Bill Clinton wants ABC to pull 9/11 drama

"but there is no disputing, for example, that Bush sat for 7 minutes in a Florida schoolroom, reading a book with children, after being informed that the US had just been attacked."

Yes, but let's be realistic in that Moore offered no context to that scene such as perhaps the SS telling him about the attacks and to standby while a secure route and safe evac are initiated. When the country is under attack, the first priority of the Secret Service is to get the President to safety. It is the Presidents responsibility to stay where he is and follow the agents instructions. Of course Moore did not offer this in his movie.

"I would add that it is not true that this miniseries was screened for both right and left--it was only screened for the right. "

That is incorrect. It was screened by both Democrats and Republicans. Richard Ben-Veniste, A democrat on the 9/11 commission screened the movie and also assailed it as being inaccurate.


I agree with a movie taking dramatic license to tell a story, but they should not make up facts that have a significant impact on those they portray to achieve that.

I would point out two things, to try and calm the rhetoric here (although I'm not holding out much hope for success here).

1) "Fahrenheit 9/11" was a commercial product, shown in commercial theatres, where people could vote with their wallets whether they thought it was worth seeing or not. "The Path to 9/11" is being shown on broadcast TV, over the public airwaves. Those two venues have two very different sets of responsibilities.

2) "Fahrenheit 9/11" used actual news footage, not dramatic re-enactments. You may disagree with Moore's choice of editing, you may disagree with the conclusions he draws from his clips, but there is no disputing, for example, that Bush sat for 7 minutes in a Florida schoolroom, reading a book with children, after being informed that the US had just been attacked. All 7 minutes of his sitting there are aired in the film. "The Path to 9/11," on the other hand, does not use documentary footage. Its actors can be made to say or do anything that the writers and producers want. So, if they depict Sandy Berger as telling the CIA not to bother baggin bin Laden, and the CIA says that that was not the case--well, that is a lie.

I would add that it is not true that this miniseries was screened for both right and left--it was only screened for the right. Many people on the left--including Bill Clinton himself--have asked for advance copies and have been refused.

I'm not blaming either president, because as the commission report showed, neither was at fault, though neither came out smelling like a rose. As for the COle investigation, who says it wasn't being followed through? Bush was only in office for 9 months when the attacks happened. 9 months folks. Not much time when you consider the transition as well as the fallout from the whole election debacle.

The commission report clearly states that it was poor inter agency communication and a bloated bureaucracy and chain of command in the FBI and CIA that did not let lower agents warning get through to the top. This blame game of "The president must micro manage everything and if an agent farts it's his fault" nonsense is simplistic at best.

Stop blaming either president for what happened and put the blame where it really lies, on Osama.

A couple significant points here:

This was made by Clinton hates, not film makers interested in history.

Several key moments are completely made up.

This is portrayed as fact.

The tapes/screenings were not made available to anyone outside of right wing blogs and groups.

Liberal groups and Clinton himself were denied tapes.


The film states that it is based on the 9/11 Commission Report, but in reality it is a work of fiction.

One can't equate this with some other movie, say F9/11 which is an openly biased editorial on film.

If one really wants to know what Clinton did in response to the events in the 90s, I highly recommend that they seek out the information from a historical source. You will see that Clinton, in fact responded to the PDBs he was given and did in fact take action, where possible.

Bush, did not pick up the responsibility when he got in office. He could have followed the Cole investigation through (which was still in its early stages during the election) and adhered to the Clinton administration's warning, that terrorism is going to be their biggest priority.

But Bush didn't heed those words, and in fact ignored the threat to the country, while he vacationed at his Texas mansion. Additionally, when told we were attacked, he unexplainably continued to read a children's book.

Get your facts straight, before puking right wing talking points.

Good news. Scholastic just backed off the project.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-07-2006/0004428789&EDATE=

Mr. Akai: "name one "lefty" columnist, blogger, or politition who recieved one of the 900+ copies ABC sent out"

Me: Richard Ben-Veniste viewed the screening, with other Democrats and Republicans. He went crazy by the way.

Mike said, "Last time I checked, ABC was still a part of the main stream media and hollywood which we all know slants leftward."

okay man, i'll give you hollywood, but the mainstream media?!?!?!?
have you been living on the moon for the past 6 years?
this administration has not been held accountable for anything by the media... and on the rare occasion that they do start to turn the heat on, karl rove just kidnaps another white girl to steal the headlines.

"Again, was F911 censored?"

No, but there is no guarantee this ABC movie will be either.

Also, there is a difference between a movie that no one had to see unless they were willing to drive to a movie theater and pay $8.00 and a movie that will be shown on public airwaves and in public schools across the country.

Again, was F911 censored? Was it even based upon factual evidence or an agenda? Last time I checked, ABC was still a part of the main stream media and hollywood which we all know slants leftward.

The problem with Clinton, and it has been documented many times, is that he did the minimum that was necessary. Iraq aside, it is irrefutable that we haven't been attacked since 9/11, despite the hysterical cries over tracking banking and phone records.

I wish Clinton and his team of legacy-enhancers were more concerned about protecting the country from the Bin Laden threat as they are about a docudrama that calls him out on the carpet.

"You didn't see the effort to censor the movie the way the Clintonistas are."

There were people who wanted Fahrenheit 9/11 censored. Specifically, I remember serious attempts to get the seven minutes of President Bush sitting with the goat book removed because they believed it portrayed the president in a bad light.

Personally, I think Clinton did a terrible job handling Osama, but just like Bush didn't get into this war without the help of Democrats, Clinton didn't create the Osama mess without the Republicans.