Tammy Bruce: ABC Caves to Dem Threats; Changes "Path to 9/11"

ABC Caves to Dem Threats; Changes "Path to 9/11"

***Update: It gets more pathetic by the moment. There is some discussion that ABC may actually cancel the whole thing. Hot Air has an excellent compilation of where things stand now, more opinion and details about the Senate Democrat Leadership (now that's an oxymoron for you) actually threatening ABC's broadcast license if they don't cancel. They then had their staff practice the Goose-Step.

And Blue Crab Blvd makes an excellent point about who calls for accuracy versus those who call for censorship

***

Apparently this has already been done. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. (HT Drudge)

ABC alters 9/11 show under pressure

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...

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.

There are some rpeorts emerging that Iger and BAC agreed to the changes after Bill Clinton personally phone him and asked them to do so. Lovely.

At least they haven't removed the scene entirely. some internally have said the scene involving berger has been "tweaked." The truth of the matter is, the only disagreement is not if someone in the Clinton admin said "no" to killing OBL, it's who gave the order. The clip of Fielding and Tenet confirm that fact. It is also confirmed in the 9/11 report itself. If nothing else, let this exposure of the fascism at the Dem Party serve as an example of how desperate the Dems and the Clintons are to keep the truth of their failure from Americans in general.

Posted by Tammy · September 7, 2006 01:38 PM · Permalink
Leftists | Mainstream Media | September 11

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://tammybruce.com/mt/pings.cgi/923

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ABC Caves to Dem Threats; Changes "Path to 9/11":

» Scene from Path to 9-11 is not ‘fake but accurate’ as some suggest (UPDATE 9 - 10:42 PM - BUMP TO THE TOP - VIDEO ADDED) from Sister Toldjah
(**Bumped to the top - Scroll to the bottom for updates**) The lefty outrage over ABC’s upcoming docudrama “The Path to 9-11” is still raging out of control. There has been a blog created specifically in an attempt to refute claims m... [Read More]

Tracked on September 7, 2006 07:47 PM

Comments

Its very sad, but doesn't surprise me one bit. Bill Clinton is God to many of these media people.

Somehow I have doubts whether ABC would cave if George W. Bush phoned in requesting a change to a TV program (not that I'd expect him to stoop so low to do that).

Posted by: aegil at September 7, 2006 03:07 PM

What would be the Democratic response and MSM response if Republicans attempted to censor a major network's production? The MSM would go nuts if the Republicans attempted to do that, but someone like Slick Willey can get away with anything (Monicagate taught us that). And we still don't know why Sandy Berger was stuffing classified documents down his shorts in order to protect the Slick Willey Administration. The cover up continues. I guess 50 years from now we will find out the answers (sort of like after decades we find out what type of guy JFK was, after the MSM does everything it can to protect the Democrats).

Posted by: SteveOk at September 7, 2006 03:12 PM

aDAM bUCKMAN REVIEWS "Path To 9/11"

http://www.nypost.com/commentary/intensity_of_5_hour_film_tests_viewers__fortitude_commentary_adam_buckman.htm

excerpt:

It's hard to argue with the movie's depiction of the Muslim terrorists as backward, primitive psychotics who emerge from the squalor and ignorance of the Arab world with their black eyes aglow at the thought of murdering thousands of innocents.

Almost as damning, however, is the depiction of various members of the Clinton administration - particularly National Security Adviser Sandy Berger (played by Kevin Dunn) and Secretary of State Madeline Albright (Shirley Douglas).

They were in power for seven of the eight years covered in the miniseries and it was their hesitancy to act decisively at key moments, according to the film, that allowed the terrorists to gain strength.

Posted by: pjb at September 7, 2006 03:42 PM

I've heard some defenders of Clinton explain that they're only doing what Reagan supporters did to The Reagans (which was, after Republican protests, moved from CBS to Showtime). I never saw "The Reagans", but my understanding is that it drifted seriously into paranoid fantasy at the expense of truth. For example, Reagan is portrayed as saying words to the effect that AIDS is the wrath of God and so he intends to stand aside and let it happen, which is pure fabrication; Reagan just didn't have that sort of nastiness in his heart. Is there anything about "Path to 9/11" that's a similar fantasy?

[The answer to that would be "no."--ed.]

It's always an awkward aspect of dramatic portrayals of real events: Unknown details must be filled in, and multiple events must be compressed into a composite, single event. And then the audience goes home with a picture of history that's at least slightly distorted, but they think it's absolutely accurate because they "saw" it. There's little that can be done about that except issue a disclaimer; the process is inherently imperfect. But some efforts pursue the truth above an agenda, and for some it's the other way around.

Posted by: Talkin Horse at September 7, 2006 04:17 PM

We continue to see evidence that much of what we see on the MSM is a contrived product, and much of it pure and simple propaganda. I am hopeful someone can get a copy of unedited Path to 09/11 out on the web, so we can make our own conclusions as to what we are being presented with. If this stands, I will not watch the show, I am subject to enough brainwashing bulls**t.

Isn't it interesting that it is Clinton and his team doing all the hollering about this? You know, there seems to be a very good reason, don't you think? Could it be that indeed Clinton should be held almost fully responsible for that day, not the relative free pass he has been getting?

The partisans and the MSM in this country continue to sicken me, I am ashamed that these slime are entitiled to call themselves Americans. It is always and ever about politics and political advantage, never a rest, never a moment's peace from it all. I am of the minority I suspect, but BOTH parties played a huge role in this happening, and BOTH sides should accept the responsibility. BOTH parties have career politicians, and I suspect that is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. But we allow it to happen, so the same old crap continues and will continue. We deserve the poor quality leadership we get, if we do not allow change and always stay within the 2 party system of stale organizations. We always vote the same poor quality incumbents back to office, generally, though certainly there are some good pols in spite of it all. When was the last time we saw a Senator or representative truly perform an act of courage and stick his neck out on an issue apart from his party? Not often for sure.

Posted by: WK at September 7, 2006 06:27 PM

Folks, this is classic Clintonism. When faced with the possibility that Bill or Hillary might look bad to "the little people," they will try to quiet or discredit the person or entity that is daring to make them look less than wonderful (even when it's true). Gary Aldrich knows this firsthand.

Posted by: TLindaman at September 7, 2006 07:44 PM

By Category

By Month

ABC Caves to Dem Threats; Changes "Path to 9/11"

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment