Democrats Livid Over Portrayal Of Clinton Whitehouse for the ABC 9/11 Mini-series...
Democrats are upset over the docu-drama mini-series presented by ABC on the lead up to 9/11...
Several former cabinet members call the show's portrayal of events "terribly wrong." Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger have written letters asking ABC to pull the program.Oh well, the thing happened and some of the blame has to be laid on Democrats too. They are just as responsible for the security of the US as are the Republicans and the attack happened to all of us. In my opinion, there has been a multi-generational failure of Presidents starting with Jimmy Carter in assessing the risk associated with violent Islamic fanatics.
U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter (D, NY) said, "We demand that ABC run a disclaimer with every frame."
However, for the Democrats to call for a halt to the series or disclaimers appears to me to be somewhat troublesome and hypocritical. 1st Amendment rights, are 1st Amendment rights. And the DemNOcrats have been very willing to slam the Bush Administration on alleged violations of these rights. So therefore, they cannot turn around and cry that this is not fair. Remember, there were lots of anti-Bush material presented prior to the last Presidential election, for example Fahrenheit 9/11. No one would have dreamed that one should have had disclaimers or to pull it in order that Bush not be portrayed in a negative light.
So why the double standard?
posted by glenzo @ 9/09/2006 05:49:00 PM
2 Comments:
It's not a double standard. The ABC movie consists of distortions and things that the producers admit they made up. They have invented words and put those words into the mouths of representations of real people. Surely even CANT-SERVE-atives would object to such a thing. Except that since this corresponds to their world view, they seem to feel duty bound to force this fiction onto everyone's plate.
http://openlettertoabc.blogspot.com/2006/09/leading-historians-call-for.html
Dear Robert Iger:
We write as professional historians, who are deeply concerned by the continuing reports about ABC's scheduled broadcast of "The Path to 9/11." These reports document that this drama contains numerous flagrant falsehoods about critical events in recent American history. The key participants and eyewitnesses to these events state that the script distorts and even fabricates evidence into order to mislead viewers about the responsibility of numerous American officials for allegedly ignoring the terrorist threat before 2000.
The claim by the show's producers, broadcaster, and defenders, that these falsehoods are permissible because the show is merely a dramatization, is disingenuous and dangerous given their assertions that the show is also based on authoritative historical evidence. Whatever ABC's motivations might be, broadcasting these falsehoods, connected to the most traumatic historical event of our times, would be a gross disservice to the public. A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the falsification of history, except to expose it. We strongly urge you to halt the show's broadcast and prevent misinforming Americans about their history.
Sincerely,
Arthur Schlesinger
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Lizbeth Cohen, Harvard University,
Nicholas Salvatore, Cornell University;
Ted Widmer, Washington College;
Rick Perlstein, Independent Scholar;
David Blight, Yale University;
Eric Alterman, City University of New York.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/abc-dvd/
ABC has been aggressively advancing its inaccurate and politically slanted miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” to the right wing. Big players like Rush Limbaugh have been provided copies, as have obscure right-wing bloggers like Patterico.
But ABC has refused to provide a copy to President Clinton’s office. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger have also requested copies of the film from ABC, and both have been denied. Both Berger and Albright are harshly criticized in the film in scenes that, according to former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, are “180 degrees from what happened.”
Madeline Albright:
While I have requested a copy of the broadcast, I have yet to receive one. I have been informed by some who had been given the right to view the broadcast that the drama 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.
For example, one scene apparently portrays me as refusing to support a missile strike against bin Laden without first alerting the Pakistanis; it further asserts that I notified the Pakistanis of the strike over the objections of our military. Neither of these assertions is true. In fact, the 9/11 commission reports states (page 117), “Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06path.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Mr. Clarke said no military personnel or C.I.A. agents were ever in position to capture Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan, nor did the leader of the Northern Alliance get that near to his camp.
“It didn’t happen,” Mr. Clarke said. “There were no troops in Afghanistan about to snatch bin Laden. There were no C.I.A. personnel about to snatch bin Laden. It’s utterly invented.”
Mr. Clarke, an on-air consultant to ABC News, said he was particularly shocked by a scene in which it seemed Clinton officials simply hung up the phone on an agent awaiting orders in the field. “It’s 180 degrees from what happened,” he said. “So, yeah, I think you would have to describe that as deeply flawed.”
are you suggesting that ABC has no right to present this material?
Post a Comment
<< Home