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
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.