welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

the disneyfication of 9/11
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17039
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:58 pm    Post subject: the disneyfication of 9/11 Reply with quote

unfortunately, they aren't making it all cute and cuddly - although i guess you could say they are making it into a cartoon - and a political one at that.

i'm getting all sorts of email pleas on this one, so i will post it for you all:

Quote:
In a little over 48 hours, ABC will air a five-hour "docudrama" on the 9/11 attacks. The movie was written and produced by a right-wing activist who fabricated key scenes to blame Democrats and defend Republicans.1 It's so partisan that even Rush Limbaugh was surprised ABC decided to air it.2 And an FBI agent who was brought in to consult on the docudrama quit because, he said, "they were making things up."3

Public outrage is mounting across the country, and Variety reports that ABC is now "mulling the idea of yanking the mini altogether."4 But we only have a little time to act. We'll start delivering this petition to ABC headquarters tomorrow at noon and continue as more signatures come in. So we're looking for 200,000 signatures TODAY.

Can you sign? Click here:
http://pol.moveon.org/abcdoc?id=8721-5225292-3Dvy1ZECwk5gHl8EUn4S2w&t=4

Then please pass on this message to folks you know who can help.

The Path to 9/11 appears to be part of a coordinated push—including speeches by President Bush and millions of dollars in advertising—to exploit the five-year anniversary of 9/11 for political gain. That's not acceptable from anyone—especially not a news organization like ABC.

It's not just that ABC's movie is slanted. Big parts of it are simply untrue. The producer himself even admitted to simply improvising a key scene which depicts the Clinton administration letting bin Laden go when they had him in their sights—a complete fabrication.5 Last night, the movie's star, Harvey Keitel, said "It turned out not all the facts were correct."6

It's really pretty simple: ABC shouldn't have any role in the political exploitation of 9/11. But this docudrama is designed to do just that—spreading a false message to millions of viewers across the country.

Sign the petition to tell ABC not to air partisan propaganda on 9/11. Click here:

http://pol.moveon.org/abcdoc?id=8721-5225292-3Dvy1ZECwk5gHl8EUn4S2w&t=5

P.S. For the most current information on the scandal involving this film, and for more information on the movie itself, please visit our friends at ThinkProgress:

http://www.thinkprogress.org

Sources:
1. "Writer of ABC's 9/11 'Docudrama' Is Avowed Conservative Activist," ThinkProgress, September 1, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2047&id=8721-5225292-3Dvy1ZECwk5gHl8EUn4S2w&t=6

2. "Clintonoids Prepare To Attack 9/11 Movie," The Rush Limbaugh Show, August 30, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2049&id=8721-5225292-3Dvy1ZECwk5gHl8EUn4S2w&t=7

3. "FBI Agent Who Consulted On Path to 9/11 Quit," ThinkProgress, September 7, 2006
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/fbi-agent-quit/

4. "Under fire, ABC mulls yanking mini," Variety, September 7, 2006
http://www.variety.com/VR1117949675.html
5. Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher, MSNBC appearance, September 7, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2077&id=8721-5225292-3Dvy1ZECwk5gHl8EUn4S2w&t=8

6. "Harvey Keitel speaks out on Path to 9/11: 'It turned out not all the facts were correct'", Showbiz Tonight, September 7, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2078&id=8721-5225292-3Dvy1ZECwk5gHl8EUn4S2w&t=9


that one's from moveon, and referenced by truemajority and working assets.

people for the american way say:
Quote:
“The Path to 9/11” – ABC’s factually challenged miniseries written by Rush Limbaugh’s friend Cyrus Nowrasteh – is catching a lot of well-deserved heat across the nation. The miniseries, which ABC erroneously claims is based on the 9/11 Commission Report, would give millions of Americans the impression that legal protections for civil liberties and liberal politicians were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That message isn’t just wrong, it’s the linchpin of Karl Rove’s strategy for winning the mid-term election.

ABC has already decided to make tiny edits under pressure, but that’s not enough. We urge you to call ABC parent company Walt Disney President and CEO Robert Iger, using our automated tool, and voice your opinion.

http://www.CallABC.org

“The Path to 9/11” troubles us not only because of its politically motivated errors and fabrications, but also because of the insidious message it sends about how the Constitution supposedly got in the way of preventing the attacks on 9/11.

Specifically, the “docudrama” reportedly portrays Clinton administration officials reining in CIA operatives ready to strike Osama bin Laden because those officials are hog-tied by legal restraints. That is entirely fabricated by the author and its implication is that 9/11 was made possible by weak people following outmoded laws. The corollary is an endorsement of the Bush administration’s legislative and PR effort to scare the nation and Congress into rewriting and severely restricting our freedoms and legal standards.

There has been much public outrage about this so-called docudrama, but our intelligence tells us that what's needed right now are phone calls to Disney/ABC's corporate chief.

Call Robert Iger now using our web tool, and tell him what you think about this controversial miniseries. Afterwards, let us know how your call went.

http://www.CallABC.org

-- Your Allies at People For the American Way

P.S. For those of you on the east coast, calls will be going into Disney's California offices so there's still plenty of time to call before day's end. Please go to http://www.CallABC.org now!

_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Haha. If Clinton hadn't brought this to light, I doubt really anybody would have seen it.

The people I've heard that saw the movie who are not Clinton or a former Clinton Govn't guy have said that the real bad guys in the movie are Bin Laden and company. The show doesn't shy away from critiquing Clinton and Bush. Watch it and find out if you want. I plan on trying to catch it in between football.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9456

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:27 pm    Post subject: The Reagans Reply with quote

I've heard all about this.

A little bit of research reveals that the whole docudrama is actually full of shit.

It plays it too fast and loose with facts. It's got a super incindiary charge in it: that Clinton was too distracted with the sex scandal and didn't give authorization to CIA operatives on the ground who were ready to capture/kill Osama Bin Laden.

Normally, you would be all like 'sure, whatever' but the show is being billed as an objective and factual portrayal of the events leading up to 9/11, while actually just making shit up on the fly for dramatic effect.

If it gets released without disclaimers, it'll basically make a bunch of people believe a fictional account of events was what happened in real life.

Alas!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17039
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

they were originally planning to sent out teaching guides, via scholastic, and recommend teachers show it to their classes. apparently, scholastic has pulled the teaching guides, and now the suggestion is that teachers show it, and lead discussions on truth vs. fiction in presenting real-life events, or something like that. the thing is, of course, the people who need the differences pointed out are the adults - and most of them won't bother to question it.

and the clinton admin figure vetoing hitting bin laden is far from the only factual error. i rather like this little detail:

Quote:
Another scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder -- contrary to "The Path to 9/11" -- rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times.
(my bold)

and ags:
Quote:
It's so partisan that even Rush Limbaugh was surprised ABC decided to air it.


now, that's gotta tell you _something_...
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
and ags:
Quote:
It's so partisan that even Rush Limbaugh was surprised ABC decided to air it.


now, that's gotta tell you _something_...


Very Happy I've been listening to Rush all week. This quote is taken out of context (go figure.)

Rush is surprised ABC is airing it, but only because it doesn't bash Bush enough to come from a major network. Razz

Rush's opinion after watching it: The bad guys are Bin Laden and the guys who planned 9/11. The problems with intel had more to do with bureaucracy than the sex scandle specifically. Yes, that is mentioned as a factor, but not the underlying one.

Why don't you watch it and see?
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.


Last edited by Agamemnon on Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9456

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:48 pm    Post subject: 65 Reply with quote

Quote:
The problems with intel had more to do with bureaucracy than the sex scandle specifically. Yes, that is mentioned as a factor, but not the underlying one.


Even the 'underlying' factors that they portray are full of it. It's actually kind of silly!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's silly that the Clinton Admin was very busy at the time of the sex scandal and didn't want to do anything to cause more problems for the president, i.e. assassinating Bin Laden?

I don't think that's beyond the realm of possibility.

It's also focusing too much on one little aspect of the movie. Like I said, the majority of the movie, in Rush's opinion, seemed to focus on unworkable bureaucracies, lack of communication between intel outfits, and the intense evil of those who planned the attacks. He said that he came away blaming Bin Laden and co., not Clinton or Bush.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9456

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:02 pm    Post subject: get ready for 'we don't really know for sure' Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
It's silly that the Clinton Admin was very busy at the time of the sex scandal and didn't want to do anything to cause more problems for the president, i.e. assassinating Bin Laden?

I don't think that's beyond the realm of possibility.


Well, you can give up on that now. It's not the case.

According to the 9/11 commission report, George Tenet had full authority from president Clinton to kill Bin Laden. He also approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. Military involving force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Then why were forces called off by Clinton Administration when they had Bin Laden cornered? (I am looking for a source on this point. Do you have a source for yours?)
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9456

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Then why were forces called off by Clinton Administration when they had Bin Laden cornered? (I am looking for a source on this point. Do you have a source for yours?)


Oh lordy.

Do you remember when I said that this series will "basically make a bunch of people believe a fictional account of events was what happened in real life?"

You are presently acting as a perfect example of the phenomenon, and you didn't even watch it yet, you just heard Rush describing that scene!

Here's what Rush said.

Quote:
So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.

So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed…Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”

Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.


Unfortunately, this is all bullshit!

  1. No US Military or CIA persinnel were 'on the ground' in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden;
  2. The head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL;
  3. The CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.


In short, this scene -- which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden -- never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.
The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.



Before, I was kind of 'meh' about this series, but you just kind of confirmed all my fears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cooperative Research wrote:
May 29, 1998: Tenet Cancels Plan to Capture bin Laden
In 1997 and early 1998, the US had developed a plan to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan. A CIA-owned aircraft was stationed in a nearby country, ready to land on a remote landing strip long enough to pick him up. However, problems with having to hold bin Laden too long in Afghanistan made the operation unlikely. The plan morphs into using a team of Afghan informants to kidnap bin Laden from inside his heavily defended Tarnak Farm complex. Gary Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, calls the plan “the perfect operation.” Gary Schroen, the lead CIA officer in the field, agrees, and gives it about a 40 percent chance of succeeding. However, higher-ups at the CIA are more dubious and they worry that innocent civilians might die. The plan is given to CIA Director George Tenet for approval, but on May 29, 1998, he rejects it without showing it to President Clinton. He considers it too unlikely to succeed and decides the Afghan allies are too unreliable. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 220-21; Washington Post, 2/22/2004; Vanity Fair, 11/2004] Scheuer is furious and after 9/11 he will complain, “We had more intelligence against this man and organization than we ever had on any other group we ever called a terrorist group, and definitive and widely varied [intelligence] across all the ends, and I could not understand why they didn’t take the chance.” [Vanity Fair, 11/2004] It is later speculated that the airstrip used for these purposes is occupied and will be used as a base of operations early in the post-9/11 Afghan war. [Washington Post, 12/19/2001]


There's links to the specific articles if you go to the site.

I guess there's dispute as to the timeline? Depending on when ABC's docudrama says these events took place it may not be untrue to make the claims.
_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:23 pm    Post subject: Re: The Reagans Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
Normally, you would be all like 'sure, whatever' but the show is being billed as an objective and factual portrayal of the events leading up to 9/11, while actually just making shit up on the fly for dramatic effect.

If it gets released without disclaimers, it'll basically make a bunch of people believe a fictional account of events was what happened in real life.

Alas!


this theory is thoroughly supported by both the invasion of iraq and the results of the 2004 presidential election.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9456

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
I guess there's dispute as to the timeline?


No, there's dispute over whether we ever had UBL "cornered," and over whether Clinton was negligent involving the hunt for him.

REMEMBER, the answer for both of these is "No" and your source is not claiming otherwise and isn't backing up your previous statements!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agamemnon



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Studying somewhere. Or at least that's where I should be.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps "Cornered" is too strong a term. Located? At any rate, more from the same site:

Quote:
December 1998: US Locates bin Laden; Declines to Strike US intelligence learns that bin Laden is staying at a particular location in Afghanistan, and missile strikes are readied against him. However, principal advisers to President Clinton agree not to recommend a strike because of doubts about the intelligence and worries about collateral damage. In the wake of this incident, officials attempt to find alternatives to cruise missiles, such a precision strike aircraft. However, US Central Command Chief General Anthony Zinni is apparently opposed to deployment of these aircraft near Afghanistan, and they are not deployed. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]


Quote:
May 1999: US Intelligence Provides bin Laden’s Location; CIA Fails to Strike US intelligence obtains detailed reporting on where bin Laden is located for five consecutive nights. CIA Director Tenet decides against acting three times, because of concerns about collateral damage and worries about the veracity of the single source of information. Frustration mounts. One CIA official writes to a colleague in the field, “having a chance to get [bin Laden] three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry...” [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004] An unnamed senior military officer later complains, “This was in our strike zone. It was a fat pitch, a home run.” However, that month, the US mistakenly bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, due to outdated intelligence. It is speculated Tenet was wary of making another mistake. [Atlantic Monthly, 12/2004] There is one more opportunity to strike bin Laden in July 1999, but after that there is apparently no intelligence good enough to justify considering a strike. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]

_________________
-Agamemnon.....but you can call me Jake.

P: They don't know we know they know we know. And Joey, you can't say anything!

J: Couldn't if I wanted to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17039
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agamemnon wrote:
It's silly that the Clinton Admin was very busy at the time of the sex scandal and didn't want to do anything to cause more problems for the president, i.e. assassinating Bin Laden?


uh....i seem to recall that during the lewinsky scandal, clinton authorized a missile attack on bin laden's training camps in afghanistan - and was accused of doing a "wag the dog" thing, to distract people.

and as to your other quote:
Cooperative Research wrote:

May 29, 1998: Tenet Cancels Plan to Capture bin Laden
In 1997 and early 1998, the US had developed a plan to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan. A CIA-owned aircraft was stationed in a nearby country, ready to land on a remote landing strip long enough to pick him up. However, problems with having to hold bin Laden too long in Afghanistan made the operation unlikely. The plan morphs into using a team of Afghan informants to kidnap bin Laden from inside his heavily defended Tarnak Farm complex. Gary Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, calls the plan “the perfect operation.” Gary Schroen, the lead CIA officer in the field, agrees, and gives it about a 40 percent chance of succeeding. However, higher-ups at the CIA are more dubious and they worry that innocent civilians might die. The plan is given to CIA Director George Tenet for approval, but on May 29, 1998, he rejects it without showing it to President Clinton. He considers it too unlikely to succeed and decides the Afghan allies are too unreliable. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 220-21; Washington Post, 2/22/2004; Vanity Fair, 11/2004] Scheuer is furious and after 9/11 he will complain, “We had more intelligence against this man and organization than we ever had on any other group we ever called a terrorist group, and definitive and widely varied [intelligence] across all the ends, and I could not understand why they didn’t take the chance.” [Vanity Fair, 11/2004] It is later speculated that the airstrip used for these purposes is occupied and will be used as a base of operations early in the post-9/11 Afghan war. [Washington Post, 12/19/2001]


so: this "perfect" plan was given a less than 50/50 chance of succeeding by the lead guy in the field. a previous plan had problems holding onto bin laden. there is concern about civilian casualties and about reliability of afghan allies.

so of course, the obvious conclusion is, the only reason it didn't get a go was bureaucratic bullshit. Rolling Eyes
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group