For all the "Bush is Hitler" nonsense that is thrown around by Libs, I don't remember the President calling for Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be pulled out of theaters. Yes, the White House refuted claims made in the film, but it never called for it to be killed because they aren't trying to turn America into a police state. President Bush values free speech, unlike his predecessor.....


BUBBA GOES BALLISTIC ON ABC ABOUT ITS DAMNING 9/11 MOVIE
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

September 7, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.

Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.

The movie is set to air on Sunday and Monday nights. Monday is the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

Based on the 9/11 commission's report, the miniseries is also being provided to high schools as a teaching aid - although ABC admits key scenes are dramatizations.

The letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton's office, accuses the ABC drama of "bias" and a "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."

Clinton, whose aides first learned from a TV trailer about a week ago that the miniseries would slam his administration, was "surprised" and "incredulous" when told about the film's slant, sources said.

Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger also dashed off letters to Iger, accusing the network of lying in the miniseries and demanding changes.

ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan last night defended the miniseries as a "dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews."

"Many of the people who have expressed opinions about the film have yet to see it in its entirety or in its final broadcast form," he said. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast before forming their own opinion."

Executive producer Marc Platt told The Washington Post that he worked "very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously of concern. We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view."

The miniseries' creator and the 9/11 panel's former co-chairman, Tom Kean, who was a paid adviser on the film, said some scenes are made up and plan to include a statement at the show's beginning.

In the movie, FBI anti-terror agent John O'Neill, played by Harvey Keitel, and a composite CIA operative named Kirk grouse about bureaucratic red tape following a meeting with Berger and Albright.

"How do you win a law-and-orderly war?" Kirk asks.

"You don't," O'Neill snaps.

The movie then cuts immediately to a newsreel close-up of Clinton insisting he did "not have sex with that woman" - Monica Lewinsky.

Although the movie thrust Lewinsky into the mix as a White House distraction, the 9/11 commission's report found Clinton was "deeply concerned about bin Laden" and that he received daily reports "on bin Laden's reported location," Clinton's letter notes.

In another scene, CIA operatives working with Afghani anti-al Qaeda fighter Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance who was assassinated by bin Laden days before 9/11, gather on a hill near bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms - the terror thug easily in their grasp.

"It's perfect for us," says Kirk, a composite character played by Donnie Wahlberg. But the team aborts the mission when an actor portraying Berger tells them he can't authorize a strike.

"I don't have that authority," the Berger character says.

"Are there any men in Washington," Massoud asks Kirk later in the film, "or are they all cowards?"

The reps for an outraged Clinton wrote to Iger that "no such episode ever occurred - nor did anything like it."

The 9/11 commission report echoes his denial, and found that Clinton's Cabinet gave "its blessing" for a CIA plan to capture bin Laden and determined that ex-CIA Director George Tenet squashed the plan.

The third contested scene focuses on Albright, who is depicted alerting Pakistani officials in advance of a 1998 U.S. missile strike against bin Laden in Afghanistan - over the objections of the Pentagon. The movie claims the tip-off allowed bin Laden to escape.

But the 9/11 commission reported that it was a member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff - not Albright - who met with a senior Pakistani Army official prior to the strike to "assure him the missiles were not coming from India."

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews ... ondent.htm

I dont even know where to begin.

i thought i seen a few threads disappear in the last few mins..whats another one that wouldnt be missed

I think anyone has a right to speak up if they feel they've been misrepresented in a movie. Especially about something this serious. If it was an eyewitness account of the 'scenes', and they could back them up, then screw him. But if some writer just got the idea that Clinton didn't wanna deal with Bin laden because he was getting a BJ and wrote a fictional scene around that, that isn't fair and should be disputed.

I agree.

If someone grossly mispresented facts and assisinated my character then I would speak up to. It's his honor, intewgrity and legacy at stake.

I believe there is a difference between a former President demanding a network remove a movie and a sitting President using the power of his office to have a movie removed from theaters; no matter what party either one belongs to. If indeed the movie contains gross misrepresentations, the anger is well deserved.

It really is interesting how easy it is for those on the right to excuse everything Bush does but jump on the smallest thing when it comes to Bill Clinton.

And vice versa.

yeah seriously, "we" do the same thing.

