Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

September 08, 2006

In Re. 'Path To 9/11'

Let me speak clearly in this regard -- I think that the ABC production regarding the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks should be broadcast, but without the particular scene that shows Sandy Berger calling off an attack in-place on Osama. It did not happen that way, and there was no such communication or refusal to grant permission to take-out a man who had committed acts of war against the United States -- at least not while he was in the sites of troops prepared to render justice upon Osama and his chief lieutenants. In that regard, I agree with the Democrats and Moonbats.

However, this is my position because of the fundamental truth that the Clinton Mal-Administration was so lax in its duty to safeguard the United States that the truth is much more damaging -- there was never such a plan of attack implemented because the Clintonistas were grossly negligent in their dealing with the threat posed by a man who repeatedly attacked America. I believe the movie scene in question lets Clinton & Co. off much too easily.

In particular, I am particularly troubled by this letter to the ABC network from leading Democrat Senators, effectively threatening to use the full power of the US government to retaliate against the broadcast of any viewpoint other than that accepted by them and their fellow-sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

September 7, 2006

SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP URGES DISNEY CEO TO CANCEL MISLEADING 9/11 MINISERIES
Washington, DC — Urging him to cancel the grossly inaccurate upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11, the Senate Democratic Leadership today sent the following letter to Disney President and CEO Robert Iger. Disney’s subsidiary ABC erroneously claims the misleading miniseries is based on 9/11 Commission report and is planning to air it on September 10 and 11. Shockingly, the network is also planning to use the program as a teaching tool through Scholastic, potentially misinforming thousands of children about the most important event in recent American history.

The text of the letter, signed by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, and Senators Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, and Byron Dorgan, is below.

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger

President and CEO

The Walt Disney Company

500 South Buena Vista Street

Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Byron Dorgan

Remember those names -- each of them is a threat to American liberty and freedom of speech, and has abused their office shamefully by signing this letter. I question their fitness for office, their devotion to the principles of the Constitution, and their patriotism. I take that back -- I DENY THEIR FITNESS FOR OFFICE, THEIR DEVOTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND THEIR PATRIOTISM, and that of any elected Democrat who does not immediately condemn this letter and those who signed it.

Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee, one of my brother Munuvians and a stand-up guy, speaks my thoughts on the matter much better than I can at this time.

The Disney Corporation and ABC has a decision to make today, on whether the American people get to decide what they will watch on television, or if they will defer that decision to operatives of the Democratic Party.

The Path to 9/11, a mini-series based in part upon individual interviews and the 9/11 Commission Report, is being fought tooth-and-nail by grassroots liberal activists and top Democratic Party politicians in an effort to stifle free speech. The Democratic Party has gone so far as to threaten to attempt to challenge ABC's broadcasting license in a clear challenge to this nation's First Amendment. If ABC allows the Democratic Party to set a precedent of censorship through intimidation, then all Americans will have lost a part of their freedom.

Some elements of this mini-series are expected to be critical of the Bush and Clinton Administrations, and it does reputedly dramaticize some minor elements in the interests of accurately portraying the overall truth. that said, the overall treatment of the failings of the American government leading up to the horrific terrorist of September 11, 2001, must be shown. We must learn from our past mistakes to keep from repeating them in the future, and any attempt to prevent The Path to 9/11 from airing is an affront to the 2,973 people who died in lower Manhattan, Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. as a result of Islamic terrorism.

I strongly urge you to contact ABC, let them know that you support their right to provide the programming of their choice to the American people.

For 230 years we have been a nation of free men and women with the right to debate, dissent, and disagree. We should not forfeit that right to the whims of any political party.

Debate the merits and accuracy of The Path to 9/11 after the American people have had a chance to view it and form their own opinions about its content. That is the American way.

Censorship dictated by political operatives is not.

Amen, my brother. And let me note that this is one more reason that the Democrat party can never be allowed to acheive significant political power ever again.





|| Greg, 06:35 PM || Permalink || Comments (21) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for In Re. 'Path To 9/11'

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/185424
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'In Re. 'Path To 9/11''.

Comments on In Re. 'Path To 9/11'

If ABC caves in, then all future ABC programming is assumed to be political statements by the Democratic Party, pure and simple.  They will be one of the official media organs of the DNC, and a known propaganda outlet controlled by the Democrats.  We would be idiots to assume otherwise, and my mother didn't raise any stupid children.

|| Posted by Vulgorilla, September 9, 2006 07:48 AM ||

Maybe she did.  How is this different from when they caved on the Ronald Reagan movie?

|| Posted by Dan, September 9, 2006 11:06 AM ||

(Democrats)"should never be allowed to achieve significant political power again" ????

too late-I'm not a Democrat but when your Party's President leads a nation into a no-win
quagmire based on lies, you can bet the public's going to seek succor in the not-so-loyal opposition as polls hint.

and since he did this by seizing on 9/11,
we do not see the siteowner's point which,
all told, should be the imperative of forming
a third party force to replace or help bring back into line, both corrupt and incompetent ruling class parties.

|| Posted by Ken Hoop, September 9, 2006 11:20 AM ||

Well, Ken, your private letter to me earlier today makes it clear waht kind of party and nation you want -- one not dis-similar to the one in operation in Germany from 1933-1945.

In fact, "America" is so lost, exemplified by
milquetoast "conservative" integrationists like you who have a guilt trip about a superior Southern aristocratic heritage even a liberal like Faulkner defended as better than any other on offer then, that I deal in tactics that assume the (proper) loss of the US Empire and large parts of the SW quadrant before a White nation can be reconstituted. Meaning I shy away from reactionary Right groups who work on the asumption American can be "saved" as is, even though I might agree with most of their agenda...

Seems pretty clear to me that you want to get rid of all them brown-skinned and black-skinned folks (as well as the Jews) to create your "White nation". Goose-step your sorry Fascist ass out of here, and take your Christian Identity theology with you.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, September 9, 2006 11:52 AM ||

As the greatest Conservative nationalist of the recent past, Samuel Francis wrote, America to be America must be overseen and dominated by what he termed its "founding ethnic core." Sans this core's pronounced dominance, it is no longer America the Nation. This does not imply total "racial purity" of all denizens within its borders of course,contrary to your feverish misinterpretation,also of my theology.

The America of today is more nearly Yugolslavia
pre-official Balkanization than it is the Founders' Nation.

|| Posted by Ken Hoop, September 9, 2006 03:56 PM ||

So what you are saying,, Ken, is that you want the real Americans on top and secondary status for all the "mud people" -- right?

Sounds like the same Christian Identity, nut-job militia racism that led to Tim McVeigh.

But then again, I bet you view him as a hero.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, September 9, 2006 09:13 PM ||

Dan -- I'll answer your question, my friend.

How is this different from when they caved on the Ronald Reagan movie?

Simple -- did the Republicans threaten to revoke the broadcast licenses of stations that broadcast the Reagan movie? Or was there simply a groundswell against it that made the broadcast a threat to the bottom line? You and I both know the answer -- it was teh latter, not the former as we see in the letter posted above. That difference is fundamental.

heck, the GOP didn't even threaten to revoke licenses after Dan Rather and company committed a fraud against the American people in an attempt to influence the 2004 presidential election with documents they knew to be forged. we left it to the marketplace to punish the CBS (Continuous Bullshit Spewers) network.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, September 9, 2006 09:54 PM ||

I keep on forgetting how cowardly rightwingers are. That's no threat, that's a reminder that they are supposed to be using the airwaves for the public good, which is true. You guys scare soooo easily.

|| Posted by Dan, September 10, 2006 01:24 PM ||

Only for the cowardly, my friend. Let them defend how they are broadcasting in the public interest when they are fabricating a false narrative deflecting responsibility from the worst failure of Bush's presidency. Oh, they can't defend their lies? Then let them whine about being "threatened".

|| Posted by Dan, September 10, 2006 06:13 PM ||

And what would have been your response to that same letter sent to CBS regarding the Reagan movie? Or to hearings being convened following Rathergate?

I believe it would have been "CENSORSHIP!"

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, September 10, 2006 06:46 PM ||

RWR -

Please don't tempt me to make another spelling joke!

But, really, such a letter would not provoke cries of censorship from me. Hearings would be a different matter, but hearings won't start until after the democrats have taken over Congress.

|| Posted by Dan, September 10, 2006 07:21 PM ||

And I've gone back to fix it. Thanks. Dan.

And I ask you this simple question, Dan -- does not the threat of hearings constitute a threat of censorship? You seem to concede it does -- and that my point is threfore correct.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, September 10, 2006 07:44 PM ||

There you go again. Your cowardly imagination has created a threat of hearings that is not contained in the letter.

Boo!

Sorry - that was mean. I know how scared you rightwingers are.

|| Posted by Dan, September 10, 2006 09:08 PM ||

The threat is implicit.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, September 11, 2006 03:39 AM ||

the siteowner throws his rhetoric around carelessly. Tim McVeigh was not a follower of Christian Identity..... In truth, 9/11 was a case of  "musical chairs," as a major attack was going to be brought off successfully regardless of which corrupt and ineffecient party was in power.Bush got caught without a chair and distracted the public from cries for heads to  roll by his Iraq gambit.

|| Posted by Ken Hoop, September 12, 2006 02:02 PM ||

Actually, givent he groups that McVeigh is known to have associated with, an influence (if not outright membership) is clear -- just as it is in your foul rhetoric.

You've already made it clear that the only thing that will satisfy you is a fascist, racist state with second-class citizenship for "mud-people" who you permit to remain within your diminished USA (after you give the Southwest back to Mexico and care out a bantustan in the south for blacks) -- and ovens for the Jews.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, September 12, 2006 06:59 PM ||

More bearing false witness. McVeigh was in fact
told he was not welcome in certain Identity and militia circles.

There is much historical controversy about alleged WW 2 extermination venues and the like being debated--in lands where it is not a crime, as historian David Irving might tell you from his jail cell so the siteowner's comments are factually gratutious on two levels.

I am for a peaceable solution to America's ethnic
woes but a realist when analysing the Balkanization proceeding apace.

|| Posted by Ken Hoop, September 13, 2006 01:20 PM ||

And I repeat -- he embraced much of their philosophy, even if they rejected him.

And frankly, I support David Irving's right to speak, just as I do yours -- it is important for those like you to be permitted to speak freely so that everybody knows who the evil  folks among us truly are.  You Holocaust-deniers call yourselves revisionists -- but my experience is that what you really wish to revise is  "Never Again" into "Let's Do It Again".

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, September 13, 2006 03:00 PM ||

Your "experience?"
How many Historical Revisionist conferences
have you attended? How many revisionist
books have you read?
How many instances can you point to of
Revisionist historians calling for violence
of any kind?

|| Posted by Ken Hoop, September 14, 2006 02:53 PM ||

Well, Ken, as a trained historian who has extensively researched the Holocaust (including interviews with survivors), I've come to see the weakness of the factual basis of revisionism -- including in the works of David Irving.

And as for the "let's kill the evil Jews" mentality of revisionists, I need only point to your anti-Semitic rantings.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, September 14, 2006 06:09 PM ||

Q7N2pt vesquxkhjhrp, [url=http://bxmrklyexyfu.com/]bxmrklyexyfu[/url], [link=http://gqwdbhorbhvj.com/]gqwdbhorbhvj[/link], http://ioimzlkoewlw.com/

|| Posted by eopvxhphdzi, October 20, 2008 01:34 PM ||
Post a comment

Remember personal info?


 

 





AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg





Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5261)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)

Archives

January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity
Tom Mechler Makes His Case Against Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Jared Woodfill Makes His Case For Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Questions About Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Reject The Call To Move 2016 Republican Party Of Texas Convention
It Is Too Bad That Political Parties Cannot Reject Voters Who Seek To Join, Stop Would-Be Candidates Who Want To Run

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs