that huge fat dude Bruce Bruce.
Interesting you would say that, because 50 cent actually semi-mocked Kanye West’s comments, before seemingly complimenting (in his own way) Bush by calling him a “gangsta”. I actually read an extended quote (I think) at the time, and it seemed even more of a compliment.
RightWinged on September 8, 2006 at 11:45 PM
BTW…do they not remember thier little films like F911 and The Reagans???
This really is pretty sick if you think of it. They are getting pissed because the new media is overtaking the news arena and MAKING THE TRUTH BE KNOWN. The information age is trampelling thier agenda. If the new media wasn’t here, Brother Dan would have got away with his little stunt. How many lies have they told before?? I only wonder.
But I do want to be fair as an independent thinker. If what is in this film is completely false, yes the false parts should be edited out. But for the left to go this far makes me suspicious.
What do you say?
lsutiger on September 8, 2006 at 11:46 PM
DU was digging into the director’s past and found links to an Evangelical group to which the director belongs and his father founded. There is some insidious plot afoot to insert Christianist interns into the film industry. Somehow a 9/11 docu-drama advances their sinister Evangelical agenda, well, that and collecting underpants.
The DNC will have definitely jumped the shark if Dean-o brings any of this up.
So, when they take back the House, who will chair the committee tasked to investigate the Christian infiltration of the entertainment industry?
rw on September 8, 2006 at 11:59 PM
Can somebody explain to me again why Sandy Burglar isn’t serving time in prison right now due to the theft and subsequent destruction of property from the National Archives? Or was whatever he “yanked” from the archives was something that, in his estimation, couldn’t be “fixed”?
Dave Shay on September 9, 2006 at 12:13 AM
Sandy “in my pants” Berger might want to re-think using the phrase ” You gotta yank it”
bbz123 on September 9, 2006 at 12:26 AM
So, how many seats do we think the Republicans are going to pick up in November?
DaveS on September 9, 2006 at 12:37 AM
And if the Republicans don’t pound the Democrats over the head with this for the next 2 months, they don’t deserve to win anyway.
DaveS on September 9, 2006 at 12:38 AM
Let’s not forget that all these lefties are the ones that praised Farenheit 9-11 for being a “documentary” and it even won an Oscar in that category. Hypocrites much?
Benaiah on September 9, 2006 at 12:38 AM
Precisely! I have the same question – there is no shame any more – this guy should be very quiet so we’re not awoken to what he really did and why – precisely what they fear from the segments about him.
Have you noticed the screaming silence from Sen. Clinton?
We should agitate our conservative Reps and Sens to kick into action. Here we’re preaching to our quire – it’s them who need to speak up and take action against all this.
Us, we have to vote in Nov., every single one of us and those we can help to do the same in our sphere.
I agree completely with Bryan – until now I feared for our security and losing the WOT – now we can fear for our Freedom of Speech and Constitution. It’s that serious!
If we allow this to pass, we’ll have dhimmitude from within and without. Until now we felt it, deep down, now we know it for sure!
Entelechy on September 9, 2006 at 1:39 AM
The writer was on Hannity today, says that the whiners did not even see the whole thing,if at all.He said it was clear that the enemy in this is the terrorists,so maybe that is what they’re mad about? The whole “inside” job industry taking a hit?
I heard the interview, also. The writer also said that it would be impossible to “gut” the content or the message of the movie, no matter what edits were made. I suspect that’s precisely why the Clintonistas want the whole thing pulled – there’s no escaping the fact that Clinton had OBL in his sights multiple times during 1998 and 1999, and he failed to capture or kill him each time. It doesn’t matter whether Sandy Burglar or someone else called off an Op to capture OBL, or whether Albright or someone else warned Pakistan about a missile launch. Clinton failed to stop Osama, and he knows it. That’s why he’s trying so damn hard to stop this miniseries from airing.
I’ll expect that the Clintonistas will be pressuring ABC just as hard to correct any “inaccuracies” that don’t favor Bush, yes? I mean, just as soon as they finish watching the ENTIRE miniseries. Yeah, right. The only “truth” these thugs care about is the “truth” that exonerates them.
One last thing: the GOP should emblazen the DNC home page across as many screens and ads as they can between now and November. You know, in the spirit of the Ray Nagin Memorial Bus Pool picture. That, and any time the Democrats make so much as a peep about George Bush “stripping Americans of their freedoms,” the GOP should whip out this shining example of Senate Dems stepping all over the First Amendment.
Thanks, Allah, for your posts on this subject.
Fly_in_Ointment on September 9, 2006 at 1:59 AM
That’s Fitty Scent to yo’all peeps
I fear we are at the brink of loosing our freedoms starting with the First Admendment. Brought to you by the National Democratic Party.
Can they stop the Documentary from being placed on the Internet?
If ABC caves, and I hope they have the courage not to, then every GOP campaign should make this a point of how our freedoms are being censored by one political party’s Hissy Fit.
Betcha they’re the same people that canceled Star Trek.
Kini on September 9, 2006 at 2:07 AM
The DNC see this as more of a threat than most here realize.
Their entire platform for the coming election is based on THEY know how to do security better than the Reps… They are painting the Bush admin and the Reps with a broad brush of incompetence, and trying to sell the American people with a “Plan” (which they will tell us about later… Kerry Redeux) that they will implement to keep us safe.
Prob is… they have no plan, and this, if widely viewed, will remind the American voter just how incompetent THEY are.
They are constantly trying to downplay the fact we are in a war for survival with Religious fanatics, and this film may be a reminder of whats really going on…. not the spin they try to befuddle us with.
Romeo13 on September 9, 2006 at 2:17 AM
I read that ABC had received in excess of 200,000 left-nut signatures on online petitions protesting the 9-11 miniseries. ABC needs to hear from us too… I left a comment at the official site, found
here But if anyone knows a better, faster way to deliver massive online petition support to ABC on this please post.
Benthoven on September 9, 2006 at 2:46 AM
Trying to pin 9/11 on Clinton is as stupid as, well, trying to pin it on Bush. Neither acted. Shit happens. That being said, I’m surprised Democrats are trying to stop this. Factually incorrect political hit pieces can have opposite effects. Just look at Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911. It boosted Bush’s ratings. People saw it for what it was, politically slanted fiction, and it didn’t swing anyone in its favor. I doubt anyone is going to see this Path series and suddenly swing Republican. I think debunking it works more powerfully than stopping it.
Mark Jaquith on September 9, 2006 at 2:55 AM
Mark, I see your point, but I don’t think anyone is pinning blame on any one person. Blame is shared by both party’s and government agencies accross the board. Collossal Failure that it was.
FBI no talk CIA no talk NSA.
A never ending EGO cycle. This goes to the comittee’s that our Congress is supposed to leading.
There was no leadership and they still is no leadership.
Sh!t doesn’t have to happen. This was coming and the people in charge knew it and Failed US!
2/3′rds of the people in this country know the difference between a fictional “F-911″ and “Gone with the wind” as Entertainment, not more no less.
Same with this ABC nonsense that had the Dems panties in a bunch.
We all take it with a grain of salt.
Unfortunatly, this grain of salt has rubbed some old wounds.
Kini on September 9, 2006 at 3:14 AM
I really gotta proof read my postins… sheesh
Kini on September 9, 2006 at 3:16 AM
Oh and I forgot…
Zero Tolerance, Zero Commen Sense
Kini on September 9, 2006 at 3:50 AM
Nor can the Clintonistas fix their stained (pun fully intended) legacy.
Kid from Brooklyn on September 9, 2006 at 7:49 AM
I say yank it and show it on youtube in its entirety.
CrimsonFisted on September 9, 2006 at 9:10 AM
The Clintons will do anything to save whatever fragments of their “legacy” are left. History will not be kind to them,even as they try to whitewash the blackness they have kept hidden so far.They see the possibility that they will inhabit the White House again slipping from their grasp and they are becoming desperate.I for one find it hilarious,anything to keep the Hildebeast and her insipid little boy away from the the Oval Office is fine in my eyes.
bbz123 on September 9, 2006 at 9:15 AM
The rank and file Democrats who voted FOR the re-election of George Bush [because they like the idea of fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to here] are watching all of this ABC docudrama-drama play out, and they aren’t stupid or easily led.
They may be true Democrats, but they are Americans first. And we all need to put America first. The Democratic Party is failing its rank and file, and eventually it will be the party
so extremely to the left that they will be left out of the political debate. Because you can’t debate crazy. I see the moderate Democrats moving into the Libertarian camp.
I hope the docu-drama is respectful of that terrible day.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Doug on September 9, 2006 at 9:37 AM
Hey kids it’s Field Day!Believe me ABC couldn’t have planned better promo for this show IF they had tried. Give the loony left enough rope and you know what they’ll do. Me, I’ll definitely watch, but as many here I’ve been watching events since the 70’s and don’t expect too many surprises. Lets see what ABC can do creating entertainment, that is what we all want from TV, no? Those with well functioning reason should also have remote and know how to use it. The ‘others’ can rant, rave, demonstrate, and leave threatening calls on the the affiliates viewer comment lines for later airplay, which is also good entertainment, and more free promo. I’m sure they’re wondering over at CNN why they couldn’t have come up with something like this to promote their recent em..pathetic “Understanding Suicide Bombers” piece. What a field day for at ABC, I can’t wait to see the ratings!
Reality Check on September 9, 2006 at 9:59 AM
Democrats vs. Disney? I gotta put $20 on the mouse…
But I wish it were a sure thing.
MamaAJ on September 9, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Just for comparison’s sake, I doubt there’s a Hezbollah distribution deal in the offing for Path to 9/11.
Pablo on September 9, 2006 at 10:27 AM
I can’t fathom why ABC would put themselves in this position of airing something that has lots of inaccuracies and then claim it’s “based on the 9/11 commission report”, when the contradictions are between the docudrama and that very report. Duh. Fictionalizing history (which is what a docudrama is) when you’re talking Napolean is one thing; something that happened 5 years ago with the major players still among us and the survivors as well, WTF???
Seems like a real boneheaded business decision as well. The opinions of this blog nonwithstanding, Clinton left office with a 66% approval rating and remains enormously popular.
And now Bush has asked for time on the networks smack in the middle of the air-time. Curiouser and curiouser.
honora on September 9, 2006 at 10:39 AM
But if anyone knows a better, faster way to deliver massive online petition support to ABC on this please post.
Go directly here. You can write what you like and thank the DEMS for it
http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/pathto911/
syberyenta on September 9, 2006 at 10:41 AM
Able Danger. Just wanted to say it again, because no one else is.
RightWinged on September 9, 2006 at 10:44 AM
I have not seen that ,honora,about Bush getting air-time during the broadcast. Do you have a link?
bbz123 on September 9, 2006 at 10:48 AM
That it is, it is also GREAT publicity. I admit that I had no intention of watching this thing until all the frenzy surrounding it.
I dont think they realize how they are coming off to the “regular folks”..like jackbooted thugs! They are playing to the lefty frige of their Party which is the VERY vocal minority!
Let them bray and whine and scream but PLEASE let the show be their worst nightmare.
And Sandy “Pants” Berger”? He SHOULD BE IN JAIL right now! Why do you think he was stealing documents? Just so this very kind of documentation could never be justtified. As they say” The TRUTH hurts!”
labwrs on September 9, 2006 at 10:50 AM
With all the lies in Fahrenheit 911 did the Dems protest Lions Gate films? Or Sony for it’s Dvd distribution? No, they prepetuated the lies! I’ll have to buy extra Shiner for the Longhorn game and the The Path!
Drtuddle on September 9, 2006 at 10:53 AM
The difference is that the PATH claims it’s based on the 9/11 commission report. Don’t get me wrong, I think if that were not the case, the dems would STILL be in an uproar. It is however, a pretty significant distinction vis a vis F 911.
honora on September 9, 2006 at 11:21 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/15475546.htm
On CNN this AM they mentioned this and said ABC had agreed to the airtime.
honora on September 9, 2006 at 11:29 AM
“Without free speech no search for truth is possible… no discovery of truth is useful… Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race.”
Charles Bradlaugh
there it is on September 9, 2006 at 11:32 AM
THanks honora
bbz123 on September 9, 2006 at 11:34 AM
DAMN, NOW there is ANOTHER Drama set to be sued. Demanded to be stricken from the airwaves forever. E.R. is ordered to never run again. The DRAMA is not and HAS NOT been all truthful. How the F#$@ dare they !!!! And I thought it was real.
shooter on September 9, 2006 at 11:42 AM
I think they’re investigating Gilligan as well. Sad Day in America.
shooter on September 9, 2006 at 11:43 AM
We believe in free speech
We believe in freedom of expression
as long as its on our side
the rest of yuo all can go f**k off
There isn’t a single person in America seeing what the Clintons are doing that shouldnt be outraged that the KGB just censored television
Defector01 on September 9, 2006 at 12:11 PM
Want a prediction? ABC will air it- after they cut out all the criticism of Clinton et al and leaving in the criticism of Bush. With the controversy, they’ll be guaranteed a huge audience for the resulting Bush-bashing piece… and will make apologies afterward, if forced to.
