Attention: The forums will be placed on read only mode this Saturday (Oct. 20, 2018)

During this outage (6:30 AM to 8 PM PDT) the forums will be placed on read only mode. We apologize for this inconvenience. Click here to read details

Speakeasy forum

General discussion


by Mark5019 / September 7, 2006 11:07 PM PDT

ABC has a five-hour miniseries coming up titled "The Path to 9/11." The first episode airs this coming Sunday night at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. This docu-drama is causing quite a stir in Washington ... and especially in the Clinton camp.

The problem, you see, is that in this movie the Clinton Administration is portrayed as treating Islamic terrorism as nothing more than a law enforcement problem. There is one scene in the move where Intelligence officials are discussing an attempt to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. The Clinton administration is refusing to authorize the action. Permission denied. The Clinton aide says that the problem is that Clinton views terrorism as largely a law enforcement problem. The intelligence official asks "How do you win a law and orderly war?" The aide responds "You don't."

You can sputter and spin all you want about President Bush and his handling of the war on Islamic fascism, you cannot deny that since 9/11 he has been dedicated to the cause of crushing Islamic terrorism over there before they bring it back over here. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Similarly -- there is no way in hell that any reasonable man can argue that the Clinton administration was dedicated to crushing Islamic terrorism. Clinton did indeed treat it like a law enforcement program. After the first Islamic terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 Clinton did not even bother to visit New York City to view the damage, talk to survivors and the families of those who lost their lives, or meet with NYC officials and first responders.

And what of the attack on the U.S. Cole? This was an attack on a U.S. Navy warship. Clinton was the Commander in Chief. The response? At best, lob a few cruise missiles. That's it.
the President and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, the owner of ABC. That letter contained this interesting paragraph:

"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 airways 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."

Now what is this paragraph really saying? Can you read between the lines? Here ... let me rewrite the paragraph by adding a few words. Perhaps it will be clearer to you.

"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 airways 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. The licenses granted to the television stations you own and operate are not permanent. They are periodically subject to renewal. You may wish to remember this fact, and consider the probability that by the time those licenses come up for renewal the Democrats may be in control of both houses of Congress, and the wife of the man your miniseries defames may well be the President of the United States"

Get the message?

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: IT LOOKS LIKE ABC IS GOING TO CAVE
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: IT LOOKS LIKE ABC IS GOING TO CAVE
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Another partisan hatchet job, like the movie apparently is
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / September 7, 2006 11:22 PM PDT

With what part of the following statement by President Clinton do you disagree, Mark? "But I think they ought to tell the truth, particularly if they are going to claim it is based on the 9/11 Commission report," he said. "They shouldn't have scenes that are directly contradicted by the findings of the 9/11 report."

ABC has always been the most conservative network (their radio division hosts the Sean Hannity hatchet job radio show -- a clear violation of the frainess doctrine if ever there were one, except the FCC these days is more concerned with dirty language and breasts than with the fairness doctine). This "docudrama" miniseries is apparently the conservative version of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 -- except that instead of being shown in theaters, it's to be shown on network television. In fact, it's worse than Moore's film -- he let news clippings and interviews speak for themselves; he didn't put false words into actors' mouths to distort the facts for partisan purposes.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
and dk mickle moores was true?
by Mark5019 / September 7, 2006 11:26 PM PDT

where were you then?
and clinton was a liar still is a liar and is that your veiws lieings ok?

and moore didnt?

dk your really not that blind are you?please tell me your not serious?

Collapse -
Remember, the President and his ilk have trouble
by Kiddpeat / September 7, 2006 11:30 PM PDT

determining the truthful meaning of the word IS. They wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit them in the butt. The outstanding question is if the network will remove what truth there is in this movie.

A major network is REPUBLICAN? What are you smoking? You guys are really melting down after spouting lies for 6 years.

Collapse -
In fact, it's worse than Moore's film --
by EdH / September 7, 2006 11:46 PM PDT

he let news clippings and interviews speak for themselves..."

As you should know it's very easy to edit news clips and interviews to tell a lie, which is exactly what Moore did. I doubt the two are comparable at all.

I don't think what they did in this "docudrama" is totally on the up and up (and I haven't seen it; nor have you) but it doesn't sound particularly like a partisan hatchet job.

BUT, Dave, clearly you are only parroting the Party line that has gone out to all the lefty blogs and such.

Collapse -
by C1ay / September 8, 2006 3:00 AM PDT

This movie is claimed to be fiction from the outset, IT IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY. OTOH, Michael Moore claimed his movie was a factual documentary when it has been shown to be fabricated and ficticious. Why is it that you support a documentary lie about the current adminsitartion and yet you are offended by a fictional depiction of a past administration.

Collapse -
The movie is not claimed to be fiction
by Josh K / September 8, 2006 3:32 AM PDT
In reply to: But...

It claims to be a dramatization based on the 9/11 Committee Report.

And the complaints about its accuracy are not just coming from the Clinton people (bracketed text is mine):

Berger objected to the reported portrayal of him refusing to authorize a strike targeting bin Laden when CIA operatives had the al Qaeda leader in their sights.

"No such episode ever occurred -- nor did anything like it," he wrote to Iger.

Plans to snatch bin Laden in Afghanistan in early 1998 were canceled by then-CIA chief George Tenet before any proposal was sent to the White House, according to the 9/11 commission's final report.

[Former Governor Tom] Kean, the commission's chairman [and a Republican], said he told ABC that the scene involving Berger was inaccurate, and he told CNN that ABC informed him it would revisit the scene.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Yep, it's a drama, not a documentary
by C1ay / September 8, 2006 10:46 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) It's called a docu-drama
by Diana Forum moderator / September 8, 2006 12:05 PM PDT
Collapse -
Fairness doctrine, Dave...
by J. Vega / September 8, 2006 3:43 AM PDT

Dave, there have been numerous shows made about the John Kennedy assassination. Do you also believe that any of them that don't agree with something in the Warren Report are violations of the Fairness doctrine?

Collapse -
Hi again, J
by Josh K / September 8, 2006 4:10 AM PDT

Those programs are usually ''investigative reports'' containing speculation about what may have happened. It's "here's what we think may have happened on 11/22/63 and here's why," not "here's what happened on 11/22/63."

This program claims to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report but contains scenes that contradict what's in that report.

I disagree, by the way, with the calls for it to not be aired. ABC has every right to air it and not change a thing. Maybe they could give Clinton some airtime after the movie to rebut anything he feels is inaccurate.

Collapse -
Should we start cataloguing all the movies/videos which
by Kiddpeat / September 8, 2006 4:24 AM PDT
In reply to: Hi again, J

claim to faithfully represent what happened. We could start with the Streisland/Brolin hatchet job on Ronald Reagan.

Collapse -
will he have monica next to him?
by Mark5019 / September 8, 2006 5:48 AM PDT
In reply to: Hi again, J

or will she be on her kness?

Collapse -
I'd guess not
by Josh K / September 8, 2006 6:40 AM PDT

Is she on her knees for someone else at the moment? Who knows but I'm glad it ain't for me.

Collapse -
For the record, J,...
by Paul C / September 8, 2006 7:11 PM PDT

...the Fairness Doctrine was blessedly done away with in the mid-80's. It should be noted that the Dems would love to see it back; John Kerry talked about that in the '04 campaign, and Miss Hillaruh has also said that she thinks that it should come back.

In practice, the return of the Fairness Doctrine would - especially if extended to the Web as some have have suggested - would destroy talk radio and the blogs as we now know them.

So much for the concept of the Left as protectors of freedom of expression, eh?

Collapse -
by Josh K / September 7, 2006 11:32 PM PDT

I don't know why you (or Boortz) would get that idea from the text you pasted. Nowhere in that text does it say anything about ABC giving in to the pressure from Clinton.

The statement from ABC yesterday was:

But in a statement released Thursday afternoon in apparent response to the growing uproar, ABC said, "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."

Does that sound like "caving" to you?

Collapse -
Are you familiar with the meaning of the words edit process?
by Kiddpeat / September 7, 2006 11:35 PM PDT
In reply to: NO IT DOESN'T

Apparently not.

Collapse -
just wait josh you and dk can pat each
by Mark5019 / September 7, 2006 11:35 PM PDT
In reply to: NO IT DOESN'T

other on the back

Collapse -
In order to give in....
by Josh K / September 7, 2006 11:47 PM PDT

....they would have to cut some scenes and reshoot others, then edit them in. In two days. Not gonna happen. I don't see them pulling it either after all the publicity they've now gotten for it.

As an aside, I tuned into MSNBC the other night and didn't realize they were talking about a miniseries. I was trying to figure out why White House footage had Harvey Keitel in it, LOL.

Collapse -
edit cut
by Mark5019 / September 7, 2006 11:50 PM PDT

remove substitute
moores work of fiction didthat hmmmm

seems buba has no reason to fear as we all know how honerable he was:)

Collapse -
Whatever you think of Michael Moore's film....
by Josh K / September 8, 2006 12:00 AM PDT
In reply to: edit cut thing is for sure -- he didn't completely re-edit it and reshoot parts of it two days before it was released. It just can't be done.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) funny
by Mark5019 / September 8, 2006 12:04 AM PDT
Collapse -
by Kiddpeat / September 8, 2006 1:27 AM PDT

and the earth is flat.

Collapse -
According to some, yes.
by Josh K / September 8, 2006 2:32 AM PDT
In reply to: Chuckle.

And it was created in six days and is only six thousand years old too.

Collapse -
Is that what you believe?
by Kiddpeat / September 8, 2006 4:25 AM PDT


Collapse -
Wrong, Josh...
by J. Vega / September 8, 2006 3:24 AM PDT

Josh, you may not be able to reshoot a segment, but it's easy to cut out parts of it and fill the gap with pad so that the show times out.

Collapse -
I guess you are also ignorant with respect to the technology
by Kiddpeat / September 8, 2006 1:26 AM PDT

used to make movies and videos these days. Somehow, it's not surprising to see you using a position of ignorance to argue your point. You did the same thing recently with audio technology.

Collapse -
Not at all, but thanks for the assumption
by Josh K / September 8, 2006 2:34 AM PDT

And that other discussion wasn't about audio technology. It was about a loony "let's get Bush" theory.

Collapse -
You sure haven't exhibited any knowledge of either
by Kiddpeat / September 8, 2006 4:27 AM PDT


Collapse -
A little cutting, some voiceover...
by EdH / September 8, 2006 6:51 AM PDT

May be all that's needed. No reshooting necessary.

Easy peasy. They do it all the time. They even have computers now!

Collapse -
They dooooooooooo???????????
by Josh K / September 8, 2006 7:35 AM PDT


Again, I don't think ABC should give in to pressure to change the film at this point. But it does sound like the film gets some important facts wrong, which would give people wrong impressions about what did and didn't happen during the Clinton years.

I doubt I'll see the program. I'm not much of a miniseries fan either and I know my wife won't want to watch it.

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!