Democrats only want freedom of speech when it fits their agenda

DevilishTexan

Literotica Guru
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Posts
71,963
Perfect example here:

ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure

By Scott Collins, Times Staff Writer


Read more on Scott Collins' Channel Island blog


ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is quickly becoming a political cause célèbre.

The network has in recent days made changes to the film, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. Meanwhile, a left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the miniseries, while conservative blogs have launched a vigorous defense.

"The Path to 9/11," whose large ensemble includes Harvey Keitel and Patricia Heaton, offers a panoramic sweep of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The movie dramatizes what it deems intelligence and operational failures of the Clinton and Bush administrations, relying heavily on public records. Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 commission, served as a consultant.

After a screening of the first episode in Washington last week, some audience members attacked the film's depiction of the Clinton administration's pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Among those unhappy was Richard Ben-Veniste, an attorney and member of the 9/11 commission whom some conservatives have dismissed as a Democratic attack dog. Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, has criticized the movie for suggesting that the Clinton administration was in a position to capture Bin Laden in 1998 but canceled the mission at the last minute.

After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved.

"That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said, adding: "These are very slight alterations."

In addition, the network decided that the credits would say the film is based "in part" on the 9/11 commission report, rather than simply "based on" the bestselling report, as the producers originally intended.

ABC, meanwhile, is tip-toeing away from the film's version of events. In a statement, the network said the miniseries "is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews."

The statement adds: "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. The attacks were a pivotal moment in our history that should never be forgotten and it's fitting that the discussion continues."

None of ABC's moves is likely to quell the debate, however.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal advocacy group, said on Wednesday it had collected 25,000 letters asking ABC to either correct or cancel the miniseries. "The miniseries presents an agenda that blames the Clinton administration for the 9/11 attacks while ignoring numerous errors and failures of the Bush administration," the center said in a news release.


Once again the truth hurts. No suprise their lapdogs at ABC changed it to suit them. Can't mess with BJ Clinton's legacy now can we? :rolleyes:
 
How is a call for accuracy denying anyone freedom of speech? They're not censoring anyone.
 
MechaBlade said:
How is a call for accuracy denying anyone freedom of speech? They're not censoring anyone.
Sure. Then what are they doing? Changing it to make themselves look better. Just like they do with everything.
 
DevilishTexan said:
Sure. Then what are they doing? Changing it to make themselves look better. Just like they do with everything.
Changing it to make it less biased to appease democratic viewers?

Everything? Revisionist history is strictly part of the conservative domain.
 
Didn't Republican pressure have that Reagan bio-pic pulled a few years back?
 
This suggests that ABC is part of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Along with those bastions of conservatism, the Washington Post and New York Times.

Imagine if ABC weren't so leftist how this story would have come out.
 
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I guess left-wing pressure groups can play the Reagan game too.
 
BUBBA GOES BALLISTIC ON ABC ABOUT ITS DAMNING 9/11 MOVIE

INSISTS NET PULL DRAMA


By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent


September 7, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.
Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

"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," the four-page letter said.

The movie is set to air on Sunday and Monday nights. Monday is the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

Based on the 9/11 commission's report, the miniseries is also being provided to high schools as a teaching aid - although ABC admits key scenes are dramatizations.

The letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton's office, accuses the ABC drama of "bias" and a "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."

Clinton, whose aides first learned from a TV trailer about a week ago that the miniseries would slam his administration, was "surprised" and "incredulous" when told about the film's slant, sources said.

Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger also dashed off letters to Iger, accusing the network of lying in the miniseries and demanding changes.

ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan last night defended the miniseries as a "dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews."

"Many of the people who have expressed opinions about the film have yet to see it in its entirety or in its final broadcast form," he said. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast before forming their own opinion."

Executive producer Marc Platt told The Washington Post that he worked "very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously of 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."

The miniseries' creator and the 9/11 panel's former co-chairman, Tom Kean, who was a paid adviser on the film, said some scenes are made up and plan to include a statement at the show's beginning.

In the movie, FBI anti-terror agent John O'Neill, played by Harvey Keitel, and a composite CIA operative named Kirk grouse about bureaucratic red tape following a meeting with Berger and Albright.

"How do you win a law-and-orderly war?" Kirk asks.

"You don't," O'Neill snaps.

The movie then cuts immediately to a newsreel close-up of Clinton insisting he did "not have sex with that woman" - Monica Lewinsky.

Although the movie thrust Lewinsky into the mix as a White House distraction, the 9/11 commission's report found Clinton was "deeply concerned about bin Laden" and that he received daily reports "on bin Laden's reported location," Clinton's letter notes.

In another scene, CIA operatives working with Afghani anti-al Qaeda fighter Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance who was assassinated by bin Laden days before 9/11, gather on a hill near bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms - the terror thug easily in their grasp.

"It's perfect for us," says Kirk, a composite character played by Donnie Wahlberg. But the team aborts the mission when an actor portraying Berger tells them he can't authorize a strike.

"I don't have that authority," the Berger character says.

"Are there any men in Washington," Massoud asks Kirk later in the film, "or are they all cowards?"

The reps for an outraged Clinton wrote to Iger that "no such episode ever occurred - nor did anything like it."

The 9/11 commission report echoes his denial, and found that Clinton's Cabinet gave "its blessing" for a CIA plan to capture bin Laden and determined that ex-CIA Director George Tenet squashed the plan.

The third contested scene focuses on Albright, who is depicted alerting Pakistani officials in advance of a 1998 U.S. missile strike against bin Laden in Afghanistan - over the objections of the Pentagon. The movie claims the tip-off allowed bin Laden to escape.

But the 9/11 commission reported that it was a member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff - not Albright - who met with a senior Pakistani Army official prior to the strike to "assure him the missiles were not coming from India."


And we all know Clinton is such an honest man. Like his joke of a national security advisor, Berger, who wrote a letter demanding changes, is an honest man.
What a joke.
 
Naturally they changed it. The controversy will boost ratings and after that they will make millions on the DVD release of the uncut version.
 
MechaBlade said:
Everything? Revisionist history is strictly part of the conservative domain.
Sure it is. Seems Democrats are the only ones that want everyone to forget their history.
 
DevilishTexan said:
Sure it is. Seems Democrats are the only ones that want everyone to forget their history.
Kinda like the spineless Carter who couldn't even get our hostages back from Iran.
 
DevilishTexan said:
Sure it is. Seems Democrats are the only ones that want everyone to forget their history.


we think of history as, well, ingredients in an italian recipe.

what was changed that was accurate?
 
ABC didn't help their cause when they decided to provide advance copies of the film to conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and not to liberals. Even if you've been completely accurate, doing that is just going to make people suspect there's an agenda at work.

Just to restate this since a lot of folks seem to be confused on this point, Bill Clinton was not the President of the United States on September 11, 2001. All the spin in the world will never change that.
 
They hate Bush. They're blinded. It's blind hatred. Look at my keys. Over here! Wooooo! See the pretty keys...
 
Wrong Element said:
ABC didn't help their cause when they decided to provide advance copies of the film to conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and not to liberals. Even if you've been completely accurate, doing that is just going to make people suspect there's an agenda at work.

Just to restate this since a lot of folks seem to be confused on this point, Bill Clinton was not the President of the United States on September 11, 2001. All the spin in the world will never change that.

If they didn’t give copies to the liberals how do they know what’s in it?

Did they steal one from Rush?
 
Bush had to pick-up where Clinton left off. Clinton was a weak President when it came to National Security. Lets shoot a missle at Al-Qaeda and they will back-off. Bin Laden even stated he was surprised when we attacked in Afghanistan because he thought we would follow suit with the Clinton Doctrine of a few missles. Clinton made us look weak which opened the door to attacks on our homeland.
 
Slowlane said:
If they didn’t give copies to the liberals how do they know what’s in it?

Did they steal one from Rush?
Do you think Rush can avoid shooting off his mouth?
 
Democrats only want freedom of speech when it fits their agenda...

And Republicans only want freedom of speech...

Oh, wait.

Thats right, they don't really.

They just want NSA wiretapping. :cool:
 
It's nice to see that some things never change.

DT is the same ignorant, naive fool he was when he first started posting.
 
phrodeau said:
Do you think Rush can avoid shooting off his mouth?

Absolutely not. Rush tells everything he knows, that’s how he earns his living. In fact he reported that Clinton was bitching about the movie. That’s partly why he decided to watch it – nearly a week after the bitching started.
 
zipman said:
It's nice to see that some things never change.

DT is the same ignorant, naive fool he was when he first started posting.

You, of course, have changed immeasurably. Yes?
 
Back
Top