Posted on 09/09/2006 9:03:27 AM PDT by finnman69
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.
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
Now that ABC got this BS letter I'm sure it won't be pulled. Maybe altered too much but not pulled.
Bill Clinton was an effin' traitor (Loral deal etc.) and deserves whatever expose there is of his time in office. Did this creep blow getting Bin Laden and lay America open to attack? Of course he did along with Jamie Gorelick who went on to raid FANNIE MAE for a fat undeserved salary and bonus of $26 million in 6 years
Yes, Peach, I saw that with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears, too. The contempt these lying sacks show for the American people is amazing.
If he'd spent half as much time trying to get OBL as he has trying to get this miniseries dropped, 9/11 wouldn't have happened....
Dear ABC:
We'd hate to think you might commit suicide over a moive. Wink, Wink.
Bill'n Hill
Eat me.
You know all about that. That was what you were doing while Rome burned.
Love,
Laz
The latter only.
Has anyone seen any press releases from ABC, or response from ABC Chairman/CEO? Any idea if they are filming an 'apology but we aren't going to air the series afterall and so sit back, relax and enjoy these re-runs of I Love Lucy'
The ABC lawyers must be working l-o-n-g hours right now.
Yes.
One thing is the RNC is planning ahead.
I'd like to think that too. I hope you're right.
And a veiled threat to trample on ABC's First Amendment rights is not an actual trampling. If the Dems were to follow-through on their threats (which I don't think they have the ability to do), that would be a trampling.
It is NOT being cut, trust me.
When we do get OBL and GWB is president the Dems will curse that day because it will damage them badly.
I'd like to think that, but the Bush White House has been engaged in a rope-a-dope strategy for about six years.
He should be off "fighting" his STDs or hurricanes
There, fixed it for ya.
Bing-bing-bing! We have a winner.
Thank you. That's better.
Ok, one more guess. Winthrop Rockefeller?
Yeh..you are right...but look at all the garbage and crap the Left has thrown at Bush.... yet he is a 2 term president. He may be battered and bruised but he aint broken...and neither are we...Fight on my friend(s).
This battle is ours to win...and win we will.
Pull it and replace it with the Best Of Leterman - the Monica jokes
How insulting! Can't we at least have Leno? Jeez!
on another thread someone said it was reported the film is in the can, andwill be run
I certainly hope so...no matter who is president. But, I'd like for posterity's sake it to be GWB because I think he truly has America's best interest at heart, regardless of how screwed up I think he is on immigration and turning the other cheek to the RATs...
I think they may have gone too far, now. Editing is one thing, screwing up their post-Labor-Day schedule is quite another.
Seriously, like you, I am hoping you are correct and that, at last, some little bit of justice is being metted out to the scumbag and his lesbian sidekick. However, unlike you, I am not at all confident that ABC will not cave in at the last minute and either not air the series at all, or edit it so severly that it ends up as a three-four hour short subject. Let's hope you are right.
ABC may make a few edits to the final cut, but the film will basically show that both the Clinton Administration and that of Bush's dropped the ball leading up to 9/11. Because of the orchestrated hissy-fit of the Clinton Syndicate, when viewers see a Clinton official deciding not to go after bin Laden, they'll conclude, "Oh, these are the things that are made up," because they've been conditioned to do so by Clinton's careful propaganda campaign of the past few days. When they see Richard Clarke's version of Bush's White House dropping the ball, viewers will think, "Bush really blew it," and they'll think that because Republicans and the White House haven't piped up about the film, so viewers will assume that whatever hit the film levels against Bush must be true.
BTW, another point: This film has been in production for months, and it's only the last few days before it's to be aired that the Clintons and the Democrats have launched their preemptive strike. Why is that? It's because had the Clintons complained months ago, the intended impact of their campaign would have worn off before the film was aired. And the intended impact is to innoculate viewers by building up the segments on Clinton such that when viewers actually see the film, they'll conclude, "What's the big deal?", and ultimately, more people will come away thinking 9/11 was "Bush's fault."
Even if they are editing, they are doing the final touches. It would take a month to change 5 to 10 minutes of film.
This is going on and uncut except for a disclaimer at the beginning of each segment.
You can't BUY this kind of buzz -- the more "controversial" the better. ABC may be part of the MSM and therefore part of the DNC propaganda machine. But they are also typical Lefties -- principles until it is YOUR ox being gored. If they cut it the way Clinton wants no one will watch after the first segment.
Trust me, I know how the Biz works.
I can't argue with that. Good point.
Monica's actual testimony to the Grand Jury:
Q: It seems like an obvious question, but I have to ask it. Did the President ever have telephone calls while you were actually engaging with oral sex with him?
A: Twice.
Q: And when those telephone calls occurred, did he ever talk on the phone while you were performing oral sex?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you have any recollection about when those occurred?
A: I believe one was November 15, 1995, in my second visit with him, and I know April 7, 1996.
Maybe we should make a TV movie of those hearings and see what Bruce Lindsay has to say about it.
