Conservatives are lining up against 'Path to 9/11'

[kstewart33]

From thinkprogress.org:

Conservatives On The Path to 9/11: ‘Unacceptable,’ ‘Defamatory,’ ‘Strewn With A Lot of Problems,’ ‘Zero Factual Basis’

The criticism against ABC’s docudrama The Path to 9/11 isn’t isolated simply to Clinton aides. In fact, many conservatives have criticized the film. Here are a few examples –

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor:

The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor:

The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.”

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog:

One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to . But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:

When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.

Captain’s Quarters blog:

If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:

Look, “The Path to 9/11″ is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.

More at: http://www.thinkprogress.org

[babylonsister]

1. Holy mackeral!

:popcorn: :applause:

[eccles12]

55. The RW is coming out against now because they know their plan has

backfired. Now most will see this as just another example of how the RW sanctions lies and brings to mind all the lies that were told pre-and post 9/11 by the Bush administration.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

79. I'm not so sure.

Remembering that the rank-and-file GOP hate the mass media just about as much as we do, it's not a stretch to see them being critical of it for anything.

[Tellurian]

83. HOLD IT!!! THEY ARE SAVING FACE HERE, NOTHING MORE!!!!

Great, but what a line of Malarky!

Bill Bennett...ha! you've got to be kidding.
Him siding with Clinton?

Never happened!

[blm]

2. Never trust GOP motives - they're more likely worried it'll effect Hillary

nomination for 2008 if Bill looks like a bigger problem.

Remember how alot of them came out and condemned the antiHillary book that came out last year? The same people who touted the gushed over the liefest from the Swifts.

Had the book come out in 2008 against Hillary the nominee, the same people would be quoting it as the god's truth.

[wryter2000]

3. What the heck is going on?

Are they trying to save credibility? :wtf:

[Jacobin]

7. I don't know, but I hope Hell has its heaters turned up high

Because I see a snowstorm coming down under.

[Imagevision]

4. If ABC continues under the guise, "we told you some of it was made up"?

They're ass is definitly grass and may also cost them the senate, the house is a given...!

[rman]

8. Then they could not call it docudrama,

nor give it to schools as historical material.

[Jacobin]

5. Amazing

These people were undoubtedly given an advance copy, since they are RWers. It must be godawful, if they're freaking out about the lies.

[electprogdems]

6. oh please

they are worried about blowback.

They would be pleased as punch if this thing went off without a hitch.

[renate]

17. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[madmusic]

9. They know they can't win this one.

That's all.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

10. They're scared that they've gone too far & have awoken a sleeping giant.

Which they have, of course.

[QuestionAll...]

11. odd thought here...

I find it a bit surprising that ABC would think they could get away with this film without some confrontation.

Wonder if this film is some sort of test grounding to see how many are still awake and alive and how far blatant propaganda like this can go without challenge. yes, I realise this has been done in many other ways for a long time now - but this one feels a bit ickier than usual to me. There's something more behind it.

==
on edit:
I think I might have just answered myself.
Perhaps this is a precident to quash other 911 documentaries with real merit from being aired.

[Robbien]

21. Remember this whole movement started with the blogs/internet

the Democratic leadership was silent. We started this last week but the Democratic party did not jump in until just a couple of days ago.

If we were not here doing our stuff, I believe this movie would have sailed through without a peep from the Democratic leadership.

[KoKo]

81. But, Bill Clinton sent a letter on September 1 to ABC....how did he know?

It was after that the Blogs started on it. And Center for American Progress even had a petition and they don't usually come in early on any internet efforts. :shrug:

When it was reported Clinton sent a letter on September 1, I wondered if the Dems hadn't been tipped off and so they then tipped off some of the key bloggers to get on top of it. If so, that would be good news because it means the Dems finally get they have "troops" on the left that they need to use instead of ignoring us.

[Sammy Pepys]

12. Easy explanation

They want to be able to whine about whatever anti-Bush stuff comes out in the future. So they're giving us a pass now so we'll give them a pass later.

[displacedtexan]

13. Ahem.

[Lasher]

65. Did you happen to notice...

[mhatrw]

14. Blaming ANYBODY for 9/11 works to their disadvantage.

If people start thinking about who in our government is responsible, they won't stop at Clinton.

[liberaldemocrat7]

28. hmmm

[frylock]

32. correct

[progressoid]

84. Yep, we only need to look to their attempted blocking of the commission

for proof.

[Rex]

15. See? Not even real conservatives will stand up for this crap-o-rama.

You know who is the biggest enemy of traditional conservatives in this country? Yup, George Bush. HAHAHA.

George, I cannot tell you how happy I am that you've managed to fracture the GOP into 3 parties...well...something that not even the Dems could have done!

Keep it up loser! At this rate there won't BE a Republican party in 2008. HAHAHAHAHAfuckingHA!

[rosesaylavee]

18. You are so right.

The republicans are imploding. There will be no party unity across the aisle for many years to come. Thanks W, for being a equal opportunity divider.

[SeattleGirl]

16. I had to clean my glasses to make sure I was reading correctly.

:wow:

[intaglio]

19. There is a small possibility;

Vanishingly small but still there; that they are starting to realise that they have been lied to by their idol.

Probably not but worth thinking about

[Robbien]

23. No, I believe they just realized their big error

Right before an election the RNC is supposed to energize their base (i.e., gay marriage, immigration, etc). This time the GOP base is not being energized, the Dems are up in arms and energized.

Whoops.

[napi21]

20. Do you suppose there's bad info on Shrub in it too?

Earlier today, I read a post that saidthe Sun. part 1 was all bad for the Clinton Admin, but Mon Part 2 was badtoward ShrubCo. that's the only place I read anything like that, but it sure would explaine why these cons are damning the film, wouldn't it?

[frylock]

34. negative..

there was a scene by scene summary posted by the Editor & Publisher. Shithead comes away smelling like a rose.

[PADemD]

35. Do you think

that part II will be pre-empted by Bush's prime-time speech on Monday (11th) so that the public will only see part I?

[napi21]

42. No. At least not the whole thing. I heard Shrubslittle talk is 15-17 min

long, and thisPart 2 of themovie is 2 hours.

[Justice Is Comin]

22. Bill "fox whore" Bennett sanctions this boycott?

:wow: :crazy: :wow:

[Imagevision]

24. Bill Bennett: "is strewn with a lot of problems"

[Raine]

25. CONservatives know

that in two years when they are out, this same thing will be done to them so yeah it worries them plenty.

[Kurovski]

26. K&R.(nt)

[whistle]

27. I heard Rush Limbaugh make a threat on his show today that is ABC

...pulls Path to 911 that, "...there are enough copies of the video to this <film> that someone was going to make sure it gets put on the internet. This film is going to be seen whether it goes on the network or not."

Now I believe that Limbaugh has a copy, and ABC would have a record of all pre-broadcast copies of which there were only a limited number sent to conservatives, so it would not be that difficult to account for all the copies and it would be among other things a copyright infringement to broadcast this film in the public domain.

The other argument used was if Clinton and the Clinton administration has nothing to hide about their conduct, then why should they care what is said about them in any film. So, because the democratic party has come forward demanding that the film be suppressed, that is proof that it must be true. That was the writer and avowed conservative Cyrus Nowrasteh who made that suggestion on Sean Hannity radio show about an hour ago.

This whole thing is so fascistic I want to hurl :puke:

[wildflowergardener]

30. saving face?

Maybe they are trying to save face if the movie does get pulled - it won't seem like they wanted something untrue to be shown - they were against it too.

The democrats didn't "win" because they didn't want it shown either.

Meg

[glitch]

41. If they have nothing to hide why should they care if lies are told about

them? Defies logic. I guess we're not talking about any kind of artistic genius here. I've been doing this a lot, but once again I feel compelled to :rofl:

[whistle]

48. The writer Cyrus Nowrasteh also said something else on Hannity

...he said that all of the reviews are based on only viewing Part I, which was from Jan 2003 up to 2000, the Clinton years only. Part II deals with the 2000 election and Bush taking office in 2001 up to the 9-11 events. Nowrasteh claims that no one has seen the reviews of Part II and won't until that film is actually aired on Monday September 11th. We have no idea what the treatment will be of how the Bush people handled the actual attacks.

As I listened to this rubbish I thought what a liar. They know it will show Bush in a complete whitewash and as the 1st part depicts Clinton people all to blame based on made up material, the 2nd part will suggest in equally public relations damage control, that all of the negligence which Clinton allowed resulted in the disastrous consequences which became the 9-11 events.

Limbaugh without mentioning any specifics, claims that Clinton people had two dozen opportunities to take down Bin Laden, but didn't while this writer Cyrus Nowrasteh and Hannity both suggested that in 2000 some 10 different times Bin Laden could have been taken by Clinton but wasn't.

Total rubbish, but these people just keep running with the fabrications and calling it fact.

[bullwinkle428]

56. Falwell tried to spread "The Clinton Chronicles" far and wide; it

never really got anywhere!

"Falwell took the money and cranked out the smear-campaign-in-a-videotape called The Clinton Chronicles: An Investigation into the Alleged Criminal Activities of Bill Clinton. It was unsophisticated conservative agitprop, full of lies and unsubstantiated rumors about both the President and the First Lady.

The producer of the tape, Patrick Matrisciana, later confessed to having posed in the video as an anonymous journalist. The silhouetted figure on the tape told Jerry that President Clinton was killing off whistleblowers who knew too much about his private life. It was a complete fabrication. When the news broke about the complete dishonesty of the tape, in true form Falwell tried to disclaim having any editorial control over the project.

Although ostensibly motivated by hatred for the Democrats, The Clinton Chronicles had been primarily a moneymaking effort. Like any televangelist, money was always an issue for Falwell. His empire required continuous infusions of cash."

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/televangelists/jerry-falwell/

[Jed Dilligan]

73. What a joke

Like a movie on the internet has the same impact as one on broadcast TV.

They do love thinking of themselves as the rebels, don't they? How many years do they have to rule before they start acting like the establishment again? Or are they "rebels" until the last person who disagrees with them is dead?

[jazzjunkysue]

29. This is why I am a DUer. Thanks. K&R. n/t

[bliss_eternal]

31. This movie has the potential to hurt EVERYONE...

not just one party or the other--everyone! What ABC/Disney is doing is partisan--granted. But they are hurting their side with this crap, too.

The families deserve better than this. Those that died that day deserve MUCH better than this. Clinton doesn't deserve this. Our children are entitled to an accurate and honest account of the events.

[AlCzervik]

33. Is is possible there is something bad about Bush during the second part?

[whistle]

49. See my post #48

[Higans]

57. Ya, a bunch of lie's about how god damn great he is.

[glitch]

36. Ha! This is where the paleocons distance themselves from the xtian recons

:rofl:

[koopie57]

37. I think they don't want this on the air

because if Clinton sues for defamation of character and the case goes to trial, the truth will set us free. And it sure seems like there are a whole lot of people ready to talk and tell what they know. I hope they show it.

[civildisoBDence]

38. Last one to the party? Mea culpa...

I may be the last one to the party, but I'm finally convinced that this docu-whateverthefuckitis goes over the line from free speech to defamation.

You guys have been right all along.

News and commentary, left to right

[tuvor]

39. I smell bullshit. (Can you blame me if I'm dubious?)

That's a lot of conservative opinion doing the unexpected, all at the same time over the same subject.

This cannot be a coincidence of honest lucidity on their parts.

[Spiffarino]

64. I'm with you. n/t

[Lasher]

66. You are correct

It's just like when conservative pundits mouth the exact same talking points all at once about the exact same issue. I wonder how they get their marching orders, and from whom?

[NashVegas]

40. You Know What? I'm Thankful

I just watched Paula Zahn's interview with Michael Medved, Howie Kurtz, and the guy who produced "The Reagans."

Kurtz was the only one of the three who got it. Go figure.

In retrospect, I'm glad "The Reagans" got pulled. Producer guy brought up Shakespeare's Richard III as an example of dramatic license, but what the apologist didn't mention was that while Shakespeare was writing in the time of the ruling granddaughter of the man who slaughtered Richard III, Willie didn't have anyone around who dared to force him to keep it honest. That fellow, and the makers of "Paths" DO have us around.

And they just need to fucking deal with it.

[ronnykmarshall]

43. Bravo!

Good for them.

[D23MIURG23]

44. This is weird but...

I think it is a good sign. Perhaps conservatives are coming out against it simply because the same device could be used to libel their people as well (as it was with the Reagens), and they feel it is better not to allow precedents for libelous accounts of history to be sold as factual. To be fair this sort of issue really should transcend party lines. If circumstances were different maybe it wouldn't seem that surprising that conservatives are bashing this film.

[Jamastiene]

45. Bill Bennett too?

This one has legs. Something tells me ABC has screwed themselves.

[D23MIURG23]

46. Yeah no kidding

I almost shit myself when I heard that. If that doesn't worry ABC/Disney then nothing will.

[Jamastiene]

47. I know.

He is usually way to the right. So are many others. I say we keep this one kicked.

[whistle]

50. Only if William Buckley comes out and condemns the film also....

....that will be the wooden stake through the heart of Path to 911!:yoiks:

[VP505]

51. I might be way

wrong but it seems to me that at least some of the hard core right are realizing that this so called docudrama will eventually be exposed for what it really is. When that happens it's going to hurt them more if they condone showing it "as is". It's like they realize the Dem's can and probably will use that against them, so they can preempt that by opposing it.

[GoreDean2008]

52. BOB IGER'S WIFE IS WILLOW BAY

Did you all know that Disney CEO Bob Iger's wife is former journalist Willow Bay? This lead to only one of the two conclusions: either Willow Bay is another ultra-right-wing liar journalist who would happily watch The Path to 9/11 on TV or Bob Iger is a bad husband who is not listening to Willow Bay's advice not to air The Path to 9/11, if she said so, because Willow Bay has good reasons to know what is going on and she can easily make a judgment on what is right and what is wrong.

What kind of husband is Bob Iger to damage his wife's character and reputation by not pulling this fakedrama off the air immediately?

See Willow Bay's bio at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_Bay .

[ladym55]

53. Very interesting

MSM today has been busily reporting that the concerns about the movie have ALL come from liberals and members of the Clinton administration. hmmm. And the reviewer in the New York Times seemed to think the depiction is okay--enough fault apparently to spread to both sides. :puke:

[papau]

71. It will air & MSM will tell us it was fair because Bush did not look like

Christ.

MSM is controlled by the right wing GOP - and no right wing smear of Democrats has been or will ever be pulled. Fox and the others will pretend to try to stop this evil but then fail - as planned.

[NotGivingUp]

54. wow! i'm shocked!

[raising2moredems]

58. Generating some cover

As if (or should I say when) they lose the house, the investigation will begin in earnest.

[CAG]

59. I saw Chris "I wuv * " Wallace on Faux & friends this am, & the poor widdl

e friends looked shocked that Wallace wasn't towing the company line.

I for one give some props to these conservatives who demonstrate that they have an ounce of objectivity

[NMMNG]

60. Interesting

Very interesting.

[Yukari Yakumo]

61. I think the Dean Barnett quote says it all.

Looks like full damage control is on.

Now that it's getting a lot of (negative) attention, I'm guessing many of them are now expecting the propaganda piece to backfire and a likely backlash from the public.

[newyawker99]

78. Hi Aya Reiko!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[madrchsod]

62. looks like bush`s propaganda movie is dead in the water now

just like his presidency. the ship of state has struck an iceberg and is going down by the bow...

[Spiffarino]

63. Bah. It's a set-up.

This gives ABC cover to say, "See? It pisses off conservatives, too! We're fair and balanced!" Then they go ahead and air this load of bullshit without opposition.

I don't buy it. It has a Rovian stench.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

67. It puts egg on their faces

Such an obvious bullshit hackjob that even they can't support it. Plus, I think many of them realize the way the political winds are blowing and are seizing upon this as a way to save some face in the coming debacle. "Hey, I may not have criticized the war but at least I came out against the ABC smear job!"

[Benfea]

68. You're missing one very obvious point.

If what you say is true, why didn't they stop themselves from the thousands of other unsupportable lies they've told in the past and still produce every day? Why speak out on this and not any of the others?

Don't tell me this lie is somehow worse than any of the others. I'm sure you won't have to think to hard to remember something worse.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

69. No, it's not

I realize these numbnuts have passed along every bullshit Monica/War on Terra/Swiftboat rumor that came their way. I'm just saying that they are trying to cling to a shred of credibility in order to hang on to their jobs in the wake of the '06 elections. The ABC show is such debunk-able crap that it affords them the opportunity to get some credibility by panning it.

[Benfea]

76. I don't think your argument holds water.

As I said, they weren't "worried about their jobs" when they foisted all that other equally debunkable bullcrap on the American people. I don't know what game they're playing, but I'm positive they haven't suddenly discovered the importance of truth-telling.

[humbled_opinion]

70. Rovian Genius

Step 1. Controversial mockumentary about how Clinton had opportunities to get Osama Bin Laden fresh with conservative talking heads questioning the accuracy of the film.
Step 2. Produce one dead Osama Bin Laden right after the 5th anniversary of 911 making Brush the hero.

Result: Good for at least 15 points in the various midterm election races.

[Justice]

72. Notice not one accusation that contains false statements about Bush

Conservatives are unhappy about lies about Clinton -- no one seems to be saying that the movie makes false statements about Bush

[Wretched Refuse]

74. The long and winding Path to 9/11

Well, could not we go further back in our time machine and ask:
What the hell did George Bush I do to stop Osama? I mean why not do that? He had the whole middle east in his grubby little hands back in 1991, so why not take Osama out right then either?

Now HERE is a concept for y'all,

It has struck me that this "non-issue" (really if you think about all the treason this admin is doing, this is a non-issue) is REALLY the DLC re-asserting itself as the controller of ALL things Democrat.
I mean it is all a Clinton (+administration) face saving thing that now supposedly ALL god Dems come to the aid of their "fearless leader." Well, it really is sapping our "momentum" on other more important issues, and the corporate controlled DLC KNOWS THAT.

So, I have stayed outside the blogosphere on this one, except for the few phone calls to ABC radio to gnash my teeth on the air, with the likes of Levin (the Zionist) and the new idiot (Jerry) last night taking over Laura Ingram's 8-10 slot in the NY ABC market.

Screw Disney and ABC, they were the next to fall to the nazis after Fox anyway, everyone knew that. I believe that ABC is also stirring the pot to get all good Dems back into the DLC fold, as Hilary was starting to get REALLY antsy at the calls to debate Tasini and with Lamont, and the Screw the DLC push happening as of late, I feel this is the motive for the over-hype of this non-issue.

This all just another Corporate-control of our sense of "what is important."

[Dervill Crow]

75. I think I'm gonna faint.

Bill O’Reilly, Fox News pundit:

Ok, we’re talking about the run up to 9-11 and this movie that they’re re-cutting now — and they should because it puts words in the mouth of real people, actors playing real people that they didn’t say and its wrong.

[diamidue]

77. All I see

are a few "television" conservatives speaking out against this film. Television conservatives from stations other than ABC - who quite possibly are just using this opportunity to trash the competition. And probably at the suggestion of their station owners.

[KansDem]

80. Could this be an "out" for ABCDisney?

ABCDisney would never pull a film based on "liberal" outrage. However, if enough public neo-cons complain, then ABCDisney could pull the film and save face with their base of neo-con fascist viewers.

Just a thought...

[FoxOnTheRun]

82. more evidence for an inside job

[happydreams]

85. This is great. It looks like the conservatives are split in a

big way on this.
It sounds alot like the same thing that happened with the Intelligence Community over Iraq. I was surprised by how vociferously conservatives with integrity attacked Bush's policy.
I'm gonna take them on their word for now.