Skip to comments.In New Letter, Clinton's Lawyers Demands ABC Yank Film
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.
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.
Bruce R. Lindsey Chief Executive Officer William J. Clinton Foundation
Douglas J. Band Counselor to President Clinton Office of William Jefferson Clinton
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?
Q: And when those telephone calls occurred, did he ever talk on the phone while you were performing oral sex?
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.
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.