Mike O on September 9, 2006 at 12:12 PM
What about Clinton’s right to free speech? If he objects to this, why shouldn’t he be able to express that? Clinton made some arguments and ABC bought at least part of them. How is this abridging free speech?
honora on September 9, 2006 at 12:39 PM
Expressing disagreement is one thing. He’s demanding censorship. He’s insisting that the film NOT BE SHOWN.
This is pretty plain to see, honora. Why are you having such a hard time with it?
Pablo on September 9, 2006 at 2:01 PM
Ok Honora. I’l try to explain this so that even you can understand it.
ABC has been threatened by sitting Progresso-Fascist Senators with losing their license. It would appear that the ‘Progressives” are afraid that someone might realize the truth about how Osama was ignored by the Cigarman administration after he publicly declared war on America. Perhaps the Altered By Clinton network was even more accurate in describing terrorist events that happened previous to 9/11, but we will never know if the Clinton Shadow Government has its way.
Every American will be outraged by this attempt to abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press by the Progresso-Fascists, and I personally be calling for a full investigation into these actions as I believe they are ripe for Impeachment.
We are a nation of laws, and a few of those laws are in place to keep elected officials from abusing their power. This attack on ABC is the most egregious abuse that I’ve seen in my lifetime.
DannoJyd on September 9, 2006 at 2:04 PM
There is a clear difference between Clinton’s freedom of speech (which no one has encroached upon), and his lackeys’ attempts to encroach on Disney’s free speech by hanging its broadcast license over its head. So, please take that straw man elsewhere.
If these assclowns were as vigourous in the prevention of 9/11 as they are in the defense of their precious “legacy”, we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.
Kid from Brooklyn on September 9, 2006 at 2:08 PM
I forgot to add this in. Abaraxis makes the case in his[?] Civics 101 article.
DannoJyd on September 9, 2006 at 2:09 PM
Honora wrote:
When liberals are cornered, they always send for their “Strawmen Brigade” to rescue them. And your comment is nothing but a strawman argument.
Clinton’s right to free speech has not been challenged or suppressed. NOBODY is saying that he does not have the right to complain about this movie.
However, what he and his Gucci wearing Gumba thugs, and the lying hypocrites at DNC HQ, are doing is attempting to PREVENT the free speech of others.
Well, attempting to shut people up before speaking is called “prior pestraint.” Attempting to shut people up using threats is called “RACKETEERING” and “EXTORTION,” and that is not how FREE SPEECH is supposed to work.
If he, Berger, Albright, et. al., feel that they have been defamed by this movie, then their ONLY RECOURSE is a defamation suit, and that can only occur after it has been shown.
That is how it works in America.
Of course, if Clinton and the yammering lying halfwits at moveon, DU, KOS, and the DNC were to pony up $40 million to compensate ABC for the expense of making the movie, maybe, I suppose, the Mouse might consider handing over the movie to them so that they can destroy it.
Just a thought….
georgej on September 9, 2006 at 2:12 PM
The DNC has twice engaged in this sort of behavior. Two receipts is all you need for RICO to kick in, no?
Kid from Brooklyn on September 9, 2006 at 2:27 PM
Two things for certain:
The Demo-fascists don’t believe in the 1st Amendment.
The Republicans don’t have the cojones to use this against them. Kind of reminds you of the French in the ’30s with the Germans.
Wil on September 9, 2006 at 3:28 PM
Danno, fantastic job. Thank you and let us know when you need support to pursue the case. I’m glad you’re on fire!
Entelechy on September 9, 2006 at 4:17 PM
Entelechy, I’m glad to get your approval.
I don’t know that there would be much of a case if ABC does air the docudrama, but if they do pull it we will have the evidence needed to prove that the Senators did harm a corporation with their unconstitutional action.
As I don’t have the resources needed to push for their Impeachment I’ll be looking for blog sites that do, and add to that my meager efforts.
DannoJyd on September 9, 2006 at 5:04 PM
It’s true that ABC should have been a little less “creative” in their dramatization (though, I’ll bet that these scenes are laughably insignificant, given the whole thing). That said, a strict account of the 9/11 Commission report would probably make the Clintonites look worse. Can you imagine the outrage if the movie showed ALL FOUR attempts on OBL that were nixed by Berger and the others (re the 9/11 report), rather than combining them into one “composite” scene?
