Posted on 09/07/2006 11:21:19 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
Cowards.
But the good news is, this will focus attention on exactly what was objected to.
If the Clintonistas had kept their mouths shut, maybe this particular part would have been lost in the shuffle.
Thanks, Blowzo Bill, for emphasizing your errors!!!
Try the link in post #2, this thread. Works.
And none of the people whining now were the least bit worried about the "accuracy" of Moore's movie, were they?
But who would ever show an "un-cut" copy on TV? What network would air it? And, even if the un-cut version were shown, the MSM would have all their darlings rip it up as "error-filled" and "un-true", etc......
Also sent a comment that I can get politically correct garbage anywhere, so why bother tuning in. Bummer, I was looking forward to this one. Oh well, I wasn't holding my breath over this anyway.
I have a feeling they didn't change it very much. They couldn't at this late date.
That reminded me of this recent 9-11 related thread...
Author: Book about 9/11 was watered down for TV(Peter Lance-Att.Fitzgerald-National Geo)
If the uncut scenes can get out on the net, they would probably get a lot more play and attention than if they would've been left in the movie.
I'd like to see those 25,000 "letters" ...
Maybe they received a single 5,000 letter email, repeated 50 times?
My thoughts exactly!
Nope, only that it violated CFR rules (which it did).
Here is what the Daily Kos has to say:
Let Mickey Be Your Umbrella by Hunter Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 11:10:41 AM PDT
Via PoliticsTV, here's a fictionalized scene you won't see in Disney's new attempts to exploit 9/11 for corporate and political gain. In this scene, President Bush sits on his ass for five minutes after being told that New York City was under attack by terrorists, apparently waiting for Jiminy Cricket to show up and tell him what to do:
Meanwhile, President Bill Clinton (who like other Democratic figures was not allowed to screen the movie, even though Disney/ABC distributed nine hundred copies to press critics, right wing media figures and even right-wing bloggers as part of their promotional efforts) has weighed in on behalf of treating history as history, stating in a very forceful four-page letter to ABC that:
The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely.
In a clearly hurried and panicked half-response, ABC has just issued a defensive statement declaring that the movie is "unfinished." ("Unfinished?" Really? What now, do you suppose they need to put a few computer-graphics Jar-Jars in the White House meetings, just to spice things up a bit?) We're also learning that the FBI agent who consulted on the project quit during production, due to the writers and producers "making things up."
The Families of September 11 have also weighed in. Their statement reads, in full:
As we mark five years since 9/11, we are inundated with the media's portrayal of that tragic day. Television miniseries, Hollywood films, comic books and countless "documentaries" are dramatizing and sometimes distorting the events leading up to and happening on 9/11.
Families of September 11 believes the best way to honor those who were lost is to make sure that what happened to them never happens again. As such, we must understand exactly what took place, and not allow "entertainers" to promote misleading or incorrect information as fact to the public.
If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. Any depiction of 9/11 that is not accurate and factual propagates myths, myths that may cause us future harm.
In order to make our country safer and more secure, we owe it to those who were lost to acknowledge that which took place, so that we can ensure it never happens again.
Via a must-read, must-internalize post by Glenn Greenwald, we see that the same right wing figures continue to freak out at even the hint of a bias away from hardline neoconservatism -- which is why some of the worst figures in American politics, people like Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt, want to associate themselves very tightly with Disney now. Here's Bill O'Reilly in 2003 talking about the travesty of a movie depicting Ronald Reagan, a movie that was pulled by CBS:
"Today CBS issued this statement, 'Although the mini-series features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience.' Well, fine, but how could CBS green light the film in the first place knowing that the producers, the director and the featured actors are all left wing thinkers?
"That would be like CBS commissioning a movie about the Clintons written by Rush Limbaugh and starring Dennis Miller and Ann Coulter. Do you think that would ever happen?"
Of course, that's uncannily close to what Disney actually did -- took a fictionalized script about the attacks on 9/11 written by a "good friend" of Rush Limbaugh, and figured that even though it flatly made up entire story themes and chains of fact, they'd just throw it up on the emotionally charged anniversary. Because heaven knows, apparently, Disney stands for crassly fictionalizing 9/11. I've frequently thought Oliver Stone batshit insane, and I had no interest in seeing his account of 9/11 either -- we watched it happen, we don't need fiction -- but at least even the nutty Stone knew which parts of history are still too raw, too sacred to mess with.
I don't fully understand why Disney would want to associate themselves with "fictionalized" fake histories of one of the most traumatic events in recent U.S. history. When I look at Mickey Mouse, I don't want to see 9/11 in the corners of my mind -- I can't imagine that branding is going to work out for them. Disneyland was a wonderful place to me, as a child, but as an adult I more and more see the dark back alleys down which my money is carted away, and it's not fun anymore. Watching "Bambi" or "Little Mermaid" or any of those other little stories with my daughter, I do not like wondering about divisive political fights, and of lies against American history, willfully told.
But it's Mickey, now, that wears the shadows of the Twin Towers on his sleeve. He's the mascot, and now he's the mascot for this too.
What should be next, for the mouse? A "fictionalized" account of Pearl Harbor that claims George W. Bush shot down twenty alien spaceships that day? A Walt Disneyesque new look at how American slavery was caused by insufficient pandering to Pat Robertson or James Dobson? Putting Mel Gibson in charge of a movie about the Holocaust -- oh, wait, they're doing that one too. What other parts of traumatic, painful history can we "fictionalize" in the name of right-wing propaganda and shallow corporate pandering to power?
Sorry, Mickey. I thought I knew you. Now I can't help but see the shadows of another day behind those ears.
From the 9/11 Commission Report:
“In 1996, as an organizational experiment undertaken with seed money, the CTC created a special “Issue Station” devoted exclusively to Bin Ladin. Bin Ladin was then still in Sudan and was considered by the CIA to be a terrorist financier. The original name of the station was “TFL,” for terrorist financial links. The Bin Ladin (UBL) Station was not a response to new intelligence, but reflected interest in and concern about Bin LadinÂ’s connections.
The CIA believed that Bin LadinÂ’s move to Afghanistan in May 1996 might be a fortunate development. The CIA knew the ground in Afghanistan, as its officers had worked with indigenous tribal forces during the war against the Soviet Union. The CIA definitely had a lucky break when a former associate of Bin Ladin walked into a U.S. embassy abroad and provided an abundance of information about the organization. These revelations were corroborated by other intelligence. By early 1997, the UBL Station knew that Bin Ladin was not just a financier but an organizer of terrorist activity. It knew that al Qaeda had a military committee planning operations against U.S. interests worldwide and was actively trying to obtain nuclear material. Although this information was disseminated in many reports, the unitÂ’s sense of alarm about Bin Ladin was not widely shared or understood within the intelligence and policy communities. Employees in the unit told us they felt their zeal attracted ridicule from their peers.
In 1997 CIA headquarters authorized U.S. officials to begin developing a network of agents to gather intelligence inside Afghanistan about Bin Ladin and his organization and prepare a plan to capture him. By 1998 DCI Tenet was giving considerable personal attention to the UBL threat.
The CIAÂ’s Afghan assets reported on about half a dozen occasions before 9/11 that they had considered attacking Bin Ladin, usually as he traveled in his convoy along the rough Afghan roads. Each time, the operation was reportedly aborted. Several times the Afghans said that Bin Ladin had taken a different route than expected. On one occasion security was said to be too tight to capture him. Another time they heard women and childrenÂ’s voices from inside the convoy and abandoned the assault for fear of killing innocents, in accordance with CIA guidelines.
As time passed, morale in the UBL unit sagged. The former deputy chief told the Joint Inquiry that they felt like they were “buying time,” trying to stop UBL and “disrupting al Qaeda members until military force could be used.” In June 1999 National Security Adviser Berger reported to President Clinton that covert action efforts against Bin Ladin had not been fruitful.
Many CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, have criticized policymakers for not giving the CIA authorities to conduct effective operations against Bin Ladin. This issue manifests itself in a debate about the scope of the covert actions in Afghanistan authorized by President Clinton. NSC staff and CIA officials differ starkly here”
http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2006/09/07/the-911-commission-report-and-those-pesky-facts/
However, reading the book “Dereliction of Duty,” by Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, USAF (Ret.), former Air Force Aid to President Clinton, one of the ones who carried the “nuclear football” everywhere Clinton went, I ran across the following account;
“THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM was buzzing. It was fall 1998 and the National Security Council (NSC) and the "intelligence community" were tracking the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, the shadowy mastermind of terrorist attacks on American targets overseas. "They've successfully triangulated his location," yelled a "Sit Room" watch stander. "We've got him."
Beneath the West Wing of the White House, behind a vaulted steel door, the Sit Room staff sprang into action. The watch officer notified National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, “Sir, we've located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike.”
Characteristic of the Clinton administration, the weapons of choice would be Tomahawk missiles. No clandestine "snatch" by our Special Operations Forces. No penetrating bombers or high speed fighter aircraft flown by our Air Force and Navy forces. No risk of losing American lives.
Berger ambled down the stairwell and entered the Sit Room. He picked up the phone at one of the busy controller consoles and called the president. Amazingly, President Clinton was not available. Berger tried again and again. Bin Laden was within striking distance. The window of opportunity was closing fast. The plan of attack was set and the Tomahawk crews were ready. For about an hour Berger couldn't get the commander in chief on the line. Though the president was always accompanied by military aides and the Secret Service, he was somehow unavailable. Berger stalked the Sit Room, anxious and impatient.
Finally, the president accepted Berger's call. There was discussion, there were pauses and no decision. The president wanted to talk with his secretaries of defense and state. He wanted to study the issue further. Berger was forced to wait. The clock was ticking. The president eventually called back. He was still indecisive. He wanted more discussion. Berger alternated between phone calls and watching the clock.
The NSC watch officer was convinced we had the right target. The intelligence sources were conclusive. The president, however, wanted a guaranteed hit or nothing at all.
This time, it was nothing at all. We didn't pull the trigger. We "studied" the issue until it was too late - the window of opportunity closed. Al-Qaeda's spiritual and organizational leader slipped through the noose.
This lost bin Laden hit typified the Clinton administration's ambivalent, indecisive way of dealing with terrorism. Ideologically, the Clinton administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances, and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for "show" than for honestly eliminating a threat.”
Dereliction of Duty, page 129 –131, Lt. Col. Robert ‘Buzz” Patterson, USAF (Ret.) 2003, Regenery Publishing Inc., Air Force Aid to President Clinton, May 1996 to May 1998
Where's your freedom of the press now? Gone the way of Mohammed cartoons, let's not offend. A major cave to the will of the Clintons. And does anyone wonder why we must absolutely, positively, never, ever let these miscreants anywhere near the Oval office again. Grrrrrrrrr.
9,000 FBI files beginning to show their age?
Is this part of the deal Mansoor Ijaz tried to broker? Where has Mansoor been anyway? Surprised he hasn't been on TV talking about this movie.
Cuz in the wake Waco, no one wanted Bubba to pass the blame bag to THEM in case it didn't go off PERFECTLY.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.