DaddyHalbucks

Producer Claims ABC Won?t Release ?Path to 9/11′ DVD to Protect Hillary Candidacy (VIDEO)

Cyrus Nowrasteh, one of the producers of "The Path to 9/11", the $40-million, five-hour ABC miniseries, which recently received seven Emmy nominations and drew a combined two-night audience of more than 25 million viewers, tells KFI's John Ziegler the film is not being turned into a DVD because of politics.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/5242.html

__________________
Boner Money

DaddyHalbucks

Pretty outrageous, huh?

__________________
Boner Money

Brujah

It aired to 25 million viewers. So it wasn't exactly hush-hush either.

If this had a different spin you'd laugh at this miniseries writer and say he was just a conspiracy theorist.
This one came out eventually.

__________________

• Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com
• For Sale: Obscenity.com

DaddyHalbucks

By "if it had a different spin," I assume you mean "if it was not truthful."

Supposedly, The Path To 9/11 is virtually a documentary because of its accuracy.

__________________
Boner Money

pornguy

It will come out after the elections.

__________________
PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic

AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online!
TChicks.com | Angeles Cid | Mariana Cordoba | MAILERS WELCOME!

_Richard_

so is it a movie or a documentary?

sextoyking

Docu Drama is what they called this.

__________________
ICQ: 52344098
--------------------------------------
50% Commissions on all Product Sales. http://www.wishing.com/money

DaddyHalbucks

Correct. But supposedly it is very accurate.

__________________
Boner Money

Bryan G

__________________
Bryan
skype: bryan.glass3 | ICQ 302999591

kane

I remember when it came out on TV. Clinton and his people said there are things in it that are flat out lies and that there are other things in it that just didn't happen so Clinton put some heavy pressure on them not to air those inaccuracies. I guess you can look at it one of three ways. Either the movie is accurate and Clinton doesn't like the way he is portrayed or the movie is making stuff up or embellishing facts to make good drama or a little bit of both.

I would think if it were 100% accurate and they have solid sources to back it up they would put it out anyway. I imagine there is more to this whole story than we are being told.

aico

"This is a shame; it's censorship in the most blatant way," said Stone, who has hired Nowrasteh for several writing projects. "I'm not vouching for its accuracy -- it's a dramatization -- but it's an important work and needs to be seen."

dig420

like most conservatives, you believe the first right wing rag you read instead of actually googling the film.

"Blunderingly, ABC executives cast doubt on their own film's veracity when they made advance copies available to such political conservatives as Rush Limbaugh but not to Democrats who reportedly requested the same treatment." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090801949.html

"The original docudrama contained a false, dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden. According to the bipartisan 9/11 Commission report, this scene never occurred, and several members of the 9/11 Commission criticized the scene. The conservative writer of the film was forced to acknowledge that the scene was “improvised.”

"Nowrasteh is an avowed conservative activist. Last year, he spoke on a panel titled, “Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift.” When confronted with his bias, Nowrasteh lied about his political leanings in the Wall Street Journal."
http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=path+to+911

9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick:

“I do have a problem if you make claims that the program is based upon the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report when the actors, scenes and statements in the series are not found in — and, indeed, are contradicted by — our findings.” [Link]

9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste:

Some scenes in the film “complete fiction. … The mischaracterizations tended to support the notion that the president [Clinton] was not attentive to anti-terrorism concerns. That was the opposite from what the 9/11 commission found.” [Link]

9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer:

In the scene, CIA operatives have Osama bin Laden cornered and are poised to capture or kill him until National Security Adviser Samuel Berger refuses to give the go-ahead. … [M]embers of the 9/11 Commission say none of that ever happened.

ROEMER: There were plans, not an operation in place. Secondly, Osama bin Laden was never in somebody’s sights. Thirdly, on page 114 of our report we say George Tenet took responsibility for pulling the plug on that particular Tarnak Farms operation. [CNN, 9/7/06] expand post »

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey:

“If you’re saying this is based on the 9/11 Commission report, there are substantial factual discrepancies. You need to get [them] out. … You can’t sit there as ABC and say, ‘Gee, we don’t have any responsibility. They should make a good faith effort to get this as close to the facts as possible.” [Link]

9/11 Commissioner Tom Kean:

“I don’t think the facts are clear, whether it’s Sandy Berger, or whether it’s the head of the CIA, whether a line went dead. I think there are, I think there are a number of — they chose to portray it this way, but my memory of it is that it could have happened any number of ways.” [Link]

Tell ABC to tell the truth about the 9/11 Commission report. « collapse post

Today on CNN’s Situation Room, Richard Miniter — conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror” — confirmed that scenes in ABC’s Path to 9/11 are based on “Internet myth.”

Miniter singled out a key scene in the film involving former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger as having “zero factual basis”: “If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that.” Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=path+to+911

"On Friday, September 8, just forty-eight hours before ABC planned to air its so-called "docudrama," The Path to 9/11, Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Company, was presented with incontrovertible evidence outlining the involvement of that film's screenwriter and director in a concerted right-wing effort to blame former President Bill Clinton for allowing the 9/11 attacks to take place. Iger told a source close to ABC that he was "deeply troubled" by the information and claimed he had no previous knowledge of the institutional right-wing ties of The Path to 9/11's creators.... Iger conceded in a September 5 press release that key scenes in The Path to 9/11 were indeed fabricated, calling the film "a dramatization, not a documentary." Behind the scenes, Iger reportedly made personal assurances to some of the film's most prominent critics that those scenes would be edited out. But even though some deceptive footage was cut from the original, much of its falsified version of events leading up to 9/11 remains.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060925/path_to_911

"Arguably the worst distortion in Part 1 of "The Path to 9/11" went utterly uncorrected. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, depicted as a high-WASP bitch on wheels, neutralizes what little testosterone the Clinton men have (at least when it comes to bin Laden rather than interns) any time she's on the screen. She hectors and lectures, but a Tomahawk assault on a bin Laden campsite is authorized despite her reservations. When it misses the al-Qaida leader by a few hours, it's clear he was warned by Pakistan (in fact, U.S. officials did warn Gen. Pervez Musharraf, for fear he'd see missiles in his airspace and suspect India had launched an attack.) The film clearly fingers Albright as having warned the Pakistanis, and in fact she seems downright proud of blowing the operation. But it was (Republican) Defense Secretary William Cohen who asked vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Henry Hugh Shelton to warn Pakistan....

There's no reference to his monthlong vacation after receiving the Presidential Daily Briefing "Bin Laden determined to strike in the United States." There's no scene showing Rice or Cheney ignoring the warnings of former Sens. Gary Hart and Warren Rudman's terrorism commission, as they did. There's certainly no scene of the president reading "The Pet Goat" for many painful minutes after he's informed of the attack on our soil the morning of Sept. 11.

Maybe the worst lie I haven't seen critiqued has to do with whether Bush gave the go-ahead for American fighter jets to shoot down hijacked airliners. In fact, though Cheney bragged he and Bush made that decision, the NORAD tapes acquired by the makers of "United 93" and published in Vanity Fair showed that never happened. Military officials waited in vain for such an order, but it never came.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature.../11/pathto911/

"Harvey Keitel speaks out on "Showbiz Tonight about the controversy ABC’s "Path to 9/11" has caused and in which he stars.

Keitel: Yea, I had questions about events–material I was given in the Path to 9/11 that I did raise questions about. Yes, I had some conflicts there.

Q: How was that met?

Keitel: With discussion..ummm with argument. When I received the script it said ABC history project –I took it to be exactly what they presented to me. History–and that facts were correct. It turned out not all the facts were correct and ABC set about trying to heal that problem..In some instances it was too late because we had begun.

Q: Do you feel that anything should be changed in this film?

Keitel: Yes I do. This is a tough issue.–(sure)

You can compile certain things as long as the truth remains the truth. You can’t put things together, compress them and then distort the reality.

Q:…in the case of September 11th though, do you feel that it is an absolute responsibility that it be factually accurate even if it is a dramatization?

Keitel: Absolutely, you cannot cross the line from a conflation of events to a distortion of the event. No. Where we have distorted something we have made a mistake-and that should be corrected. It can be corrected. It can be corrected by the people getting involved in the story that they are going to see."
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/0...-were-correct/

In addition, the movie was created and sold by an evangelican group whose stated aims are to counter the 'liberal influence in Hollywood".

SO I guess one could fairly say that you're just another dumb-ish conservative, easily misled despite a wealth of readily available information, who like most conservatives is perversely proud of being so easily propagandized. Heil Bush and all that eh?

dig420

hey mr brilliant conservative, where did you go?

hiding in the same closet with all the other conservative hypocrites? Say hello to stickyfingerz for me!

pocketkangaroo

He just posts the talking points and moves on. Unless a Republican website tells him what to say to your rebuttal, he won't be back.

StuartD

Accuracy is determined by how much is said that you are wanting to hear.

__________________
This is me on facebook
This is me on twitter

DaddyHalbucks

The disturbing thing is the censorship by the media.

Can you grasp that?

__________________
Boner Money

MicDoohan

CuriousToyBoy

Roll on the end of the Bush era.

2c

__________________
Celebs
Adult Who's Who ==> Ambush Interview ==> ICQ 293 070 684 ==> intmarpacrim AT gmail DOT com

Matt 26z

Anyone who tries to pin 9/11 on Clinton had better be able to tell us what Bush did prior to 9/11. According to the 9/11 Commission he did absolutely nothing. On the other hand we know that Clinton did quite a bit. Obviously it wasn't enough, but at least there was an effort.