This isn’t about accuracy for them. It’s about making sure that certain substantive ideas aren’t presented to the public after 5 years of hard work ensuring that this story isn’t told.
DaveS on September 9, 2006 at 5:39 PM
Didn’t something like this happen with the mini-series the Regans?
Kini on September 9, 2006 at 6:58 PM
Yes Kini, but the entire thing was run a few weeks or so later on Showtime. There is no where to run this if the DimoFacists get their way. It won’t be airing on the Disney Channel.
Yes, Bubba has his free speech rights as do us all. That being said, they don’t want free speech they want censorship-that is the difference.
Catie96706 on September 9, 2006 at 7:16 PM
One point that has been ignored is the implication that the Clintonistias do not think the American people can be trusted to judge things for themselves. They seem to think that if we see something on TV, we’ll accept it lock, stock and barrel, no questions asked.
The point being, they know better than us. They’ll do our thinking for us.
Labamigo on September 9, 2006 at 7:18 PM
The Clintons are dangerous people.
I feel sorry for Sandy Burglar. He no doubt screwed up, but he compounded it by working for Clinton. I suppose he was told to go into the Archives and rifle the docs or else he would come down with a nasty case of Foster’s Disease.
Anyone who reads this and rolls their eyes had best go back to reading Pollyanna or watching Snow White.
Labamigo on September 9, 2006 at 7:21 PM
Put the whole 9/11 movie on Showtime and away from any public airwaves. And do a never before Clinton smashing special back to back movies with “Path to 9/11″ followed afterwards with the “World Trade Center” movie and then ending it with the “Flight 93″ movie. And then get JibJab to do the “Ya Gotta Yank It!” as a closing.
What say you folks? Good idea?
Kokonut on September 9, 2006 at 8:30 PM
They screamed “Fix it!” so loud that now everyone is looking. They have to scream “Yank it!” or else the whole country will tune in to watch terrorism as a “nuisance” “law enforcement” problem go up in flames on 9-11. Totally predictable and completely oblivious to You Tube and other online hostings.
The Apologist on September 9, 2006 at 8:56 PM
I don’t recall the leadership of a political party and former Presidents threatening anyone’s broadcast license over The Reagans, so I think the answer is emphatically “no”.
DaveS on September 9, 2006 at 9:37 PM
DaveS, they were threatening to pull the FCC license because of the airing of a movie over public airwaves. So, the Reagans movie went over to Showtime…a cable media. Still, this was really craven of the Democrats on threatening to sue (implicitly) and pull the FCC license.
Kokonut on September 9, 2006 at 10:05 PM
Kokonut please cite a source on that point. Thanks.
I’ve never seen a hotair post with so much profanity in it. Apparently I’m not the ONLY person who’s livid to the point of screaming about this.
One Angry Christian on September 10, 2006 at 9:52 AM
Clarification: this = the “non censorship party” using political clout to censor a movie that makes them look bad.
One Angry Christian on September 10, 2006 at 9:53 AM
Kokonut, who, precisely, was threatening someone’s FCC license over The Reagans?
DaveS on September 10, 2006 at 7:37 PM
The threats were implied. There was upcoming legislation that Viacom needed passed, and it couldn’t be done without strong Republican support. Republicans including the RNC chairman were coming out strong about the upcoming series, demanding that it be changed.
Mark Jaquith on September 11, 2006 at 4:22 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102110,00.html
Here is the story on The Reagans, the political pressure, the FCC etc. Note Michael Reagan led the charge and that Viacom was in the midst of a major initiative to buy additional stations which required Congressional approval
honora on September 11, 2006 at 4:33 PM
Please point out where in the article you linked that is says anything about the FCC. Anything.
For that matter, point out where it says anything about senators/congressmen threatening a network with removal of its broadcast license.
You can’t, and you know it – but you would prefer to blur the difference, otherwise you would have to admit that your political allies took it to a whole new level by making an actual threat of government censorship of the media.
thirteen28 on September 11, 2006 at 4:43 PM
Oh, how pathetically weak, and doubly hypocritical from a supposed civil libertarian as yourself. Implied threats? Can you show me one, just one instance of them actually threatening to revoke CBS’s license over that program? No, you can’t, so you come up with your “implied threats” bullshit in order to give the democrats a free pass on threatening to censor an entire network’s programming by revoking it’s license if they broadcast something unfavorable. Some civil libertarian you are.
thirteen28 on September 11, 2006 at 4:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »