ABC Refused to Fix Errors in 9/11 Series
by KevinSeptember 9th, 2006
For whatever reason, ABC has decided to become part and parcel of the conservative movement:
One of the agents, Thomas E. Nicoletti, was hired by the producers of the mini-series in July 2005 to oversee its technical accuracy, but left after less than a month because of scenes he believed were misleading or just false.
“There were some of the scenes that were total fiction,” said Mr. Nicoletti, who served as a supervisory special agent and a member of the joint terrorism task force before retiring in 2003. “I told them unless they were changing this, I could not have my name associated with it.”
Chief among Mr. Nicoletti’s concerns were scenes that placed people at places they had not been present at and scenes that depicted events that were out of chronological order.
“There were so many inaccuracies,” he said.
Mr. Nicoletti said he asked the producers to make changes, but was rebuffed. “I’m well aware of what’s dramatic license and what’s historical inaccuracy,” Mr. Nicoletti said. “And this had a lot of historical inaccuracy.”
There is no reason not to fix historical inaccuracies unless you wish to produce a product with a particular and unsupported by the facts slant. ABC is taking one of the most important moments of modern American history and deliberately lying about it, all in the apparent attempt to bolster Republicans in the coming elections.
I believe that truth should be told in a docudrama. Putting words in the mouths of historical figures that are false is wrong. However, it amuses me that most of those complaining have no trouble with the distortions and lies that are prevalent in Michael Moore’s mockumentaries.
Kevin, I completely agree. The concept was flawed from the beginning and probably should have been passed on. In order to make compelling TV (compelling to the masses), content had to be created. Content with punch. Which almost by definition means it will overstate or understate what actually happened. Subject matter like this is probably best addressed in true documentary style. Just the facts. Which rules out network TV.
ABC has agreed to pull at least one scene, and claim to be open to changes right up to air time, so I believe definitive statements concerning content are still a bit premature. That said, all the prerelease backlash has done some good. Better to not air inaccuracies rather than try and correct them after the fact (when 95% of the viewing public is not paying attention).
(Note, I thought this was a one or two hour program. I have learned it is 5 hours and two nights. No way I’m going to commit that much time to a TV movie.)
I can understand why Clinton doesn’t want people to think he was preoccupied while being blown in the Oval office.
I can understand why Clinton doesn’t want people to think he was preoccupied while being blown in the Oval office.
Yeah, that’s exactly what the false representations are alleging.
Sure.
Matt
Here’s an article that shows Kevin is full of it and ABC has capitulated to the Clinton administration. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212935,00.html The article also backs up my assertion that Clinton was too distracted because he was being blown. Of course Hillary ends up looking pretty stupid by denying the whole thing and blaming it on right wingers.
First off, it’s widely known that they decided to edit the show. There is no dispute to that from me.
Anyways, I assume you’re talking about this?
When asked whether he thought the film unfairly portrayed President Clinton being distracted by the Monica Lewinsky affair, Kean said, “There’s a lot of things that are mentioned… I don’t think that’s really accurate,” adding that at one point the film characterizes Clinton as “still focused” on Usama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda threat, a finding confirmed by the final 9/11 Commission Report.
I think you may want to visit Webster’s ( http://www.webster.com/ ) and look up the word “affair”.
It is not referring to the SEXUAL affair. What it means by “affair” is the partisan right-wing witch-hunt that dogged him and hindered his effective abilities. And I’m sorry, but that “distraction” was elevated by congressional republicans. They were so intent on destroying Clinton’s presidency that they cared more about that mission than other truly important matters.
Look at the stink those missile strikes caused. Immediately afterward, Republicans across the nation — government employees and not — screamed that he only launched them to shift the public’s eyes away from the legal proceedings.
So if you believe for one second that he could have sent troops to Afghanistan and Sudan and have the lynch mob’s support, you are laughably mistaken. Republicans would have had a sh*t-fit, and you know it.
The irony in all of this is, of course, that the political right of today insists that everyone stand behind Dubya in a time of war.
Oh how things have changed.
Or, well, maybe not… Hypocrisy is a mainstay of modern conservative thought.
Gotta love it.
I wonder if “The Path to 9/11″ even vaguely alludes to George H. W. Bush’s inaction prior to the 1993 WTC bombing…
Oh, wait. That’s a stupid question. Of course it doesn’t.
