| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Now Clinton's lawyers demand ABC pull miniseries; Text of letter to ABC | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 9 2006, 11:23 AM (119 Views) | |
| kenny | Sep 9 2006, 11:23 AM Post #1 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
From Drudgereport: In New Letter, Clinton's Lawyers Demands ABC Yank Film By Greg Sargent On Friday evening, Bill Clinton's lawyers sent a new letter to ABC chief Bob Iger demanding that ABC yank "The Path to 9/11." We've obtained a copy of the letter, and it reads in part: "As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. `The Path to 9/11' not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film." Full text of the letter after the jump. The full text: Dear Bob, Despite press reports that ABC/Disney has made changes in the content and marketing of "The Path to 9/11," we remailn concerned about the false impression that airing the show will leave on the public. Labelng the show as "fiction" does not meet your responsibility to the victims of the September 11th attacks, their families, the hard work of the 9/11 Commission, or to the American people as a whole. At a moment when we should be debating how to make the nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, "The Path to 9/11" calls into question the accuracy of the Commission's report and whether fabricated scenes are, in fact, an accurate portrayal of history. Indeed, the millions spent on the production of this fictional drama would have been better spent informing the public about the Commission's actual findings and the many recommendations that have yet to be acted upon. Unlike this film, that would have been a tremendous service to the public. Although our request for an advance copy of the film has been repeatedly denied, it is all too clear that our objections to "The Path to 9/11" are valid and corroborated by those familiar with the film and intimately involved in its production. -- Your corporate partner, Scholastic, has disassociated itself from this proect. -- 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, who served as co-executive producer on "The Path to 9/11," has stated that he raised concerns about the accuracy of several scenes in the film and that his concerns were not addressed during production. -- Harvey Keitel, who plays the star role of FBI agent John O'Neill, told reporters yesterday that while the screenplay was presented to him as a fair treatment of historical events, he is upset that several scenes were simply invented for dramatic purposes. -- Numerous Members of Congress, several 9/11 Commissioners and prominent historians have spoken out against this movie. -- Indeed, according to press reports, the fact that you are still editing the film two days before it is scheduled to air is an admission that it is irreparably flawed. As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. "The Path to 9/11" not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film. Sincerely, Bruce R. Lindsey Chief Executive Officer William J. Clinton Foundation Douglas J. Band Counselor to President Clinton Office of William Jefferson Clinton |
![]() |
|
| George K | Sep 9 2006, 11:25 AM Post #2 |
|
Finally
|
We haven't seen it, but we've been told it's bad. So, you should do what we say. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Sep 9 2006, 11:28 AM Post #3 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Maybe the Democrats should do what the Mexican Government did with Children of Sanchez: buy the whole package and bury it so that no one sees it. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Sep 9 2006, 11:29 AM Post #4 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
You can't unring a bell. If it airs, it will be too late to undo any damage done. Granted this can all just be political tears form a polititcan looking out for his legacy. If so, screw Clinton! I despise all politicians, on both sides of the spectrum. But it also may be damaging not just to Clinton's side (who cares?) but to the public's impression of their goverment and our understanding of what supposedly happend that let up to the attacks. 9-11 was an important event. I think accuracy here is important. I don't think you can say, "Oh it is not a documentary, and we have free speech." when it comes to such an event as important as 9-11. |
![]() |
|
| George K | Sep 9 2006, 12:20 PM Post #5 |
|
Finally
|
First of all is it inaccurate? I don't know, and neither do the lawyers who have not seen the film. Secondly, you advocate free speech, for some, and only when you consider the matter important, and not at others? Is that what you're saying (Doing my damndest to sound like Quirt, here)? After all, when the New York Times broke the story of NSA surveillance of international calls coming and leaving the US, the free-speech advocates on this forum were all over it, saying that it's the New York Times right to publish this story, despite the fact that it may compromise national security. Obviously, the need for free speech outweighs that security. In your views, getting history right (or at least what you think is right - we don't know yet) is more important than free speech. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Sep 9 2006, 12:46 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I wish I could read something from Democrats that is something other than posturing- it is getting very boring. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Sep 9 2006, 12:51 PM Post #7 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Hay, the Iraq was (is) an important event--you don't see anyone from the Left criticizing Michael Moore for his crapfest of Fahrenheit 911, do you? |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Sep 9 2006, 12:52 PM Post #8 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
George I think they should just show it. Free speech! Accuracy of content doesn't matter. After all, it is entertainment for the masses. If it has lies (or truths) that makes Democrats look bad, and the public swings to the right as a result, then so be it. If someone has issues they can produce their own show. |
![]() |
|
| George K | Sep 9 2006, 12:59 PM Post #9 |
|
Finally
|
(back to late 2005) Kenny! I think the Times should publish it. Free spech! Compromise of national security doesn't matter. It's all for the education of the masses. If true, it makes the Republicans look bad, and the public swings to the left as a result. If someone has issues, they can publish their own newspaper. (that's EXACTLY what was said here (except for the "own newspaper" part) Can't you just feel the love? |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Sep 9 2006, 01:01 PM Post #10 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
George.
|
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Sep 9 2006, 01:11 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Yeah I agree. It's just entertainment. It "gets the gist of it" and makes it up as it goes along! What's not to like? It's not propoganda. ABC should be able to do anything it wants. It's free speech! Besides- it's a corporation. Everyone knows corporations can't be told to do by the government. I've changed my mind. I support ABC's right to broadcast this piece of entertainment. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Sep 9 2006, 01:20 PM Post #12 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'm with ya. Also I understand the effect this "entertainment" can have on a country full of boneheads, I mean TVheads. But hey, them's the breaks. |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Sep 9 2006, 01:30 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I'm not ready to be philosophical. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







12:52 AM Jul 11