Ditto.
Not only that, but their terrorism failures and misdeeds are receiving much more attention now than if they had just ignored the whole thing.
Thanks for the info on Scholastic. I just received material for a subscription for my grandchildren. Think I'll send it back to Mr. Robinson ,personally, with a note.
This is not my theory, I'm just passing on what I heard on Medved, which he thought was very possible.
JFK.
She's culpable for sure.
She's culpable for sure.
I heard the failure to take Osama scene has been re-shot and now shows Bill (played by Harrison Ford) and Hillary (Madonna) in black Ninja gear approaching bin-Laden's (Kobe Bryant) mountain hideaway in the dead of night when they receive a phone call from Bob Bennett (Raymond Burr) telling them that he has just received a subpoena for Clinton's DNA from Ken Starr (Montgomery Burns). On the verge of taking bin-Laden into custody, a teary-eyed Bill tells Hillary that even though getting bin-Laden would be the right thing to do and save lives in the long run, Bill's lifelong devotion to law and justice means they must drop the task at hand in order to comply immediately with the subpoena. After a tearful embrace where Bill tells Hillary how much he loves her, and how they'll get another chance to get bin-Laden once she's president, the clinton's reluctantly turn away from bin-Laden's lair, and dejectedly return to the US so that Bill can be persecuted in the House impeachment hearings by Henry Hyde (Carrol O'Connor.)
On the other hand, accountability is a good thing and some changes definitely appropriate. But one of these is to become more hardnosed towards terrorists. Terrorists did this horribly immoral murderous thing, and are trying to do more. Clarke's implication seems to be that the USA government must play perfect defense. It is impossible. We have to take the fight to the terrorists, and there must be worldwide unmuted moral outrage at their acts.
Dear Bob,
Your papers have not been approved.
Zieg Heil,
Bruce R. Lindsey Chief Executive Officer William J. Clinton Foundation
Douglas J. Band Counselor to President Clinton Office of William Jefferson Clinton
Simply hilarious!!
If I knew how, I would submit this for Post of the Year (Thread of the Year belongs to Behind the Scenes of a ZOT!)
But it seems the Clintonistas will appear to risk all credibility and even legality to get their wishes
You must remember that this is what the left defines as 'tough' because 'the end justifies the means' is the song to which they march.
Why are the Democrats so concerned about this movie? It's simple. The Democratic strategy to regain control of the House and Senate is to portray the Bush Administration as incompetent in foreign and security affairs because we're still in Iraq. However, this movie reminds people that the Democrats were equally or more incompetent.
Nah, that seems highly implausible. What would JFK be doing hanging around whore-houses in Hot Springs, Arkansas?
Either Sen. Fullbright or Gov. Rockefeller would be much more likely candidates for the evil deed. Either one could easily have provided all connections/money necessary to groom 'The Stainer' through his warped and grifting life. I'm leaning toward Rockefeller now that I think more about it.
If ABC was smart, they would replace the content in question with commentary explaining why it's missing, and a 30 second add for George W. Bush.
Agreed Rahm Emanuel is a Clinton attack dog but he gets to do the more above board "public communicatons" work that keeps his hands clean so he can be awarded his reward of a congressional seat among other things.
Lindsey gets down in the gutter and leads the thug activities. He's the one who will send someone to your house and warn you about the bad things that may happen to you and disappear your family pets and the like.
They are both scum, through and through. Emanuel was rumored to be serving a foreign intelligence agency but I've never seen any substance to those charges.
All the same, they are both beneath contempt.
This on the same day that Rockafeller spews out the Dem's own revision of the 9/11 commission report - that trashes the original findings; two days before the anniversary.
We can all see that this reaction is a naked misuse of power by the Dems. Why hasn't ANY republican member of congress or the senate come out and state that?
For crying out loud, they threatened the license of a broadcaster if they don't censor a TV program.
Why are they silent while the Dems dominate this?
Is it a case of not "disturbing the enemy while they making mistakes" or are they just afraid?
I would like someone of some authority to say something about this to counter the Howard Dean and Harry Reid threats..
All the DEMONS aren't screaming! Anyone notice the silence from Hillary!
Thanks, but it took me awhile to figure out how to organize as little as I do. Some of the things I've found: My browser home page is home-made; it has links to pages, not only at FRee Republic and others on the web, but to PAGES ON MY OWN HARD DRIVE which I use a lot. I use a web page editor to constantly update SOME of those pages with personal reminders and with lists of things which are related to each other. Sometimes I put reminders in a new email which I DON'T send, I just put them in my "drafts" folder for later use.
Just offering a few ideas; I think maybe "jealousy" is just a desire to emulate, in this case, to learn how to organize, baby steps first.
. . . "is all too clear" . . . but, who can possibly know what Clinton's people mean by that since it ALL depends on what the meaning of "is" is . . .?
It's Fullbright. In his elderly years he would have loved every move the Klinton Co. ever made.
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.