“Hypocrisy is a mainstay of modern conservative thought”
That was profound. Let’s throw this one out; Stupidity is a mainstay of modern liberal thought. Look up the word ’stupid’ in your dictionary and you will see what I mean. In the liberal world up is down and black is white. You can’t seriously say that disgraced, disbarred and impeached former President Clinton’s troubles are due to right wing Republicans. The ENTIRE problem stems from Clinton insisting on getting blown while he should have been working and then bold faced lying about it in court and to the American people.
“So if you believe for one second that he could have sent troops to Afghanistan and Sudan and have the lynch mob’s support, you are laughably mistaken. Republicans would have had a sh*t-fit, and you know it.”
You are suggesting Clinton would have sent troops but didn’t because he was afraid of what Republicans would say? That is beyond laughable. Clinton severely weakened his presidency and disgraced our country by being blown and committing criminal acts to cover up. There is nothing that ABC, CNN or FOX can do to change the fact that the mess Clinton brought on himself by being blown distracted him from performing his necessary duty to protect our country.
You can’t seriously say that disgraced, disbarred and impeached former President Clinton’s troubles are due to right wing Republicans. The ENTIRE problem stems from Clinton insisting on getting blown while he should have been working and then bold faced lying about it in court and to the American people.
I most certainly can.
You can’t possibly say that they were acting in the best interests of our nation!! What motivated them, as it often does with conservatives, is partisan politics… They routinely sacrifice what is good for the nation for what is good for their party.
You are suggesting Clinton would have sent troops but didn’t because he was afraid of what Republicans would say?
What?
I said he didn’t seriously consider sending troops because he knew he wouldn’t have their backing. There are more important things than “what people say”. There is action, and if a president knows half the legislature is against a military action (for whatever reason no matter how rational or — in this case — irrational), it would be a mistake to commit.
Clinton severely weakened his presidency and disgraced our country by being blown and committing criminal acts to cover up.
lol
Yeah, thank God no President has ever whooped up war, trashed international organizations, slam them as ineffective and unnecessary, charge that they are even corrupted to the point of blindness, (find out later that they were working and adamantly refuse to admit it,) mobilize the most powerful military machine in the world and use it — for the first time in history — to launch a pre-emptive attack, setting a precedent that goes counter to very basis of international cooperation, actively work to conceal evidence that debunks the rationale given for war, then claim that he and those in his administration DIDN’T, assume powers over civil liberties not granted him in the code of laws he swore to uphold as defender of our nation, etc.
Face it, there is no person who has damaged not only the power of the Presidency, but the power of the United States more than the one who is currently in office. And he did it by assuming more power than given him. And more than the blame being on him, the blame squarely rests on people like you for defending and supporting him.
And so you can go on and blame Clinton all you want. It just makes you look foolish, because America simply isn’t fooled anymore.
Matt,
Try a little experiment. Go to court and commit perjury. When you end up in jail see if a partisan politics defense works for you. What you and countless other liberals want to do is place Clinton above the law. Sorry but it shouldn’t work that way even if it did for Clinton. You can’t make your own rules. Your problem is you have bought into the liberal notion that there is no such thing as personal responsibility. Even when Clinton was caught committing perjury, because he was caught being blown, you have some disorder which leads you to believe it is someone else’s fault!
“Yeah, thank God no President has ever whooped up war …blah blah blah”
I guess Kerry, Hillary and every other liberal that voted for the war actually didn’t vote for the war in your state of confusion that is as thick as a cloud of cannabis smoke. Please note; I’m not saying you are smoking cannabis. I’m using the thick smoke as a comparison to your confusion.
Try as you might, you can’t cover the fact that Clinton was not focused on the needs of the country while he was being blown and during the aftermath of being caught when some pesky people suggested that he should answer to the same laws as the rest of us.
Lie about oral sex, hurt your wife. Lie about WMD, 1000s of people die.
“Lie about WMD, 1000s of people die.”
Who lied about WMDs?
You really need to quit beating that dead horse. Repeating your lie will not make it true.
Try a little experiment. Go to court and commit perjury. When you end up in jail see if a partisan politics defense works for you. What you and countless other liberals want to do is place Clinton above the law.
False.
What YOU seem to forget is that Clinton was not booted from office. Is it because of “the liberal notion that there is no such thing as personal responsibility”?
I’m afraid not. Nine Republicans deemed the prosecution unnecessary on the perjury charge, and five on the obstruction of justice charge. Many publicly commented that the whole thing was ridiculous and were concerned that Congress’s attention was pulled away from more pressing concerns. One of those things was the terrorist threat.
In addition, public disapproval of the proceedings held steady between 60%-70% the entire time.
All of those people saw the debacle for what it was: a partisan witch-hunt.
I guess Kerry, Hillary and every other liberal that voted for the war actually didn’t vote for the war in your state of confusion that is as thick as a cloud of cannabis smoke.
Ah yes, and here we reach the REAL “no such thing as personal responsibility”…
Kerry’s comments before signing:
(July 29, 2002) “This administration has offered, to date, no plan for what happens after we topple Saddam’s regime, no methodology. And no one disagrees that even if we go it alone in Iraq, we can topple Saddam, we can win. But what this administration has failed to do is to advance on the international stage — through the process of international law — the rationale for doing so and the evidence for that rationale.”
(October 9th, 2002) “Let me be clear… The vote that I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction IF we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.”
Hillary’s comments before endorsing:
(October 10th, 2002) “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
“Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.”
“My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.”
Democrats voted to give Bush the power, yes. They based this on intelligence provided to them, yes. This intel was apparently the same intel given to Bush himself, yes.
However, that is not the same thing as voting to invade Iraq. They provided Bush with a powerful diplomatic tool… As they clearly saw it, the last step before war, the last step intended to drum up unanimous support in the UN Security Council. And it was this step that was skipped against the wishes of those who passed it.
They gave Bush the choice. That is what they were responsible for doing. Only Bush was responsible for his decision.
Now, as for Clinton’s “inaction” in regards to terrorism, the claim is just absurd.
Clinton was the first to recognize and combat the threat on a grand scale. If one spends just a little time either reading the 9/11 Report or reading the speeches he gave throughout his presidency, it cannot be denied that Clinton was the only president of the last three that considered terrorism a serious concern. In just about every speech he made — including every single State of the Union Address and his Second Inaugural, he specifically mentions the danger, making sure people did not forget.
More of that typical conservative hypocrisy has allowed you to assume that Bush considered the threat as serious as Clinton did or more. Disturbingly, the fact is that in the first nine months of Bush’s first term, he focused on missile defense shields and drilling in Alaska instead of things Clarke insisted upon, frustrating him immensely.
Let’s talk about the number one man at the Bush Justice Dept, John Ashcroft. The 9-11 commission, page 265: “He did not ask the FBI what it was doing in response to the threats and did not task it to take any specific actions. He also did not direct the ins, then still part of the Dept of Justice, to take any specific action. In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute.” The fact is that that the Bush Administration came into office and de-emphasized the fight against terrorism. Condi Rice told the commission about the counterterrorism efforts of the Clinton Administration: “clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority.” The Bush Administration did not, especially since the commission said of summer of 2001: “The system was blinking red”.
I allude to your username, the real truth: He did nothing until 3,000 people lost their lives.
Who lied about WMDs?
LIE #1: “The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program … Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” – President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
LIE #2: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” – President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
LIE #3: “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases … Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.” – President Bush, Oct. 7.
LIE #4: “We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States.” – President Bush, Oct. 7.
LIE #5: “We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they’re weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.” – President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
LIE #6: “Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited.” – President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
Matt
So you’re saying you could get away with using the partisan politics defense? Frankly, I think you would end up in jail… I wouldn’t recommend trying it.
“Democrats voted to give Bush the power, yes. They based this on intelligence provided to them, yes. This intel was apparently the same intel given to Bush himself, yes.”
OK, finally got you to admit it.
“Let’s talk about the number one man … Blah blah blah”
Based on the blah blah blah a question comes to mind. Why isn’t Bush trying to stop ABC while Clinton is? The answer is simple. Clinton doesn’t want people to think he was preoccupied while being blown in the Oval office.
Matt, those were not lies. Grow up.
Fred:
After some of the stuff you do call lies, it’s stunning that you don’t think those are lies. And think of the implication: if they’re not lies, it simply means that Bush was wrong about nearly everything he said. Liar or incompetent (or possibly both). You make the call.
Matt:
You’re hired! We’ll pay you double what we pay me!
“This intel was apparently the same intel given to Bush himself, yes.”
OK, finally got you to admit it.”
Well, no — Matt’s wrong. the NIE did not reflect the range of opinion on the issue given to the President, and the classified version made the case seem much strong than it actually was.
[...] Source Link [...]
[...] Jump to: Select a forum General Forum—————-Christian gifts ?uid=693623 Christian gifts ?uid=693623—————-Christian gifts ?uid=693623 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group link [...]