Well, if in fact, the facts are either grossly exaggerated or altogether wrong, then I would be furious as well. This applies to both this movie and the Michael Moore Fahrenheit 9/11 movie.

When you're positing something as fact (it doesn't matter if you call it a documentary or drama), you have an obligation to ensure that those "facts" are accurate. I happen to believe that Michael Moore's movie was more egregious because it was filmed in such as way and passed off as a documentary, which in the viewers' eyes adds more legitimacy to the film.

Here, even though the ABC film is a dramatization, the producers still have an obligation to dramatize the "facts," not conclusions based upon perceived facts. Evidently, this is what this ABC film does, which is wrong.

A friend directed me to a few old CNN articles today.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws
July 30, 1996
Web posted at: 8:40 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.


Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Taggants value disputed
Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues
Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/15/anti.terrorism/index.html

Congress reached compromise on anti-terrorism bill

April 16, 1996
Web posted at: 12:45 a.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- By Friday, the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress is expected to pass an anti- terrorism bill which addresses some, though not all, of the concerns the bombing raised over Americans' safety.

Congressional leaders, flanked by survivors and relatives of victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, unveiled compromise legislation Monday to increase federal powers to fight terrorism and limit appeals by death-row inmates.

"I have a hole in my skull and a plastic left eye. The other one not is not all that good ... and other parts that don't work so well, but folks, I'm alive," said Martin Cash, a survivor of the Oklahoma City bombing.

As the trial nears for the accused, those who lost relatives in the bombing say the proposed law should put the concerns of victims above those of terrorists.

"We have forgotten that anyone who murdered has relinquished rights for compassion," said Diane Leonard, the widow of a Secret Service agent killed in the bombing.

Only one element of the anti-terrorism bill has a potential effect on the Oklahoma City case. It would limit the number and duration of appeals a convicted death row inmate could file.

President Clinton has expressed concern over the death penalty provision, but Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah said he had spoken with the president about the provision, and feels confident his objection is not strong enough to elicit a veto.


Hatch said the compromise bill would prevent international terrorist organizations from raising money in the United States and provide for the swift deportation of international terrorists.

The demand for an anti-terrorism bill precedes Oklahoma City and was shaped by the attacks on Pan Am flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland and the bombing of the World Trade Center.

The bill, which would cost $1 billion over four years, also calls for "tagging" plastic explosives to better trace them. The bill calls for a study on tagging methods for other explosives such as fertilizer and black powder. Critics say the study provision is a concession to groups opposed to restrictions on explosive materials.

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage.


"What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number."

Still, Schumer said the bill is "better than nothing" and should get some Democratic votes.


President Clinton asked Congress to give him the anti- terrorism bill by the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19. And he'll get it. While it might not be all the president wants, administration officials indicate it's a bill he can sign.

You've completely lost it

damn, your friend sure knows how to dig deep..... nice read

This caught my attention more than anything else in the article. So we're now going to have a work of fiction as the basis for our young students understanding of current events? Maybe I'm over-reacting, but we're talking about fictionalized accounts of events less than a decade old. It seems to me that anyone with any level of intellectual curiousity about the events has access to reams of information upon which they could base their own conclusions as opposed to being fed a movie from the Walt Disney Co. Anyone with me on this?

Most of the history that is taught in school is complete garbage anyway. Not that this makes it any better. But it's certainly nothing new.

You're goddamned right. Entertainment is one thing. But a teaching tool on history, seen by thousands of easily influenced kids? If I were Clinton, I'd want the truth represented too.

LeninFlux, it is at this point that this has nothing to do with "free speech" so you can shove that bullshit argument. Let's say Disney kept Fahrenheit 9/11 instead of dumping it, and they wanted to give it to schools as a history teaching tool, and Bush & Co. protested. Free speech?

yep... you all suck.

I never said either film should be used as an educational tool in schools. My assertion about "free speech" is the licesnse given to people to make what they call a "documentary." You can't get around the original fact that Clinton demanded that something that tarnishes his image not be shown versus President Bush, who looked the other way when Michael Moore rolled out his lie-fest.

By the way - ABC caved and is going to edit the film to suit Clinton's desires. So I suppose the film can be renamed - "The Path to 9/11, as Bill Clinton would want it to be remembered."

Clinton should have just said "fuck it" and done it anyhow.