Skip to comments.The Path To 911: Urge ABC to Resist Censorship
Posted on 09/08/2006 12:10:14 PM PDT by forty_years
"Liberals" are urging ABC to censor its planned mini-series, "The Path To 911," stating, "Accounts of advance screenings indicate that this program places primary responsibility for the attacks of 9/11 on the Clinton administration while whitewashing the failures of the Bush administration." Our Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." I don't see an exemption made for "advance screenings" by leftists. Remind you of the Islamist reaction to the Danish cartoons? Birds of a feather... If the Left doesn't like it, then it doesn't get shown? Is this what we've come to as a society?
Please explain, what is "liberal" about censoring a TV show? Such condescension towards the American people -- the Left's assumption being that Americans are too stupid to decide for themselves what happened on 911. Should the media only dish out negative coverage of Bush, but not of Clinton? Please contact ABC and urge them politely to go ahead with "The Path To 911." Here's a sample letter:
I urge you to resist calls to censor your special, "The Path To 911." Please air the mini-series as-is, and let the American people decide for themselves. 911 was a great tragedy. The last thing our country needs is less information about the event. Thank you.
ABC on-line comment form:
ABC general comments, including telephone comment line:
77 West 66th Street New York, NY 10023
General Information 212-456-7777 (comment line)
Network News desk 212-456-2700
212-456-4866 (fax) or 212-456-2795 (fax)
Robert Iger, President
Hundred bucks says they cave!
Having sent emails to CBS demanding they cancel or heavily edit their "bio" of President Reagan I am having a hard time with this one. It does actually sound like this film has some serious shortcomings in accuracy. Clinton has a lot of real issues that can be attacked. We need to be careful we do not lower ourselves to the tactics of the Libs by supporting false programs. It weakens what is on its own a strong case against his record.
Of course that's true, but Congress isn't doing anything in this instance. ABC can show "Path to 9-11" or not. There's no censorship.
I don't like the abuse of the language some people are employing regarding this matter.
Let's see - you signed up four days ago, you are shilling for Clinton's point of view and you can't even spell "Coolidge."
You're pathetically transparent.
Trolling Kitty alert!
So we are to let someone else decide for us? Hmmm...
LOL. The other name was already taken. And if you want to support the program go right ahead. I hold Conservatives to higher standards than liberals. As for whether or not I am a troll read some of my posts and get back to me.
How's this for accuracy?:
Bill Clinton on video tape in 2002:
"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
Having said that, this response on their part shows how utterly deprived of principles that they are. The Democrats in Congress should be impeached, actually.
If there is, God forbid, a Democratic Senate next year with Senator Clinton in a position of even greater power, there are many things she could do to use the power of the federal government to punish ABC.
And that is the real subtext here.
That statement is so utterly stupid that I'm having trouble finding the words to say to you.
Other than to suggest that by stating this you have lowered yourself to their level.
It is actually two different things.
With Reagan, the lefties were portraying not policy but a condemnation of the man in the form of a hit piece.
With Pathway to 9/11, the lefties(they are Democrat donors but you won't see that anywhere) are portraying events and policies, not the people. This isn't a hit piece. This is facts about an event filled in with the usual dramatizations of the events leading up to 9/11.
Funny thing though. The Clintonistas are not bitching about the content. They are bitching about little things like slamming the phone down. There is a reason for that.
By removing Berger slamming down the phone, you have to change the content of the phone call. That's what the libs are trying to do. Destroy this production based on piddly things so that the content gets altered along with it.
By any chance, did you read Ann Coulter's book, Godless? Notice how no one in the RAT party criticized the fact that Coulter called them godless? They criticized her reference to four attention seeking sows with a political agenda.
By condemning Coulter, they tried to remove the content from being scrutinized.
It does. Richard Clarke comes across like Bruce Willis, rather than Liberace
Liberaltarians support smoking dope..." Rubbish. I don't know a single Libertarian who supports smoking dope.
OK. Thats actually a pretty reasoned argument (as opposed to the foaming at the mouth comments elsewhere). I will withdraw my comment pending a closer look at the issue.