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 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 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 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 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 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 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 my head.

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" 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 dictator dont want us to know the truth whats the clinton crooks have to hide?

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, 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 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 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" names?

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 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 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 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.

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 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 little deeper than Wikipedia and others, and go to the primary sources.

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

"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, 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 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 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 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 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' 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 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 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 I'm referring to is "Stupid White Men".

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.