Centerfield

When conservatives bullied CBS into pulling that Reagan biopic a few years back, it was wrong. When conservatives tried to boycott the DaVinci Code, it was wrong. After all, Fahrenheit 9/11 was pure lies, and I didn't support banning that either.

Yep, nope, and me neither. (Anyone who wants to boycott something is welcome to do so--they're not welcome to force others to skip it, but they have a right to boycott what they wish.)

Much better to let those who object air their objections and the basis for them. Instead of suppressing the movie so that no one can see it, as Bill Clinton prefers.

The problem with the "It's just a movie" argument is that this movie is on network television (unlike Fahrenheit 9-11)with many more viewers and is about an event that truly changed our country forever. Many people and younger viewers will watch this movie believing that this is gospel.

How...paternalistic.

As a father of two, I can assure you that "younger viewers" will yawn and wander off to find their Gameboys in the first fifteen minutes. And morons will continue to believe whatever it is they wish to believe. Anyone capable of mistaking network TV drama for documentaries, likewise.

As I understand it Bill Clinton is not against airing the film as long as it casts him and his crew in a better light. It also sounds like not very many people have seen the whole thing. I've read it doesn't treat Bush very kindly either.

The obvious parallel is Moore's F9/11, although I find it hard to believe ABC would have the blatent political agenda that Moore did. I will wait to see it before forming an opinion. If it's a biased character assasination then ABC is in the wrong and hopefully will have to pay for it. Two wrongs don't make a right. If it's just a dramatized guess at what went on during the 90's, TV is full of stuff like that.

I'd be a lot more interested in exactly what Berger had stuffed down his pants. Anyone know?

The Senate Democratic Leadership calls for it to be pulled. No if's, and's, or but's.

We urge you, after full consideration copiesof 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.

Clinton's own words (or his writer's over his signature, anyway):

"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."

Translation: "If it doesn't make me look good you must pull it."

While acting as Bill Clinton's representative in choosing which Clinton-era papers should be released to the 9/11 Commission, Berger stole hand-written notes of Clinton Administration briefings concerning Middle East peace talks from the National Archives. He also removed drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration, ones that identified vulnerabilities of American infrastructure, in which margin notes had been written by various members of the Clinton administration. He "inadvertently" secreted them in his jacket, pants, and socks to smuggle them out of the National Archives. Some items were returned by Berger, he reported that other items (such as those millenium reports with marginal notes) were "inadvertently" destroyed, and they were not returned. Gee, I wonder why not?

Dennis,
What's made this movie so inflammatory is that the producer idiotically sent promo copies to right-wingers like Limbaugh and refused to let anybody else see it. And then he claimed in an email to Hugh Hewitt that the movie will nail Clinton no matter what. It only fuels that suspicion that this is a partisan hit piece and not a serious movie that 9/11 deserves.

Another big problem is not the ABC movie, per se, but the Scholastic contract that sends this out to kids as some sort of real documentary. To say that all they care about is Game Boys is much more paternalistic than arguing against sending them inaccurate accounts of 9/11. These materials have a long-lasting effect on kids' understanding of historical events. A fraudulent mockumentary that dishonors the victims of 9/11 by turning them into a partisan whipping post on national television is one thing. But using this fraud as a basis for educating children is entirely different.

Tully,
The problem isn't that the documentary makes Clinton look bad. It should. It's that it makes Clinton look cartoonishly bad. The disputed scenes that have already been brought to light - like the one that implies Clinton took his eye off the ball because of Monica Lewinsky - were completely repudiated by the 9/11 Report. In right-wing fantasyland these conspiracy theories still percolate. And to see a dramatized scene suggesting this falsehood is real is beyond the pale. If some partisan Republican wants to put out a movie like this then he has every right. But something akin to a rightwing version of Fahrenheit 9/11 should not be on Prime Time ABC on the fifth anniversary of 9/11. I don't support threats to ABC's license. But I do support widespread threats of boycotts.

Elrod... the crucial difference between prime-time TV and Farenheit 911 (whose creator, lest we forget, was given a seat of honor by former President Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention) being what, precisely? The people are being somehow forced to watch their TV on that day?

Any person who supported or defended Michael Moore and Farenheit 911 has no business whatsoever attacking this "docudrama". TV news lies about George Bush all the time (remember Rather?), and I never hear Democrats complaining about that. They're happy to have stuff made up about the evil Karl Rove, but have their own ox get gored, and suddenly they stop defending free speech entirely and want the private TV companies to ruthlessly suppress unflattering stories.

I have had my fill of mendacity.

As before, I will wait and make up my own mind as to the content of the movie. I was never that big of a Clinton fan. To me he seemed average as presidents go. My grandmother could have looked good with the boom he had to work with. But I do believe that his administration was dealing with the burdgeoning terroist threats/positioning for globalism as they best saw fit.

Elrod,
If ABC's piece is, as you say, done by right wing partisans and intended to put Clinton in a bad light irregardless of the facts then it deserves the critisizm it is getting. I think Clinton had it wrong, but it was honest wrong. I have a harder time buying your point about "using this fraud as a basis for educating children". It's basis is about making money. Of that you can be sure. If you want education stick to the Science Channel. But you have to admit it is interesting to see folks who loved F9/11 squealing so loudly about this.

Tully,
I had no idea that Berger had done that. He is in prison now, right?

No, actually. He was let off with heavy fines, but I don't think he had to serve prison time.

Pat: Good point about many Dems embracing Fahrenheit 9/11. I generally don't buy into the "Bush and crew are victims of the liberal media" thing- but you're right about the Rathergate thing, although it's a bit different to present a story that one thinks (or desperately wants to think) is true, and it turns out to be false, and presenting something you know is probably false.

Who still watches network shows anyway. Docudramas have been worthless for as long as I can remember. Am I too old or has everyone forgotten Amy Fisher?

Are we truly to believe that a major network is intentionally skewing facts to make democrats look bad?

Perhaps I have just missed it, but I haven't heard anybody but democrats complaining about the movie. On top of that, those complaints are based on "somebody told me..." since nobody has seen the final version of the movie. Sure sounds like a clever bit of puppetry to me; who would have thought such high level officials would dance along so well?

Look, I'm sure the movie is inaccurate, just because it is a big network "production". Remember the uproar over the Jesus mini-series a few years back? By their very nature, they are cheesy, poorly written, poorly acted awful, awful, awful films. There's a reason the networks have been losing marketshare. Whenever they do these big showy events about a topic du jour, it's bad. Remember the one about climate change where half of America got flooded?

By the way, Elrod, there are huge numbers of cartoonish misconceptions about the President and Republicans held by people out there in the Left's own fantasyland. Look at that recent assassination movie, which suggested that if George Bush's foot were taken off the brake, right wing Republicans would turn this country into a nightmare. If we can have government officials threatening formal action against writers and producers for promoting such cartoonish misconceptions, does that mean you'd be ok with Republicans promoting a massive boycott of that movie?

I think producing any kind of "docudrama" by a network was bound to suffer these flaws, and it was thus a huge mistake for ABC to continue doing so. I'm a big fan of United 93, because it was a well-done film which they worked on for a year or two to get right. But America is not ready and has no need for some schlocky "made for TV" docudrama.

That said, the Democrats are being hypocritical whiny babies, and it's appalling that the Minority Leader of the U.S. Senate would hint so broadly that he would look into ABC's broadcast license because of their airing of the program.

My distillation of this discussion is:

abuses of power (i.e. threatening license review) = bad

boycotts = knock yourself out, it's a free country

TV movies, particularly docudramas = ubersucky

Seems pretty clear to me.

On the nose, WHQ. I'd add:

Demanding to be presented in a good light, and making demands to censor or pull when it doesn't happen your way = whiny baby tantrum. Grow TFU.

If all docudramas were required to be 100% factually correct, we would quickly be rid of the pesky things. (So, what's the down side?)

Perhaps the worst part of docu-dramas is the implication (in the "docu-" part of the name) that they are documentaries with a hint of dramatization. When, in fact, they are more like historical fiction: a historical setting, but the events largely invented. So the big objection to them is not their lack of accuracy, but rather their lack of truth-in-advertising.

At the time, Harry Reid's predecessor complained of the network's decision to pull the storie, saying that it "smells of intimidation to me".

And how's this for prescient:

The CBS decision "gives new hope to all of the people who don't like what they see on entertainment television," said Robert Thompson, head of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University. "All of the special interest groups can say, 'look, we got the Reagan docudrama off the air. What's next?"

Some other notes:

Part 1 was screened at the National Press Club on August 23rd. The screening was very well attended by the press. All attendees were given a DVD of part 2 in their gift bags. So the press as a whole received dozens or hundreds of copies of part 2 a couple of weeks ago. Over 900 "screener" copies of the entire film were released. It's hardly something that's been kept selectively under wraps and away from the press.

The writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is also the writer of such uber-conservative hit pieces as Spielberg's Into the West miniseries, the pro-union pro-civil-rights film 10,000 Black Men Named George (about the organization of the Pullman Porter's Union in the 1920's), and that all-time right-wing fave, Oliver Stone's The Day Reagan Was Shot. Clearly a dangerous partisan hack.

(That last film is truly a case in point. It was slammed by conservatives as being almost purely imaginary, and praised to the heavens by Democrats and by the NYT, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Hartford Courant, the Boston Herals, and the LA Times as being an important film about the REAL behind-the-scene history of those few days. It aired uncensored.)

Yep, Pat. I thought pulling The Reagans was a cowardly move. CBS aired it on Showtime instead. The ratings sucked after the first showing, and repeats have been minimal to non-existent.

I pretty much refuse to watch docudramas. It is pretty much the worst combination of fact and fiction. Either make a complete fiction and say it is that or make a complete documentary. Docudrama's are a cheap way of making a documentary that is not based on what is known and allows people to spin the story one way or another by adding some scene, that may or may not have happened, to support their view. Leaving it to the viewer to figure out what was real and what wasn't.

To me, there is really no such thing as a docudrama. Docudramas only exist to avoid libel law suits. Simply nothing more than a flimsy attempt to say "its only entertainment, we said it was based on events, not the actual events."

One of the same reasons I won't watch "United 93" is the same reason I will not watch any of the network 9/11 presentations. I won't watch a docudrama. If you wish to give me a documentary, which I understand is not as entertaining to the general public, I will watch. I'd rather read the comic book adaption of the 9/11 report than watch this movies.

Jim, I have to differ with you on United 93. As you've undoubtedly seen over at Stubborn Facts. It was, I think, very well done and avoided the dangers which generally plague docudramas. It was very tightly focused, they did extensive research and worked very closely with the participants themselves to ensure accuracy.

Most docudramas are sensationalistic drivel, loaded with cheap shots. United 93 is not. Yes, some of the very specific visual details had to be made up, but they didn't throw in anything just for the sake of slamming anybody.

Yes, that last post contains a sentence fragment, because I shifted mental gears in mid-thought. I could edit it, but I'm too lazy today...

Don't sweat it, Pat. We all pretty much knew you weren't very bright already.

ROFL... thanks, WHQ. If you can't count on your friends to keep your ego in check, who can you count on?

Anyway, it's not like I'm conceited about the sheer raw power of my massive intellect, right? ;-)

I have mixed feelings. I'm certainly against censorship, but I am troubled by the portrayal of ostensibly historical events in such a cavalier manner. And I thought the same thing about Stone's "JFK" which was just a piece of conspiracy fiction. But people see these and think they are true. In a lot of cases, that's the only thing they know about the event. So, while the Dems are wrong to call for pulling the show and threatening the licenses, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a producer has some responsibility toward the historical facts. And something like this, it seems to me, is more problematic than F9/11 simply because F9/11 was so obviously partisan that it was easy to discount. Although I agree that it's hypocritical for Democrats that supported that movie to condemn this, I'm not sure they are exactly the same thing. While F9/11 is ostensibly a documentary, I think it was pretty clear that it was more opinion than fact. I fear that the imprimateur of a network gives a docudrama like this more credibility.

What really bothers me the most about movie or TV depictions of historical events is the total inability to present it any context. Everything is black and white, there are good guys and bad guys. History isn't that simple. For that reason, I generally don't watch stuff like this.

It's obvious that the reason the Democrats are up in arms is the timing of the docudrama; the GOP is going to try to win on being better on terrorism. The last thing the Democrats need is something like this. But they are probably making a mistaking talking about it because it will bring more attention to something that probably not that many people would care about anyway.

You're right about everything except the comparison with Farenheit, Marc. A whole lot of people took that at face value. Those of us posting here may follow politics and current events enough to realize that it was one step away from being as whacked-out as "The Naked Lunch", but judging by the celebrities and politicians who jumped on its bandwagon, way too many people took it as factual.

Well, how many kids (or adults, for that matter) take "Braveheart" at face value? For example, I know people who really think that William Wallace had an affair with Princess Isabella-- even though she didn't marry the Prince until three years after Wallace's death (the wedding was in 1308; Wallace died in 1305)... And, for that matter, Isabella was only ten when Wallace died in the first place so it would have been pretty hard for her to bear his child.

I don't know when we stopped calling it "historical fiction" and started calling it a "docudrama," but the point is that it's still just a movie. Just because it purports to explain events with facts and truth, doesn't mean it's really telling facts and truth. And anyone who believes it's truth just because they saw it on TV is probably going to get the same grade as someone who writes their history paper about Wallace by watching "Braveheart."

Pat, I respect your opinion on "United 93". However, I still have reservations. I know a lot was gleamed from interviews with family memebers who were on the phone and items like that. I am reluctant to say this becuase I do not want it to be taken as an attack on anyones credibility, but, no one wants a family member to look bad. Other than the recorded conversations, some of the statements could be hard to verify, so they have to be taken with a grain of salt. I have been reluctant to say this becuase the last thing I want to be is seen as slamming anyone involved. I do not know what went on and do not want to demean anything that was done.

Maybe when it is less of a political football, I will be more likely to partake. I have to admit that I love movies like "Tora, Tora, Tora". Essentially a docudrama; but somewhat removed from political relevance. I guess I just see these more as political vehicles than as entertainment vehicles.

Jim, I certainly don't take your comments as inappropriate. But I will make one last effort to assuage your concerns before letting the matter drop.

It's really not a picture of hero worship or attack. I watched the whole film not even sure which character was playing Todd Beemer. The passengers were not painted in mythic terms by any stretch. The only thing in the movie which I found remotely "political" (and I'm very sensitive to such matters in movies) was a bit [minor spoiler alert] where the American passengers collectively silence a German passenger who was about to give away their take-over plan to the hijackers. That was probably the only sort of funny moment in the movie, and I took it as a bit of a dig on Europe's attitude versus America's attitude toward fighting terrorism.

But that was the only thing in the movie which struck me as political at all. Nobody is portrayed as either "the great leader saving the day" or "the bumbling idiot who cost many lives".

Only about half the film takes place in the plane. The other half (which I found more interesting, frankly) was about what was happening on the ground at the FAA and NORAD. In many cases, the actors were the actual people being portrayed. And again, nobody is painted or castigated in great mythical terms. It feels very, very real. Nowhere in the film did I detect a hint of anybody shading the truth to make themselves look better or their enemies look worse.

Any rate, I've made my case for seeing the movie. I certainly respect your choice whether to see it or not, as my feelings towards some other films, such as World Trade Center, mirror yours about United 93. Having seen United 93, I can assure you that it is as apolitical as a movie about 9/11 could possibly be.

To all of you who DON'T think this whole this so-called docu-drama is politically motivated, I say let them air it on December 11. Then, let's see if any of the Republicans make a fuss about THAT change.
I'm all for freedom of expression, but I think there are two issues here: 1) fictionalization presented as an historical piece, (fiction should be presented as fiction), and 2) on whose watch did 9/11 occur? Here we are, 5 years later, and someone still wants to make us believe that Clinton is responsible for what happened after his term ended? G.W.B. is responsible for what took place during his term from day 1. Period. Excuses notwithstanding.

Paul, have you seen an early screening of it?

To all of you who DON'T think this whole this so-called docu-drama is politically motivated, I say let them air it on December 11. Then, let's see if any of the Republicans make a fuss about THAT change.

The blame must go to everyone all the way back to Carter. While Clinton was preoccupied with Monicagate and responsible for not getting bin Laden when he was offered, he and he alone cannot be held solely responsible.

If Carter would have been firmer aginst Iran when the Islamic republic was in its infancy stages, maybe we would not be where we are today.

If Reagan hadn't been so preoccupied with the Soviet Union, he could have implemented some things that could have slowed the growth of Islamic fundamentalism. I liked Reagan and thought he was a pretty good President. But, even he and his administration dropped the ball on this.

If Bush the senior had been more cognizant of the growing threat, maybe this thing would not be where it is today. After all, at one time he was director of the CIA. He had enough knowledge to know that this threat was looming. The USSR fell during his administration, he could have re-directed rescources formerly used against the Soviets, to begin to tackle this.

Clinton had his opportunities to get bin Laden. He didn't. He said he had no legal basis to hold him. This isn't law enforcment here. It's national security. Besides that, he was too worried about his little indiscretion coming to the surface. (Which by the way, was not worthy of impeachment in my estimation, lie or no lie. That blame goes to the house GOP leaders who felt the need to destroy him over consensual sex. Perjury may be wrong and I do not condone it, but it was NOT an impeachable offense)

George Bush the junior was pretty much just into his term when this hit. But I feel like he had ample time to assess this threat and take some precautions.

My point is this. There is enough blame to go around. I think this thing caught everyone off guard. I know of no one (and I mean no one) that had the first little inkling that terrorists would be so bold as to carry out suicide missions by using planes as bombs. It wasn't purposeful negligence, it was jsut human miscalculation, in which we are all guilty of at some point or another.

So, if you are going to present a fair and balanced account of what led to 9-11, you must begin with the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, back in 1979. Then you must work forward from there. And quite honestly, I am not sure a miniseries would get that job done.

Bobby, don't you know there is no such thing as criteria? When people get dumbed down to the point of believing most anything on TV (some true journalism nonwithstanding) then we are screwed. Just look at what "reality" TV thinks reality is. The smarties will wonder how this Democracy-thing is supposed to work when uniformed debate has the power to steer us over the edge as easily as recklessness.

LAD and the Mets again. I told you they would be tough. Pitching seems to be the limiter on both the Yankees and Mets.

Max,

I was thrilled with Hong-Chih Kuo's start. The poor kid has already come so far and overcome so much (two Tommy John surgeries) that it's hard not to root for him. He largely ironed out his control while converting from relief to starting pitcher in Las Vegas, but we're going to need more starts like we just in NY before people are going to be comfortable with him as a mainstay in the starting rotation. That said, he's already at least as good as Mark Hendrickson is, so there's no reason he shouldn't continue to hold down the fifth spot if/when Billingsley comes back to reclaim the fourth.

On small question for those who blame Clinton for not taking out bin Laden when he had the chance: What exactly do you think would have been the reaction(s) pre-9/11 to an American President ordering an assassination? Not only would the whole left of his own party been down on him, but I submit that the Republican party in Congress would have seen it as an additional charge for impeachment.

Not saying it would have been the wrong thing to do, just asking that we not forget what the world view at the time was.

WJ,

I don't think he would have been impeached, but I do agree that most of the Republicans would have raked him over the coals for any kind of foreign adventure, even to overthrow the Taliban or Saddam which they later supported. Sadly in politics, it seems that scoring partisan points is more important for the players than the actual issues and substance of the policy.

It's kind of like FDR's predicament leading into WWII-- the public now agrees that we should have stood up to Hitler long before his invasion of Poland or that the US should have entered the war before Pearl Harbor. But had FDR done either of those, he would have immediately been contested by anti-war activists on the Left (the peaceniks for whom any form of American-sanctioned violence is immoral) and the Right (the isolationists for whom any presence on foreign soil is bad), and they would have campaigned to the public to undermine FDR's policies and the unity that his war strategy would have required.

People are funny like that. They have to get sick or see their house burn down before they appreciate the value of insurance. They have to wait for Social Security to become insolvent before they realize that pay-as-you-go is a bad investment strategy. And maybe they have to wait for terrorists to nuke one of their cities before they realize that it's not a good idea to turn a blind eye to nuclear proliferation and development in terrorist-sponsoring countries.

Another point about the movie itself: The reviews are coming in, and it really looks like this thing is basically a right-wing hit piece. They just make stuff up out of whole cloth. Like I said, I don't think banning is ever the answer, but I do not plan to watch it.

Rafique, I'm sure it's bad, but the writer and producer have pretty good lefty credentials. What's happening is that they showed an actual live preview of the first half (the Clinton half), but only gave the journalists review copies of the second half (about Bush), which is undoubtedly as schlocky as the first half. But right now everybody's only talking about the first half.

Pat,

I've seen and heard reviews about the whole thing. The whole thing is bad. The writers/producers Lefty credentials notwithstanding, from what I'm hearing, the thing looks to be nothing short of a hit piece. Maybe the writers aren't as Lefty as they seem. Maybe they're overcompensating. Who knows.

I haven't seen those reviews, Rafique, so I'll have to take your word for it. What little I've read about the second half suggested it was just as schlockily damning of Bush as the first half was of Clinton.

in regard to Bin Laden, this is the deeper problem

Let's have a docudrama about media and their inability to inform debate.

I believe the writers have conservative credentials and I do not know what I will learn from watching. As Bobby points out, the deeper issue during Clinton's terms was that the Republicans opposed any military action and derailed America's security debate in exchange for a witch hunt that uncovered a blow job. Shall we forget Republicans calling Clinton unfit for being C in C and any action "Wag the Dog"?

I guess Democrats are seeking revenge. In any case, this political mess has disrupted policy for fourteen years so far.

Bobby, Mets have some pitching to work out too. Kuo's got some stuff. Man did N D crush Penn. 41 17.

I've struggled with this one the last few days...

I'm a partisan democrat...we've had that discussion before... but I am a moderate one (read: I distrust and despise the republican party enough to identify myself with their tactical opposite). I don't believe in censorship, by any stretch.

It's why, despite the fact that I've joined in the banter and discussion at dkos...I've not sent a letter or made an irate phone call.

ABC deserves to get horrible ratings for this piece of schlock...but, they're not representing it as a documentary...just barely.

My biggest gripe is this:

We, as a nation, are still grappling with the question of "how do we FIX the problem" that jumped into the limelight with 9/11...

Our national discourse would be better helped with a DETAILED breakdown of the events of 9/11 and 9/12+ (at ground zero)....
We need to become better aware of the scope of what happened and the enormity of the loss.

I think a well-documented and researched DOCUMENTARY of 9/11 would be 10000x more successful and rewarding than this fictionalization.

I don't plan on watching this hunk of crapola today or tomorrow... but I'm not going to join in the chorous of voices trying to blast ABC for it. It just wouldn't set right with me, personally. I'm just disappointed in them for making something so tacky about a serious matter.

If I want to see something tacky...I'll just tune in and watch my old, shoddy Lions get slaughtered by the Seahawks! :-P

LOL, Patrick.

Well, Pat, as one "hysterical, whiny, crybaby" who's been signing petitions and writing letters to ABC and George Mitchell, I thought I'd throw my two pennies in. I'm with Chris and Paul on this one. If ABC wants to show this, let them do it on December 11, or better yet, on September 11 of next year.

BTW, Berger pled guilty to taking copies of the documents to refresh his memory. If he had destroyed the originals, than he would indeed be in prison. But he didn't, so he isn't.

And here's a fun fact for all you legal folks out there; PT911 will be simutanously broadcast in Britain on BBC: British libel law is far more "plaintiff friendly" than the US. Which means if I want to broadcast a movie which shows a look-alike actress Princess Elizabeth making out with a look-alike Hitler actor (I'm planning on calling it "Princess Elizabeth Windsor; Mein Fuhrer is Mine Lover!") then I'm free to do so, but when the Queen's barristers will bring a substantial lawsuit against me, and the burden of proof will be on me to prove I meant no defamation, not the Queen to prove I did.

"Well, you see, mi'lord, I didn't mean that Princess Elizabeth, I...uh...meant the Princess Elizabeth of...uh..Cloud Cuckoo Land. Yeah, that's the ticket."

Whereupon mi'lord will laugh heartily, then fine me a sum that will bankrupt me and my loved ones until the next Queen Elizabeth comes to the throne.

And it isn't only Clinton, Berger, and Albright that have reason to call out the lawyers. In one scene, Muhammed Atta is about to take off on American Airways flight from Boston's Logan airport, when a airline worker sees a warning pop up on Atta's file. The supervisor shrugs, then says "All we can do is hold his luggage 'til he boards." and off Atta goes to infamy.

Well, obviously Boston's Logan airport, and American Airways deserve punishment for their negligance, don't they? Only three problems;

a) The warning popped up in the Portland, Maine airport, not Boston's Logan.

b) Atta was flying US Air, not American Airlines.

c) Airline regulations of the time said suspected passengers' (back in the days where people were more worried about drugs than terrorism) luggage could be kept back until they boarded, and nothing else. No searches, no questioning, nada.

I believe mi'lord will have quite a few interesting cases before him.

Well, Jean, I haven't defended the film, I'm quite certain it's as big a piece of garbage as most network fare. What I've most criticized is the use of the power of government officials like Harry Reid to threaten and intimidate ABC with the loss of its broadcast license if it continues. That's wrong.

And again, the Democrats have hardly been consistent about this. Farenheit 9-11 is at least as false and misleading as this film, and Democrats praised it to the high heavens and brought the filmmaker to a place of honor at the DNC. Until your party atones for that sin, I'm not going to be buckets, and will continue to call the party leaders (not you, though) whiny babies.

As for Berger, he took several copies, yes, not the "original". But the copies he took may well have had marginal notations made by the recipients of the memmo. For example, a memo goes to national security advisor, the President, the Veep, and the chief of staff. Well, the "original" is probably the copy that goes to the President. But the nat'l. security advisor has his own copy for his own files. It's a "copy", but it has the notes he wrote on it from the meeting they all had about it. THOSE are the copies that Berger took and destroyed. We have no way of knowing what handwritten notes were lost when he did that.

You're not going to be buckets? Please don't kick the bucket, Pat! I like you too much! ;-)

I'm glad F/911 isn't going to affect our friendship, but we're going to start holding grudges against party leaderships based on films, then I call dibs first. The Wall Street Journal relentlessly hyped The Clinton Chronicles on its editorial page, as did Rush, the American Spectator and a host of other conservative outlets. No, the film makers weren't given places of honor at the GOP convention, but the Dems never nominated Moore for solctor General, like the Reps nominated Ted Olson, one of the prime mover behind The Arkansas Project.

Yet I have forgiven Bob Dole for that.

Still haven't forgiven others, but hey, my soul is a work in progress. ;-)

We can argue from now until the sun burns out about Moore's film; but one thing's that's indiisputable is that he didn't hire actors to portray George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Condi Rice to do things they didn't do and say things they didn't say in order to make them look bad. It wasn't an actor playing George W. Bush staring blankly like a deer caught in the headlights when told about airplanes crashing into the WTC; it was George W. Bush. It wasn't an actress playing Condi Rice saying "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.", it was Condi Rice. You're right in it's only a selective portion of the truth, but it is truth. The falsification of the record (as Bill Bennett put it) is what I'm objecting to, and that's why PT/911 needs to be heavily edited, at least.

Let ABC show it in December, if they want. It will be one more network showing than F/911 ever got.

The copies...

OMG, we'll never see Berger's doodle dipicting himself as a cowboy riding Trigger!

Seriously though, the report made clear that the copies were substanially the same. You say that destroying three copies means he's guillty; I say that leaving two copies means he's innocent, at least of treason. Yes, he's guilty of a crime, and it was a rotten thing to do, but it's not like he's Rosemary Woods destroying the sole copy of Nixon's tapes.

I haven't seen anyone but lefties object to it.

Oh, really? Leftys like Bill Bennett? Like Chris Wallace?
Or JPod?

Oh, yeah, lefties all. :->

Jean,

I didn't see where the two CrooksandLiars articles you linked to supported your argument. Am I missing something? There's a lot of dkos echo chamber stuff over there I am uninterested in sifting through.

BTW,any chance of getting you to admit that selective editing is dishonest?

...if you are going to present a fair and balanced account of what led to 9-11, you must begin with the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, back in 1979...

Actually you'd have to start with the post-Nixon-Vietnam gutting of the field intel community, done by Congress during the first year of the Carter Administration, 1977. During which session, I note, Democrats held firm and filibuster-proof control of both Houses and the White House.

I believe the writers have conservative credentials.

You believe wrongly. The sole writer of the mini-series (at least before the politically inspired re-writes of the last week) was Cyrus Nowrasteh. As I pointed out upstream in this thread, he is also the "writer of such uber-conservative "hit pieces" as Spielberg's Into the West miniseries, the pro-union pro-civil-rights film 10,000 Black Men Named George (about the organization of the Pullman Porter's Union in the 1920's), and that all-time right-wing fave, Oliver Stone's The Day Reagan Was Shot." Yeah, that's sarcasm. Nowrasteh's as solid a LIBERAL film writer as they come. But he's not a hack. He writes it as he sees it, and he's taken endless flack from the right over the years for so doing.

And yes, he admits to using "dramatic license" in conflating numerous seperate events into single events for the film. Namely, Berger's "phone" scene, which "symbolizes" (his words) the dozen or more shots the Clinton admin had at bin Laden that they passed on. As many others have pointed out elsewhere, no one in government (other than the hero of the film, John O'Neill) took the threat that damn seriously until there were 3,000 dead Americans to blame someone for. The Clinton admin had eight years. The Bush admin had eight months. Both failed. And John O'Neill ironically died in the World Trade Center, from the threat he tried so hard to get both admins to take seriously.

What Pat said about the things Berger took. Once again referring to what I already wrote upstream, since some can't seem to read it there:

"While acting as Bill Clinton's representative in choosing which Clinton-era papers should be released to the 9/11 Commission, Berger stole hand-written notes of Clinton Administration briefings concerning Middle East peace talks from the National Archives. He also removed drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration, ones that identified vulnerabilities of American infrastructure, in which margin notes had been written by various members of the Clinton administration. He "inadvertently" secreted them in his jacket, pants, and socks to smuggle them out of the National Archives. Some items were returned by Berger, he reported that other items (such as those millenium reports with marginal notes) were "inadvertently" destroyed, and they were not returned."

Dec 11th vs. Sept. 11th--isn't a little bit censored kind of like a little bit pregnant? I'm so happy to see that liberals are quite consistent. "Free speech for me, but not for thee!" In any case, odds are many to one that ABC's looking for ratings, not trying to pull a partisan play. See also Alessandra Stanley's review, which I linked above. She saw the whole thing. She's most assuredly NOT pimping for the right, or the Bush admin. She's a certified Bush-hating leftie, and she says it's even-handed.

You can call me whatever you like, but during the F911 and The Reagans flaps I was quite clear that stopping them from airing as and when the makers wanted to air them (and in Moore's case, could acquire venues for) was blatant censorship, and unacceptable. Even during the NYT national security flaps, I was consistent--they have the right to print it, and they also bear any legal consequences for so doing.

Unlike some, my position has NOT changed with the alleged slant of the speech presented, and will not, so spare me the excuses and justifications on why this speech must be righteously censored. If those presented feel they are slandered by the film, they have every right to take their complaint to court. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO CENSOR IT TO ORDER, OR KEEP IT FROM BEING SHOWN.

Any buckling under on the part of ABC is pure chicken****ism. And the demands to censor it are pure hypocrisy from anyone who claims to love and support free speech.

The Alessandra Stanley review I cited is linked in another thread, not this one. It can be found here. The title is, appropriately enough, "Laying Blame and Passing the Buck, Dramatized." Excerpt:

The first bombing of the World Trade Center happened on Bill Clinton’s watch. So did the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen. The president’s staff — and the civil servants who worked for them — witnessed the danger of Al Qaeda close up and personally. Some even lost their lives.

In 2001 President Bush and his newly appointed aides had ample warning, including a briefing paper titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” and they failed to take it seriously enough, but their missteps are not equal. It’s like focusing blame for a school shooting at the beginning of the school year on the student’s new home room teacher; the adults who watched the boy torment classmates and poison small animals knew better. (It’s safe to assume that any future mini-series about American foreign policy will not delve flatteringly into Mr. Bush’s march to war in Iraq.)

As I've noted, Alessandra Stanley can hardly be accused of being a right-wing hack. (She can quite fairly be accused of being sloppy--NYT issues quite a lot of typo and misattribution corrections for her column.)

Nowrasteh's as solid a LIBERAL film writer as they come. But he's not a hack.

Doesn't seem so (though still not likely a partisan hack).

Be darned--he calls himself a libertarian conservative, and I am wrong. A libertarian who made a (wonderful, BTW) movie whose hero was a black communist labor organizer, and who made a Reagan flick for Oliver Stone. I still note that The Day Reagan Was Shot suffered many of the same criticisms that the current one is getting--from the other direction. (Alexander Haig in particular was incensed--but didn't try to get the film pulled.)

But what I said stands. The same as when the subject was F911, or The Reagans with Barbra Streisand's hubby playing Reagan. Boycott it, or ABC, fine, have at. Criticize it and debate perceived factual inaccuracires, likewise. Knock yourself out. Urging it be delayed or pulled entirely is utterly and completely hypocritical when coming from anyone who claims to love free speech. Threatening ABC's broadcast license, as the Democratic Senate leadership most certainly did, is a revolting attempt at government censorship.

And the net effect of the bitchin' is a much larger ratings share for ABC. Because of all the protesting and heavy-handed heat from the Clinton gang, the movie is getting much wider exposure and viewership than it would have gotten otherwise.

The objection I would have is the notice that was originally going to be put up front that this was all based on fact when some of the depictions were horribly fictional.
That doesn't look good in the end to TV execs who get called to the carpet by their legal staff, the same programming execs in turn who are distancing themselves from their decision and the producer, whatever his political persuasion, is going to find it a lot harder to pitch his next project to anyone but Rupert Murdoch.

as it is I could stand about 10 minutes of it and then shut off the damn TV. You could tell where some of the cuts were made at the last minute. Yet another horrible network made for TV movie. Like the Reagan one they'll both end up in TV hell AKA, the Lifetime Channel. Ooops- just a difference - the Reagan program never aired on CBS, it went to cable instead.

Much better TV recommendation is "Life on Mars" on BBC America Monday night. The finale whould be pretty good.

In defense of Moore at least you know from the outset where he's coming from, he is pretty up front about his politics, his leanings his biases, as opposed to Nawrhetseh who seems not so up front.

As for the accuracy of the film, Olbermann interviewed ex-FBI agent Tom Nicoletti who consulted on the movie and then resigned over objections to the depictions therein. Ouch.
(MSNBC should have the transcript up on Monday)

this is so juicy, can't wait to see what else crwls out into the light on this movie.

Why would anyone watch this when the Redskins are playing the Vikings on MNF? -:) And ABC is programming against their own network? What are NBC and CBS doing tonight?

I seriously doubt that Disney is involved in some sort of right wing conspiracy to discredit the Democrats. The reason for airing it on 9/11 rather than 12/11 is obvious but someone should have recognized the political implications.

The objection I would have is the notice that was originally going to be put up front that this was all based on fact when some of the depictions were horribly fictional.

Marcus, have you ever seen a docudrama that didn't claim to be based on a true story? Ever? (Don't tell Truman Capote or Norman Mailer!)

Big difference between the life of Truman Capote and the events leading to 9/11. You can also bet that their lives wouldn't cost 40 million to shoot nor would it bankrolled by what is appearing to be a number of right wing political interests. There is not much difference between this movie and an ideological infomercial, complete with pain points (terrorist bombings) and "donuts" as we call them (the flash forwards to terrorists). Also note the timing - just before elections. Coincidence? BS.
The only thing that may save these producers from libel suits could be the disclaimer at the front saying it was based on a work of fiction that was written by a current Bush staffer.
As it is I thought the bit about whining that they couldn't bug someone (totally inaccurate by the way) pretty indicative of the rest that I saw.

Like I said, Tonight's "Life on Mars " on BBC channel is better and more intelligent viewing.
If you really want to see the best timeline of 9/11 try http://www.wanttoknow.info/911timeline2pg

LOL. You really did miss the point, didn't you, Marcus? Check out the factual disputes regarding In Cold Blood, both the book and the film. Or absolutely any Mailer book. In short, "docudrama" has never been anything but fictionalized accounts, and anyone who expects otherwise is a moron.

Tonight's "Life on Mars " on BBC channel is better and more intelligent viewing.

On that I think we can agree. Monday Night Football probably also qualifies, though not to the same degree. (And I wish I got BBC channel)