« Introducing The Bloggering Wilburys | Main | Jebediah Wilbury: Smell On Wheels »

9/11 DVD release delayed by Clinton candidacy?

The award-winning mini-series "The Path to 9/11" was supposed to be released on DVD this spring, but it still hasn't been, nor has a date been set. The writer claims he was told by an ABC executive that Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy was the problem, reports Martin Miller of the Los Angeles Times :


The $40-million, five-hour ABC miniseries, which recently received seven Emmy nominations and drew a combined two-night audience of more than 25 million viewers, is for now on the path to nowhere. Its Amazon page reads: "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock."

With no date for the release, questions are being raised about whether political pressure is behind its current status as a stalled or discarded DVD project. The reasons are murky, but the miniseries' writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, believes it's crystal clear: Powerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton's presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House.

Nowrasteh, also one of the miniseries' many producers, said he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that "if Hillary weren't running for president, this wouldn't be a problem."


Read the rest at the link above. ABC is foregoing millions in revenue by not releasing the DVD set. Hmmmm . . .

Writer Cyrus Nowrasteh talks to KFI's John Ziegler at Breitbart (audio only).


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/23854.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 9/11 DVD release delayed by Clinton candidacy?:

» Big Dogs Weblog linked with ABC Holds Path to 9/11 Because of Hillary

Comments (84)

Wonder if the FEC would con... (Below threshold)

Wonder if the FEC would consider their unrealized revenue as a campaign contribution??? (Hookey, I know, but isn't everything the FEC does hookey?)

If the movie hadn't lied ab... (Below threshold)
jim:

If the movie hadn't lied about Bill Clinton's actions, then it might be easier to release right now. And that is, if the writer even has the facts straight about what's basically a rumor.

I could see it just as likely that ABC doesn't want to face legal action from libel. And not just from Bill Clinton, but from American Airlines and others.

I know you want to hate Bill Clinton, but facts are facts regardless.

If any of you are interested, here's a short list of some of the things wrong with the film:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11#Controversy_and_criticisms
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/abc-smears-washington-post/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=%22The_Path_to_9/11%22

From the Wikipedia article:

Two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents criticized the film for creating a work of fiction, and claiming it was accurate. Thomas E. Nicoletti had been hired by the filmmakers as a consultant, but quit[24] because "'There were so many inaccuracies...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.'"[25]

"Dan Coleman, who retired from the F.B.I. in 2004, said he also was concerned when he read the script last summer after being approached by producers about being a technical advisor.

"They sent me the script, and I read it and told them they had to be kidding," Mr. Coleman said. "I wanted my friends at the F.B.I. to still speak to me." "

Clancy you beat me to almos... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Clancy you beat me to almost the exact comment by 2 minutes. There should be no way it isn't counted as a campaign contribution to Shrillary, which would be highly illegal for Always Broadcastin Crap (ABC) and Shrillary would have to donate the millions to charity, or is her charity named Slick Willie?

jim ~ Using Wikipedia and l... (Below threshold)

jim ~ Using Wikipedia and left-wing loonies as your sources tips us off you aren't serious, but by your standards, wouldn't Michael Moore's "docudramas" ALL have been kept from release?

Writer Cyrus Nowra... (Below threshold)
Writer Cyrus Nowrasteh talks to KFI's John Ziegler at Breitbart (audio only).

Glad you linked to that interview. Was about to look for it to add in the comments. Saved me the trouble.

like that dopey duo needs a... (Below threshold)
moseby:

like that dopey duo needs another scandal to open our eyes to their shenanagens. For that cold fish to lose the presidential race all she needs to do is show up.

Well, Jim Addison, if anyth... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, Jim Addison, if anything is wrong with that Wikipedia citing, please show it. For example, if those FBI guys *didn't* say what they said.

Ditto for the other citings listed. Not liking the sources isn't enough to prove them wrong - and if they are as automatically wrong as many on the Right think, then proving so would be easy, right?

As for Michael Moore - if Moore *had* ever invented entire scenes where Bush and his underlings said and did things, that the actual historical record shows that they did not - then the "Path to 9/11" creators would merely be ***just as bad*** as Moore.

That certainly wouldn't make the "Path to 9/11" shlockumentary any more ethical.

Damn you, Jim. Get out of ... (Below threshold)
yo:

Damn you, Jim. Get out of my head.

Hillary keeps telling us sh... (Below threshold)
Pretzel_Logic:

Hillary keeps telling us she's experienced. We just need to ask her how many times Al Gore even mentioned terrorism during the 2000 presidential campaign. The answer is ZERO. That's enough to tell us how much she and her husband care about national security.

1 - I meant "Jim Addison" i... (Below threshold)
yo:

1 - I meant "Jim Addison" in my previous post.

2 - "Not liking the sources isn't enough to prove them wrong "

So, we're free to use Fox links as often as we want and you won't say "boo" about it?

3 - "then the "Path to 9/11" creators would merely be ***just as bad*** as Moore."

Ah .. but! No one stopped Moore from releasing any of his DVD's, or books, now did they?

As usial our former dictato... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

As usial our former dictator dont want us to know the truth whats the clinton crooks have to hide?

Hey Jim,According ... (Below threshold)
yo:

Hey Jim,

According to this link, the "Path to 9/11" ...

"This is the first Hollywood production I've seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden."

http://www.aim.org/guest_column/4826_0_6_0_C/

So either your links are f'd up, or mine is, but you say you can't disregard the message, regardless the source, so are both right?

I guess we can look to the big board:

Bush took active measures to stop terrorism: check

Clinton took active measures to stop terrorism: no check

In short, the DVD should be released regardless of what's in it. That damned first amendment, again.

Excuse the corollary but, i... (Below threshold)

Excuse the corollary but, isn't it amazing how the left, whether now in America or anywhere in time the world over, has always relied on the crushing of human rights so as to gain / maintain power for "the sake of the people" ?

OK, yo - I quote 2 FBI guys... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, yo - I quote 2 FBI guys hired as fact-checkers, and you quote the actress and filmmaker, Govindini Murty.

My links are not f'ed up - the 2 FBI guys said that. And hey, your link isn't f'ed up either - Govindini Murty said that.

But if it comes to a credibility match between 2 FBI guys and an actress/filmmaker who has had *no connection* with the government during the period mentioned, I think the 2 FBI guys win.

So, we're free to ... (Below threshold)
jim:
So, we're free to use Fox links as often as we want and you won't say "boo" about it?

Sure, go ahead and use Fox links as often as you want.

If I think they're wrong, I won't just say "That's wrong because it's Fox." I'll *show* why I think their facts are wrong, with facts and citations that are more accurate.

Could we have two "FBI" nam... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Could we have two "FBI" names?

Jim:I could se... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

I could see it just as likely that ABC doesn't want to face legal action from libel. And not just from Bill Clinton, but from American Airlines and others.

And they didn't face a libel suit after showing it to 25 million people?

How does that work?

I have no objection to argu... (Below threshold)

I have no objection to arguing credibility, even with a "truther." That's not the point of this post, though.

What I object to is repressing the product. The Stalinists among us have no problem with that, which underscores why they need to be kept away from power at all cost.

Hillary keeps telling us... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Hillary keeps telling us she's experienced. We just need to ask her how many times Al Gore even mentioned terrorism during the 2000 presidential campaign. The answer is ZERO.

Well, you can look at the debate transcripts from 2000 here. A quick word search for the word "terror" reveals that in the three debates between Bush and Gore, terrorism was mentioned once. Guess who mentioned it? Al Gore. In the Cheney-Lieberman debate, terrorism was mentioned once also. By Lieberman.

Neither Bush nor Cheney mentioned terrorism in any of the 2000 debates.

You were saying?

Ah .. but! No one ... (Below threshold)
jim:
Ah .. but! No one stopped Moore from releasing any of his DVD's, or books, now did they?

There's a few things going on here.

1) You seem to think Moore is absolutely, definitely a liar, who has factually stated major things that are totally and provably incorrect, and contradict the accepted and proven record.

2) You seem to think that Moore has not faced censorship. In fact, he has. And not because his facts were wrong - but because his facts were right.

3) Finally, you combine these two, to equate Moore's films with "Path to 9/11".

This last is particularly interesting.

To review, the logic seems to be:

1) Moore's a liar.

2) Moore can spread his lies.

3) Therefore it's okay if "Path to 9/11" has lies, and it's wrong if those lies can be spread.

This sort of thinking is ethically equivalent with "That guy can punch an old lady in the face. Therefore if I punch an old lady in the face, it's only fair, and really it's a good thing."

Jim, that's fair enough.</p... (Below threshold)
yo:

Jim, that's fair enough.

I think the issue with your sources is that, while facts are present in their reports, the slant is as left leaning as (if not moreso than) Fox's right lean.

Take for example this headline:

REPORT: The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/20/radio-report/

This link was found on the same page as the link you'd provided and definitely shows a targeting of Ring Wing Radio. Read the article and you'll see all sorts of fun being had with logic and what it all amounts to is whining.

Point being: your arguments would hold MUCH more water if you don't cite sources that either are OVERTLY liberal, or closet, tricky liberals, or easily dismissed (which is why I rarely use Fox as a source for anything).

The other point being - as marc alluded to, why is it cool to air the show on TV for free, but there are issues with a DVD release?

Well Marc, they can claim t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well Marc, they can claim to not have known how wrong it was, before the Clintons, American Airlines, Madeleine Albright, the FBI guys, various CIA personnel, and others came on the public record about it.

Now that it's been released once, all these people *have* all gone on public record, and Scholastic has pulled the movie and it's false additional materials from it's offerings, there's simply no plausible deniability on ABC's part.

Ok, yo. I guess I can dig a... (Below threshold)
jim:

Ok, yo. I guess I can dig a little deeper than Wikipedia and others, and go to the primary sources.

20 should read "if those li... (Below threshold)
jim:

20 should read "if those lies can't be spread."

"2) You seem to think that ... (Below threshold)
yo:

"2) You seem to think that Moore has not faced censorship. In fact, he has. And not because his facts were wrong - but because his facts were right."

And here we peek behind the green curtain that is Jim.

I will give you credit, tying with your arms around a tree trunk must be tricky.

Let's see the proof of Moore, the guy who sat next to Carter at the DNC and did the "L" for loser hand signal, being censored.


Your logical progression which follows is, quite simply, too funny to be taken seriously.

"3) Therefore it's okay if "Path to 9/11" has lies, and it's wrong if those lies can be spread."

1 - how did you come about that line of reasoning,

2 - Huh?

Your second part is completely off-base.

What I said was that if it's ok to release F9/11 on DVD, it's perfectly alright to release Path to 9/11 on DVD.

Lies or not.

If the DVD isn't being released for business reasons, fine. But, if it's being restricted due to political heat, that's an afront to the Constitution and wholly unacceptable, on any level.

Besides, ABC went out of its way to state P9/11 to be "based" on real events, so they give us the grain of salt.

Moore doesn't give his viewers even that much. He states all as pure fact even though there are reams of information (as well as interviews with people in the movies) who contradict some of the finer points of his docu-ahem-mentaries.


Jim:Well Marc,... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

Well Marc, they can claim to not have known how wrong it was, before the Clintons, American Airlines, Madeleine Albright, the FBI guys, various CIA personnel, and others came on the public record about it.

Funny, they knew enough about it to squeal like stuck hogs and all the noise was about what they felt were inaccuracies in the script.

The yelled loud and long enough to cause a late-night editing session.

There was no libel then and there won't be any in the DVD - release the damn thing and let the lawyers sort it out.

I'd love nothing better to see some of those A-holes under oath again. Starting with Sandy "Burgler."

"20 should read "if those l... (Below threshold)
yo:

"20 should read "if those lies can't be spread.""

Noted. Still doesn't change my response. Lies or not, the first amendment ... well, I'm sure you're familiar with it.

Hell, you can buy a copy of the Truthers' video. Aren't those full of lies, too?

I'm all for the first amend... (Below threshold)
jim:

I'm all for the first amendment. ABC has the full right to sell that DVD, and anything else.

And the Clintons, American Airlines, Madeleine Albright, et al have a right to sue for libel. Just as the Bush administration and all in it have a similar right, to pursue against Michael Moore in any way they see fit.

And personally I think that, if there really were an inaccuracy or lie in Fahrenheit 911 or any other of Moore's films or books, they certainly would have done it.

I also personally think ABC is not releasing it because they have realized, late in the game, just how open to a libel suit they are. Which is a separate issue, than 'political pressure from the Clintons'. I think the movie is so flawed that at this point, ABC would rather just wash their hands of it.

And I think the writer, who's mostly responsible for how inaccurate key parts of "The Path to 9/11" is, would rather think it's political pressure from the Clintons, than his own work and his own refusal to listen to the facts.

But that's my opinion.

Tell you what, Marc - I'm f... (Below threshold)
jim:

Tell you what, Marc - I'm for Sandy Berger under oath, if we can have Karl Rove under oath as well.

Sounds good? Karl's got nothing to hide, right?

Are you speaking of success... (Below threshold)
jim:

Are you speaking of successfully being censored, or attempts at being censored? And by whom?

Let's define what we're talking about, re: censorship. Are we talking government censorship by government officials directing the application of law enforcement, fines, or other governmental means exclusive to government officials?

Or are we talking corporate censorship, which means a business basically quashing a release because they don't like the product, even though it could make them money?

If ABC's refusal to release "Path to 9/11" counts as censorship, then certainly Disney's refusal to release "Fahrenheit 911" counts also.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1581

Since Disney owns ABC, it's the same company, actually, which is interesting.

Also, there's what happened with Moore's book "Dude, Where's My Country?" It was already printed, but the company tried to turn around and destroy all the printed copies.

http://www.counterpunch.org/brasch1202.html

Jim,I'll give ya' ... (Below threshold)
yo:

Jim,

I'll give ya' credit, you're one of the few dissenters on this site who isn't a complete jerg-off.

I'll agree that the political pressure aspect of this piece is probably overblown.

However,

"I also personally think ABC is not releasing it because they have realized, late in the game, just how open to a libel suit they are."

... sure, but, the show's already been aired, to huge ratings and some awards. Where're the libel claims?

Unless, the DVD is different than what was aired. If that's true, then the plot does thicken a bit, doesn't it?

The gig with the Clintons is essentially that I wouldn't put something as nefarious as shouting down the critics passed them.

jim ~ Using Wikipedia an... (Below threshold)
Brian:

jim ~ Using Wikipedia and left-wing loonies as your sources tips us off you aren't serious

Hey Jim Addison, did you notice those little numbers embedded in the Wikipedia article, such as the [24] and [25] in jim's excerpt? They're footnotes, which take you to the original sources for the information. Those include the NYT and MSNBC. Didn't notice that, did you?

Look, kid, you're dumb even... (Below threshold)

Look, kid, you're dumb even for a moonbat.

"libel" isn't an issue in any of these cases, and anyone with a nodding familiarity with the law understands that. "Public figures" can't win libel verdicts in the US unless they can demonstrate actual malice - a legal standard so strict that few suits are brought. The costs are simply not worth the effort, given the odds against success.

So go back to riding your two out-of-work FBI guys who couldn't hold a consulting job, mmmkay, Chomsky?

Oops - the book of Moore's ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oops - the book of Moore's I'm referring to is "Stupid White Men".

Jim, not releasing the DVD ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Jim, not releasing the DVD does not immunize ABC against libel since they already broadcast it. Your understanding of their position with respect to libel is completely wrong. If you think that a libel suit is why the DVD is not being released, you are fooling only yourself.

Well, Jim Addison, we're al... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, Jim Addison, we're all speculating here - but I'd say that ABC publishing and releasing a movie that is clearly and demonstrably false, in the face of direct facts, which effectively blames Clinton for 9/11 - I'd think that is close enough to malice that ABC would rather just let the whole thing go.

And certainly I consider that scenario more likely, than this all being due to the Clintons alone bringing 'political pressure'. Especially as Bill's been a civilian for going on 7 years, and Hillary's a Senator with no control over the FCC.

Brian ~ are you playing Je... (Below threshold)

Brian ~ are you playing Jeopardy! here?

"footnotes to NYT and MSNBC"

Um, lemme see, Alex - What are two "sources" even less credible than Wikipedia?

I'll have Moonbat Nonsense for $400, please.

Hey, maybe ABC just doesn't... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hey, maybe ABC just doesn't want the bad press associated with selling a product that's provably full of great inaccuracies (to be generous). And the possible advertiser issues that can come with that controversy.

That's even more likely than the libel scenario. I still do think the Clintons and American Airlines do have a case, though. Especially American Airlines, since something that "Path to 9/11" blames on them was actually done by US Airways.

Jim,If Disney trie... (Below threshold)
yo:

Jim,

If Disney tried to stop distribution of the film, they did a horrible job.

Again, though ... you can't tell me that FAIR is fair.

As for the book squashing, that could be considered corporate censorship; but, considering the atmosphere (directly after 9/11/01) one man's "corporate censorship" is another man's "business decision."

Still, corporate censorship can always be thwarted by competition. If Moore, or anyone, wants to get a message out that one publisher doesn't want to distribute, I'm sure they'll find another distributer.

That's business. It may be shitty, but it's not illegal - and, if it were deemed to be illegal, there are remedies for such.

Now, government censorship is completely different. And, upon further thought, IF the Clintons are leaning on Disney to pull this DVD, what methods might they be using? Are there the same kinds of threats used prior to the airing (ABC threatened with losing it's license)?

It's a sticky matter, I'll grant you that. But my point is still valid, I don't see Moore being a victim of Gov't censorship. And, to a lesser extent, even as a victim of corporate censorship, since I can run down to Borders and buy either his book, or his DVD.

SPQR, it doesn't immunize t... (Below threshold)
jim:

SPQR, it doesn't immunize them - but it certainly increases the likelihood that someone would sue them, don't you think?

If it's already been broadcast and won't be shown again for a while, if ever, then it's easier to just let it go. But if it's going to be broadly disseminated, perhaps even into classrooms, it seems much more likely to galvanize someone into suing.

"in face of direct facts"</... (Below threshold)
yo:

"in face of direct facts"

Still haven't seen any of those facts from a non-biased (or as close as one can get) source, champ.

Yo, Disney did the best job... (Below threshold)
jim:

Yo, Disney did the best job they could. It's just that Michael Moore made the movie through Miramax. Disney forbade Miramax to distribute it through them, forcing Miramax to find another distributor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?ex=1189137600&en=b0a919ae80cf935e&ei=5070

Miramax was founded by Harvey and Bob Weinstein. This incident seems to have been the final straw for Miramax's founders, the Weinstein brothers, to leave and form their own studio. Fahrenheit 9/11 was one of the last movies the Weinstein brothers released at Miramax.

Yo, I posted 2 FBI guys.</p... (Below threshold)
jim:

Yo, I posted 2 FBI guys.

If you don't trust Wikipedia, you are free to go and disprove those quotes.

Tiger.

Jim:... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

Tell you what, Marc - I'm for Sandy Berger under oath, if we can have Karl Rove under oath as well.
Sounds good? Karl's got nothing to hide, right?

"Nice" deflection, but sorry I ain't bitin', you can take the Rove argument to another thread.

"forcing Miramax to find an... (Below threshold)
yo:

"forcing Miramax to find another distributor."

Thank you for making my point for me.

Face it, man, capitalism works, and works well.

There's no censorship of which you speak, going on in the USA.

Our civil liberties are not being attacked.

And, for the record, Mike Eisner is a democrat.

Jim,you did post 2... (Below threshold)
yo:

Jim,

you did post 2 FBI guys.

Did they quite because they didn't like/understand:

"for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression"?

Or, did Nicoletti quit cuz he didn't like the dramatization?

And, if Coleman quit because he was concerned that his FBI friends wouldn't talk to him - was that due to the fact that the message was wrong, or that it cast an unflatteringly light on what did happen?

You don't know those answers. So, you're gonna' need to dig deeper.

2 FBI guys do not a argument make.

OK, then, yo - so no censor... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, then, yo - so no censorship is being applied to "Path to 9/11" either.

It's simply that the creator of "Path to 9/11" doesn't have sole ownership, and doesn't have another distribution route in place.

Well, yo, as the FBI guys s... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, yo, as the FBI guys says in the quote I put on this page:

"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.'
Jim,if you dropped... (Below threshold)
yo:

Jim,

if you dropped the lame lefty logic, your arguments would resonate better.

Again, I would tend to agree with you, and again, I also wouldn't put it past Clinton(s) to use some of that Hollywood pull of theirs to derail the release of this DVD.

Point being: Clintons suck (or were sucked, depending on when and where you stand).

"footnotes to NYT and MS... (Below threshold)
Brian:

"footnotes to NYT and MSNBC"

Um, lemme see, Alex - What are two "sources" even less credible than Wikipedia?

Wow, what a genius you are. Had you shown any interest in actually knowing the sources, you would have seen the MSNBC source was a video. Are you saying that they faked a video interview? That your own eyes deceived you? And that the NYT fabricated a quote from an FBI agent, who apparently has seen no need to tell anyone that they did that?

You just did a great job of showing that you are less credible than Wikipedia. At least they use verifiable sources.

Why didn't you just say, "No, Brian, I did not see those citations. Thanks for setting me straight"?

Well Marc, I think Sandy Be... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well Marc, I think Sandy Berger's another topic too - but ok, he is mentioned in "Path to 9/11".

So, while we're all constructing scenarios here - I'll give you Clinton, Gore *and* Sandy Berger under oath re: pre-9/11, if I can get George Bush and Dick Cheney under oath about the same.

That's fair, isn't it?

Such a level of truth would be great for the country. We can all dream...

"'And this had a lot of his... (Below threshold)
yo:

"'And this had a lot of historical inaccuracy.'"

And, like I said, did he not understand the fact that this was a docu-drama?

Dude, you're getting circular, now.

We've seen what Clinton und... (Below threshold)
yo:

We've seen what Clinton under oath looks like, already.

It all depends on the definition of "is" now, doesn't it?

Under oath: I did no have sexual relations with that woman.

I'm for Sandy Berger und... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

I'm for Sandy Berger under oath, if we can have Karl Rove under oath as well.
Sounds good? Karl's got nothing to hide, right?

Berger admitted to, was convicted of and punished for a crime - stealing documents from the National Archives.

Shouldn't he testify under oath whether or not Rove testifies? What does Rove have to do with it?

"punished for a crime"... (Below threshold)
yo:

"punished for a crime"

Yeah, like Lindsey Lohan was "punished"

Berger's still on the hook for a promised lie detector test.

Dammit: Clinton wasn't und... (Below threshold)
yo:

Dammit: Clinton wasn't under oath when he made that statement.

He was just speaking to the American public about.

This is circular, yo - beca... (Below threshold)
jim:

This is circular, yo - because you're refusing to see the FBI guy has already dealt with the point you're raising.

He's saying there's a difference between artistic license (= dramatization. Which is the "drama" part of "docudrama") and historical inaccuracy.

Artistic license would be creating a composite character out of several real, minor historical people - as long as the composite character did all the things the several different people actually did.

Historical inaccuracy would be having a character do something that contradicts what the real person did in real life.

So, giving Napoleon an irritable manservant who hears Napoleon's private misgivings = artistic license.

Having Napoleon invade Russia with airplanes = historical inaccuracy.

Got the difference?

So, giving Clinton a Secret Service guy who hears Clinton's complaints about Lewinsky = artistic license.

But saying Clinton actually had Bin Laden in his sights, with an attack right there, and Berger himself on Clinton's presumed orders had them back off - that's historical innacuracy, because that important event simply did not go down that way, period, according to the historical record.

Well yo, it's true that I c... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well yo, it's true that I can tend to be more combative here, than would serve my arguments if I actually want to convince anybody. :)

Jim, we know you are not tr... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Jim, we know you are not trying to convince anybody, not least because you never bother to identify which "historical inaccuracies" you think the film has.

But it is the vehemence with which you defend the indefensible that is so amusing.

Oh, and "historical record"... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Oh, and "historical record" ? That would be the record that we already know that Clinton administration committed crimes to alter.

OMG, Jim is an even bigger ... (Below threshold)
JO:

OMG, Jim is an even bigger idiot than I originally thought.

D'oh. Jim, wise up. You embarrass yourself.

"Got the difference?"... (Below threshold)
yo:

"Got the difference?"

Under your definition, yeah. But, these are politics we're discussing.

So, on one level, I wholly agree with you, on the other, meh .. not so much.

And, combative is all well and good, but not when you're citing liberal sites ;)

That's be like me using an O'Reilly link at HuffPo (not that I would do that, as I'm sure my tires would get slashed).

Enough of this "my link is ... (Below threshold)
Cardinals Nation:

Enough of this "my link is better than your link" crap. The bottom line is that a for-profit corporation (ABC) is not releasing a potentially profitable product. Why? Why would that happen? How often does that happen?

Perhaps if the box-set was covered in lead-based paint and had a "Made in China" sticker slapped on the side it might be a little more palatable. Think about it.

Enough of this "my li... (Below threshold)

Enough of this "my link is better than your link" crap. The bottom line is that a for-profit corporation (ABC) is not releasing a potentially profitable product. Why? Why would that happen? How often does that happen?...exactly

Please read Bill Richardson... (Below threshold)

Please read Bill Richardson's recently published article on how we must reconfigure the entire US Foreign Policy,printed in the Harvard International Review, yet has hardly been noticed by any mainstream media.

You could conclude that Bill Richardson is changing the nature of the debate between the Democrat candidates and improving the international focus of their dialogue, not to mention being the strongest candidate to speak for ending the Iraq war immediately.

I hope you can share this important document with your friends, colleagues, and readers. It is a very important international policy breakthrough and deserves to be read and considered by every single American, the diplomatic community from every nation, as well as your insightful readers! I am not officially connected to his campaign, but as a private citizen, I do recognize the importance of this statement enough to send it to you.

Thank you, Stephen Fox
___________________________________

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's International Policies, from Harvard International Review

"New Realism: Crafting a US Foreign Policy for a New Century"
Governor Bill Richardson
Redacted from the Harvard International Review

US foreign policymakers face novel challenges in the 21st century. Jihadists & environmental crises have replaced armies and missiles as the greatest threats; globalization has eroded the significance of national borders. Many problems that were once national are now global, and dangers that once came only from states now come also from societies--not from hostile governments, but from hostile individuals or from impersonal social trends, such as the consumption of fossil fuels. The piece does a credible job of laying out the problems before us and arguing that Bush has not taken the appropriate measures to deal with them.

The highlights of Richardson's plans:

First and foremost, the United States must repair its alliances. US leaders also must restore commitment to international law and multilateral cooperation.

Promoting expansion of the UN Security Council's permanent membership to include Japan, India, Germany, and one country each from Africa and Latin America.

Ethical reform at the United Nations so that this vital institution can help many underdeveloped and destitute member states meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Expanding the G8 to include India and China.

The US government must join the International Criminal Court and respect all international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions."

On environmental issues, the United States must be the leader, not the laggard, in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by embracing the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, Lead the world with a man-on-the-moon effort to improve energy efficiency and to commercialize clean, alternative technologies.

Stop considering diplomatic engagement with others as a reward for good behavior.

Various efforts including ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

The United States needs to start showing, both through its words and through its actions, that this is not, as the Jihadists claim, a clash of civilizations. Rather, it is a clash between civilization and barbarity.

Closing Guantanamo

The United States also needs to pressure Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other friends in the Arab world to reform their education systems, which are incubators of anti-US sentiment.

Spend more to develop first responders and to drastically improve public health facilities, which, five years after 9/11, are not ready for a biological attack.

The United States needs to lead the global fight against poverty, which is the basis of so much violence.

Encourage rich countries to honor UN Millennium goal commitments.

Lead donors on debt relief, shifting aid from loans to grants, and focus on primary health care and affordable vaccines.

Promote trade agreements, which create more jobs in all nations and which seriously address wage disparities, worker rights, and the environment.

Pressure pharmaceutical companies to allow expanded use of generic drugs, and encourage public-private partnerships to reduce costs and enhance access to anti-malarial drugs and bed nets.

Promote a multilateral Marshall Plan for the Middle East and North Africa.
_____________________________________

I look forward to your reply,
Stephen Fox
[email protected]

The path to 911 hit a major... (Below threshold)
914:

The path to 911 hit a major roadblock when BJs main squeeze (aka) Sandra Burglar stole all the pre intelligence on the attack!
Now the filthy scoundrels think their gettin back in the white house? not a fu kin prayer in hell you b stards...

Well, ABC has a third optio... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Well, ABC has a third option. Release the DVD overseas, not under Region 1 encoding. Of course, that would pretty much put the nail in the coffin about why they are holding back. (Region 1 DVDs play in the US).

Of course, it wouldn't take long for someone on Bittorrent to rip the DVD and reencode it...

For the sake of links. Only... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

For the sake of links. Only films that hoe the leftist view can be allowed. Looked at all the effort to defend a known propagandist like Michael Moore and to discredit a film depicing the true but unfavorable to the left 's icon, Bill Clinton. Sad.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/09/the_smear_campaign_against_abc.html
The Smear Campaign Against ABC's 'The Path to 9/11'

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008958

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=157383

I look forward to ... (Below threshold)
marc:
I look forward to your reply, Stephen Fox [email protected]
Screw Bill Richardson, he flatly stated he's in favor of an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq.

That makes whatever he purposes on other issues mere pablum.

Just a few more links... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:
Fox, wonderful spam, may yo... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Fox, wonderful spam, may you be swiftly banned.

Oh, and answer this, will Richardson do a better job of finding employment for Clinton's bimbos than he did at the UN?

I've received a couple of c... (Below threshold)

I've received a couple of complaints about the Stephen Fox off-topic post on Richardson. I've previously advised Fox that I would happily post any relevant information he could provide, but that his current method could be considered spamming. He agreed.

Apparently he has forgotten our earlier exchange. A third strike and he's outta here - or, at least, I will so recommend - but his content isn't much more off-topic than the crap some others put up, so I'm not deleting it.

We do take these reports seriously and try to respond accordingly, but in the framework of trying to allow the most open debate possible.

Frankly, if we were too restrictive, a lot of these folks would be left staring at their empty MySpace pages.

Hey Jim -- the first thing ... (Below threshold)

Hey Jim -- the first thing you have to demonstrate in a libel case is that the speaker asserted that the libel was FACT. Hard to do when the prelude to the show says that it is a dramatization only. Opinions can't be libelous.

So...this is about hearsay ... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

So...this is about hearsay evidence from this guy

(cut and past of course)

"The writer of the movie is an unabashed conservative named Cyrus Nowrasteh. Last year, Nowrasteh spoke on a panel titled, "Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift." He has described Michael Moore as "an out of control socialist weasel," and conducted interviews with right-wing websites like FrontPageMag."

Now that really means little...
As for suits...probably if they were going to be filed...they already would have been filed.

I am against censorship of any kind...it should be released!

Political pressure? Maybe...

But please don't paint Disney as some Liberal bastion.

So your point is mantis, th... (Below threshold)
kim:

So your point is mantis, that in 2000 bin Laden had everyone fooled, and in the campaigns disregarded Terror. I agree. Read Scary Larry's op-ed just the next year.

Now whose National Security apparatus should have known better, that of the Governor of Texas, or that of the President of the United States and Satrap of the Globe?
==========

Well, SPQR, some of these i... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, SPQR, some of these inaccuracies are listed on the wikpedia link I posted above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11#Controversy_and_criticisms

But I'll list it further below, here, and go to original sources.

Perhaps the worst of the film's historical inaccuracies is it's scene, taking place during the Clinton administration, that has:

(1) soldiers during a planned and executed operation, that are now literally within striking distance of Osama Bin Laden

- and there were none.

In fact, there was never any initiative of this sort that was actually put into action. Let alone a nearly successful one.

(2) this operation then called off by Sandy Berger

- when in fact both Sandy Berger AND George Tenet say they were called off by by George Tenet.

Now you can discount Berger - but why would Tenet lie to put *himself* on the hook? I don't see any reason why Tenet would say this, unless it was actually the truth.

Quoting below from the 9/11 report:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

Pavitt thought that it was Berger's doing, though perhaps on Tenet's advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to "turn off" the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger's recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.

So there you have it.

Sure wavemaker, you're righ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sure wavemaker, you're right there.

I'm just speculation. I think everyone involved would like to avoid a lawsuit; and I think ABC is thinking that if they just don't release Path to 9/11, everything'll just mellow out.

I just consider that scenario more likely, than direct and sole pressure through both of the Clintons via some undefined underhanded means..

Jim, and it is the most lik... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Jim, and it is the most likely scenario ... if you completely ignore all the facts and law involved.

So, SPQR - do you really th... (Below threshold)
jim:

So, SPQR - do you really think the Clintons are *solely* and *directly* responsible for forcing ABC to not release this on DVD, when the Clintons were not able to stop ABC from broadcasting it in the first place?

And how do you think the Clintons were able to go about this?

jim, first of all with resp... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

jim, first of all with respect to your discussion above about the supposed inaccuracy of who called off the operation, frankly I don't think of either George Tenet nor Sandy Berger as reliable witnesses. Tenet's recent book was full of historical inaccuracies and Berger has undertaken criminal actions to cover up the Clinton record on terrorism.

Secondly, I don't think that the clinton's are "solely" and "directly" responsible for stopping the DVD's release. That's a ridiculous strawman argument on your part. I know that fear of a libel suit is nil. Without direct evidence of pressure, we can't conclude who is pressuring ABC not to release it. But that it is a political act looks pretty reliable.

How do they do it? There is this invention called a telephone.

Well SPQR, believe whatever... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well SPQR, believe whatever you want to believe - you asked for the inaccuracy and I showed it to you.

And whatever inaccuracies you consider Tenet so guilty of, his statements in the 9/11 commission's report are more likely to be accurate than a TV writer's who wasn't there and has no documentation, and has created the entire scene out of his imagination.

In any case, SPQR, what do ... (Below threshold)
jim:

In any case, SPQR, what do you think is the reason(s) behind this delay?

For those who think Tenet a... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

For those who think Tenet a reliable witness, from a review of his memoir:

On the day after 9/11, he [Tenet] adds, he ran into Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative and the head of the Defense Policy Board, coming out of the White House. He says Mr. Perle turned to him and said: "Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility." Here's the problem: Richard Perle was in France on that day, unable to fly back after September 11. In fact Perle did not return to the United State until September 15.

Set the Wayback Machine for... (Below threshold)

Set the Wayback Machine for 1991, on a warm afternoon at San Jose State University, Bill Clinton, running against George H.W. Bush and H. Ross Perot, tells California educators the "Peace Dividend," should be used to beat swords into plowshares.

In order to plunder the "dividend," Bill Clinton sets up a college. In 1993 Clinton appoints Congressman Leon Panetta, OMB Director and Panetta puts Fort Ord on the block. At Panetta's behest, Congress passes the Pryor Amendment. That is, Fort Ord without use restrictions; the amendment also appropriates money for legal defenses. Les Aspen, slated to head the campus, passes away unexpectedly. Clinton appoints Panetta chief of staff in 1994. And, The Presidential Search Committee picks Vermont's Peter P. Smith. Currently, former Arkansas Governor David H. Pryor (D) serves as Dean of the Clinton School of Public Service, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Ushered through the California Legislature, as a San Jose State, Salinas, extension campus (with help from newly appointed CSU Chancellor Barry Munoz), the politicos co-opt the proposed extension on Fort Ord, and christen it their own personal residential campus, CSU Monterey Bay. Bill Clinton dedicates CSU-MB, Labor Day 1995. Leon Panetta also knows the Clintons "20-year plan." First order of business: acquire and train Middle Eastern flight-students.

November 2001, Bill Clinton speaking at Georgetown University says, "Here in the United States, we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent." "This country once looked the other way when a significant number of Native Americans were dispossessed and killed." Clinton went back centuries to regale Georgetown students with Crusader atrocities against Moslems, "we are still paying for it."

At CSU-MB's dedication, when Bill Clinton called the nonprofit sector "a political gold mine," few knew the politicos had already purchased several large tracts of military housing from the DOD, for $1-dollar. That, nonprofits use "foundations" to funnel profits wherever they desire. Nothing is greedier than a California landlord; Fort Ord's new owners were no exception. They ruthlessly misrepresent the campus and pocket untold millions of dollars in student rents, etc. As the years progress, the politicos employ every education scam imaginable.

Bill Clinton concluded his Georgetown speech, by saying that the issue revolves around "the nature of truth." Maybe so, but that's a straw man: an argument set up to be defeated. As early as 1993, the Clintons began siphoning off the so called "Peace Dividend" to elect Hillary Clinton president of the United States, and create the progressive paradigm best suited to return Bill Clinton to the White House, a wartime co-president. Truth is, nobody games the system like the Clintons: http://theseedsof9-11.com




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy