Originally Posted By Dabob2 BTW, opposite this program this Sunday is a re-run of the excellent actual documentary on the French brothers who were shooting a doc about the NYFD and ended up in the middle of the WTC collapse. It was an amazing look at the NYFD that day, and it's very moving.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Well, according to Richard Clarke, it not only didn't happen, it wasn't even accurate in spirit.>> <That's funny. That's the same thing some of Richard Clarke's collegues said about his book.> Nice try. But Clarke was there and says what's depicted is essentially the opposite of what happened. He was there; we weren't.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>When did the executive producer state the things you have claimed?<< Remember 'conflation of events' discussion? This might be of interest to you, as well: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701454.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701454.html</a> "ABC to alter show on pre 9/11 run up" If it were 'truthish' as you would like, no allterations would be necessary.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If it were 'truthish' as you would like, no allterations would be necessary.> That's not necessarily true.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I've never claimed any scene was literally true.<< Oh, brother. Do you make the 'BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!" warning sound when you backpeddle? >>it seems a little presumptious of you to declare that ABC shouldn't be showing the movie<< Please tell me where I ever said they 'shouldn't be showing the movie'? Mayeb it was the voice in your head? Don't bother: I never said it. I said they should clearly identify it as fiction if it introduces made up events. You're very confused.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>That's not necessarily true.<< So sayeth the Sword of Truthishness. Whatever, dude.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Do you make the 'BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!" warning sound when you backpeddle?> More attacks instead of facts. <Please tell me where I ever said they 'shouldn't be showing the movie'?> I'm sorry I didn't quote you exactly. Actually, you said, "It's irresponsible of ABC/Disney to run something like this." I guess since I didn't quote you exactly, I just made up what you said, right?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I guess since I didn't quote you exactly, I just made up what you said, right?<< Yes. You mischaracterized what I said as a call for censorship or something. My beef is that they present this thing as 'based on the 9/11 commission report'. If you'd read that rather than right away look to be contrary to me, you wouldn't have embarassed yourself so badly. >>More attacks instead of facts.<< But suggesting I listen to voices in my head is a fact? Got it, Mr. Therm.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/08/abc.movie/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBI Z/TV/09/08/abc.movie/index.html</a> Some excerpts: >The New York Times quoted executive producer Marc Platt saying editing of the miniseries was going on and "will continue to, if needed until we broadcast." The Times, citing Thomas H. Kean, the Republican who chaired the bipartisan 9/11 commission that investigated what led up to the attacks and who has been a consultant to the film, reported that a scene portraying former national security adviser Samuel R. Berger hanging up on a CIA officer at a critical moment is being altered. Two others under review, according to Kean, portray former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright apparently obstructing efforts to capture Osama bin Laden and Clinton being too distracted by impeachment and his marital problems to focus on bin Laden. An ABC executive, who requested anonymity because the network is making only written comments, said small revisions have been under way for weeks, according to The Washington Post. "These are people of integrity," The Post quoted Kean as saying of the filmmakers. "I know there are some scenes where words are put in characters' mouths. But the whole thing is true to the spirit of 9/11."< and >In the past week former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former national security adviser Samuel Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton aide Douglas Band have written letters to Disney CEO Robert Iger to express dismay with the film. "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known," Lindsey and Band wrote. They called the project "a fictitious rewriting of history" and urged it be shelved until "egregious factual errors" could be fixed. Berger objected to the reported portrayal of him refusing to authorize a strike targeting bin Laden when CIA operatives had the al Qaeda leader in their sights. "No such episode ever occurred -- nor did anything like it," he wrote to Iger. (Read Berger's letter -- .pdf file, requires Adobe Acrobat) Plans to snatch bin Laden in Afghanistan in early 1998 were canceled by then-CIA chief George Tenet before any proposal was sent to the White House, according to the 9/11 commission's final report. Kean, the commission's chairman, said he told ABC that the scene involving Berger was inaccurate, and he told CNN that ABC informed him it would revisit the scene. Albright called a reported depiction of her in one scene as "false and defamatory." She said the scene shows her refusing to support a missile attack against al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden without notifying Pakistani officials, whose territory the missiles would have to cross. She said the film depicts her notifying Pakistan of the attack over U.S. military objections. "Before you air your broadcast, I trust you will ensure you have the facts right," Albright wrote to Iger. (Read Albright's letter -- .pdf file, requires Adobe Acrobat) It was Gen. Joseph Ralston, then vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told Pakistani officials that a missile strike was under way against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. The disclosure was made to assure Pakistan that the missiles were not coming from their nuclear-armed rival India, the 9/11 commission reported.< So even the Republican chairman of the 9/11 Commission says liberties were taken with this project, and the Berger scene is inaccurate. But Doug knows better, just like he knows more than the Senate Intelligence Committee. Unbelievable.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If you'd read that rather than right away look to be contrary to me, you wouldn't have embarassed yourself so badly.> I did read that, and I didn't "right away look to be contrary" to you, and I haven't embarassed myself. If you review the thread, you'll see all I did was ask how you knew the event didn't occur the way it was portrayed. You were the one that started the personal attacks, by accusing me of buying Republican spin.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "...that started the personal attacks, by accusing me of buying Republican spin." How is that a personal attack?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So even the Republican chairman of the 9/11 Commission says liberties were taken with this project, and the Berger scene is inaccurate. But Doug knows better, just like he knows more than the Senate Intelligence Committee. Unbelievable.> What's unbelievable is that you're so anxious to prove me wrong that you'll build a huge strawman to try to do it. I never claimed that liberties were not taken with the project. One of my first posts notes that it is a docudrama, not a completely accurate accounting. But as the Republican chairman of the 9-11 commission says, "the whole thing is true to the spirit of 9/11". My problem is that people are accepting the accusations of Clinton administration officials, some of whom are documented liars, as purveyors of truth without any verification.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How is that a personal attack?> Well, it's not up to the levels you set, but I expect better of Kar2oon. He occasionally thinks logically, rather than just dismissing my statements as spin.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Not a problem. I'm not saying anything now I didn't say in my first few posts.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Rule 1 in this section. When the libs and the very confused moderates start saying " you are embarrasing youself " or that you " are not to be taken serious " ... you know they are reeling and have nothing left to say. It happens again and again on here with the same people who quickly run out of arguments. It comes down to this. Clinton and Berger are liars. It's documented. Sandy Berger is a theif. Yet for some reason the usual suspects on here automaticaly back Bubba and Sandy Burgler as the ones who are telling the truth regarding this show? Why? I heard the director today and he made it clear that the movie is very accurate. There are no scenes that are pure fantasy. He has people in the CIA who were in Afghanistan in the raids on Bin Laden. Raids that were called off by the Clinton White House.
Originally Posted By DAR Ultimately who said what and who did what or didn't do what is a moot point at this juncture. And the fault doesn't lie with Bush or Clinton it lies with the Osama Bin Laden and the 19 people he instructed to take over those planes.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And the fault doesn't lie with Bush or Clinton it lies with the Osama Bin Laden and the 19 people he instructed to take over those planes.> And according to those who have actually seen the show, that's who emerges as the villians.
Originally Posted By DAR <<And according to those who have actually seen the show, that's who emerges as the villians.>> Which is how it should with this subject.
