Originally Posted By Dabob2 <and sure as heck won't be tuinng in Spike Lee's latest piece....> Actually, vbdad, I saw that piece and I think it's well worth watching. Not for its political points, which are easily seen, and often subtle as a truck (though you might be surprised how many people are quite critical of Ray Nagin.) It's worth watching because much of it isn't about politics, and just about the people who lived through Katrina. Their stories are alternately heartbreaking and inspiring and when Lee lets off the politics and just lets them speak, it can be very moving. You have to sort through some grandstanding, but there are a lot of moving stories in there.
Originally Posted By woody Here'a review that shows how much Bush is represented in the film. Sure Michael Medved is a conservative critic, but he has listed the amount of time devoted to the content of Bush versus Clinton. <a href="http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/003759a4-8a39-4f44-8b4f-96af11c75218" target="_blank">http://michaelmedved.townhall. com/blog/g/003759a4-8a39-4f44-8b4f-96af11c75218</a> "Unlike Mr. McMahon and his hyperventilating Democratic colleagues, I've actually watched the miniseries in question-- in its entirety -- and there is no chance that any sane observer who bothers to sit through all five hours of this riveting presentation could ever describe it as "right wing propaganda." As a matter of fact, the miniseries is particularly hard on the Bush administration and Condaleezza Rice, as well as highlighting the way that Clinton and his aides fell short in their dealing with the terrorist threat. In terms of running time of the presentation, at least ninety minutes of the mini series focuses on events during the Bush presidency-- representing at least 30% of the total program. Meanwhile, Bush was president during the period covered by the miniseries (February, 1993, through September 11, 2001) for only eight months; Clinton was president for eight years (less a single month). In other words, Clinton occupied the White House for 93% of the actual historical period under consideration, but his shortcomings occupy less than 70% of the miniseries running time." "In other words, by one easily quantifiable measure, "The Path to 9/11" doesn't inapporpirately focus on Clinton and his failures; if anything, it concentrates disproportionately on the disappointing performance of President Bush at the very beginning of his term."
Originally Posted By vbdad55 well that's a review I will consider -- just hoping his histrionics don't get in the way too much.... if he really wanted to do something for the people he could have used his time and $ to film an unbiased documentary - along with weather channel andother sources and had the sale of DVD monies go towards helping those who need it...
Originally Posted By DlandDug Just finished night #1. Tempest in a teapot, says I. But what do I know? I caught the writer on the radio Friday, talking with Sean Hannity. (He has apparently been out tub thumping to all the right wing talkers.) Two salient points were made in the short time I listened. 1. The miniseries is not based exclusively on the 9/11 Report. The writer also used other books, as well as personal recollections. (I noted in tonight's credits that the book "The Cell" was included.) 2. The criticism being leveled was based almost entirely on night #1, which is all about events during the Clinton era. So it stands to reason that the left would be up in arms. That said, I do find it troubling that a program that claims to be historically factual (albeit with dramatic license) didn't consult the actual people being portrayed. I believe that if a person still living is being presented in something that claims veracity, the producers should at the very least let them look over "their" scenes and dialogue. But I suppose that would get so complicated and fraught with legal jeopardy...
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<<That said, I do find it troubling that a program that claims to be historically factual (albeit with dramatic license) didn't consult the actual people being portrayed. I believe that if a person still living is being presented in something that claims veracity, the producers should at the very least let them look over "their" scenes and dialogue. But I suppose that would get so complicated and fraught with legal jeopardy...>>> So are you saying that Michael Moore should have consulted President George W Bush first before producing his movie F911?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy What good what it have done to ask Clinton, Berger, Dick Clark, or Madelin Albright if the movie was accurate? These people have been liars from the start and have been trying to cover up their incompetence for years now. They were not going to give anyone the truth.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml?s=ic" target="_blank">http://www.newsmax.com/archive s/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml?s=ic</a> >>On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role Bill Clinton denies it now, but he once admitted he passed up an opportunity to extradite Osama bin Laden. And NewsMax has the former President making the claim on audiotape.<< Here is the link to the audio... <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3" target="_blank">http://www.newsmax.com/audio/B ILLVH.mp3</a> >>Clinton's comments and his actions relating to American efforts to capture bin Laden have taken on renewed interest because of claims made in a new ABC movie, the "Path to 9/11," that suggests Clinton dropped the ball during his presidency. Clinton has also angrily denied claims the Monica Lewinsky scandal drew his attention away from dealing with national security matters like capturing bin Laden. During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York. 9/11 Commissioner former Sen. Bob Kerrey said that Clinton told the Commission during his private interview that reports of his comments to the LIA were based on "a misquote." During his interview with the 9/11 Commission, Clinton was accompanied by longtime aide and former White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, along with former national security advisor Sandy Berger, who insisted in sworn testimony before Congress in Sept. 2002 that there was never any offer from Sudanese officials to turn over bin Laden to the U.S.<< And there is MUCH more at the link....
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060911.asp#4" target="_blank">http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts /2006/cyb20060911.asp#4</a> >>It's been natural for some to link the Clintonista campaign against ABC's The Path to 9/11 with the efforts of MRC and other groups protesting in late 2003 CBS's flimsy biopic on The Reagans. The MRC's Rich Noyes makes one obvious point of difference: Clinton is cogent enough to defend himself. In the fall of 2003, Reagan was deep into his Alzheimer's disease and dying. For anyone who needs specifics on how the liberal media reacted to the conservative protests against The Reagans, which Viacom moved from CBS to Showtime, below is a set of quotes from the November 10, 2003 edition of our Notable Quotables newsletter. Back then, journalists fretted about "artistic freedom" with USA Today's TV critic declaring: "This act of creative sabotage should put to rest the idea that the media are liberal." Brian Williams asked: "Do you believe what has happened here with this mini-series on CBS amounts to extortion?" And a New York Times editorial referred to a "Soviet-style chill embedded in the idea that we, as a nation, will not allow critical portrayals of one of our own recent leaders." The MRC's Tim Graham gathered these quotes for a Friday morning item on NewsBusters: newsbusters.org Creating a "Soviet-Style Chill" "His [Ronald Reagan's] supporters credit him with forcing down the Iron Curtain, so it is odd that some of them have helped create the Soviet-style chill embedded in the idea that we, as a nation, will not allow critical portrayals of one of our own recent leaders." -- Editorial in the November 5 New York Times. Reagan Deserved Hitler Treatment "If Hitler had more friends, CBS wouldn't have aired [its Hitler mini-series] either." -- Philadelphia Daily News TV critic Ellen Gray, as quoted by the Washington Post's Lisa de Moraes in a November 4 column. Would He Appreciate the Lies? "Michael, your dad comes, came from the Hollywood community, and he knows what the issues of artistic freedom are. How do you think he'd react?" -- ABC's Charles Gibson to Michael Reagan on Good Morning America, November 4. <<
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>What good what it have done to ask Clinton, Berger, Dick Clark, or Madelin Albright if the movie was accurate?<< I wouldn't rely on them for complete accuracy, but it would seem to me that it would be possible to avoid egregious examples of "fictionalization" that throw the entire project into question. When Hollywood creates biopics of living people (Ray Charles and Johnny Cash, most recently, who were alive at the time the films were in production), the writers and performers almost always make an effort to meet with the living subjects, if for nothing more than verisimilitude. If that is true for the depiction of "Vampira" in Ed Wood, why not for Sandy Berger or Madeline Albright in something with a bit more import?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan If that is true for the depiction of "Vampira" in Ed Wood, why not for Sandy Berger or Madeline Albright in something with a bit more import?<< Excellent point. NOTE: Any similarities between Ed Wood, Vampira, Sandy Berger and Madelyn Albright are purely coincidental. : D
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<If that is true for the depiction of "Vampira" in Ed Wood, why not for Sandy Berger or Madeline Albright in something with a bit more import?>> What do you do if you have sworn testimony from many people that Berger and Clinton passed on Bin Laden when they could have had him only to have Clinton and Berger deny it? You go ahead and take the information you have from your sources and the 9-11 report and you make your movie. Clinton and his crew dropped the ball on terrorism while they had power and they have been trying to re write history ever since. This ABC movie simply brings to light the truth of what happened based on real reports and testimony from CIA agents and other people. Clinton happens.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hey Pass, Why don't you go to one of your Michael Moore style websites for your own version of the truth? That is where you like to send people when you fire off one of your moonbat talking points. Thanks for voting for Bush in 2004 however.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder It's going to be a November to remember. Checks and balances, baby, checks and balances. <a href="http://rasmussenreports.com/" target="_blank">http://rasmussenreports.com/</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Remember that movie about Martha Stewart that was on a year or so ago, starring Cybil Shepard? Since it was a docudrama about a person who was still living, should Martha Stewart have had veto power over the final edit? I don't remember anyone arguing for that at the time.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "When Hollywood creates biopics of living people (Ray Charles and Johnny Cash, most recently, who were alive at the time the films were in production), the writers and performers almost always make an effort to meet with the living subjects, if for nothing more than verisimilitude." So, did Michael Moore meet with Bush, Cheney, et al before filing F-911, or did he just use old news footage and editorialize?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...should Martha Stewart have had veto power over the final edit?<< No, any more than Albright or Berger should have had veto power. Nor did I even suggest they should. But I do believe that the import of this material would have made it a wise move to at the very least consult with these people. (May we agree that Martha Stewart's legal woes are a trifle more trifling than the events leading up to 9/11?) Yes, the writer of Path to 9/11 made very sure that there was a source for every assertion. But what harm would it have done to consult a primary source? And how much criticism could have been blunted from the outset of the project?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Revisionist history at its most vile.<< Funny-- I was just over at the "Bush Lied" thread, when almost this same exact thought occurred to me. Everything that everyone "knew" before the invasion (Saddam had WMDs, was harboring terrorists, was a threat to America, etc) is now being retoractively called lies. Revisionist history...
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>So, did Michael Moore meet with Bush, Cheney, et al before filing F-911, or did he just use old news footage and editorialize?<< Moore, as we all know, was not fictionalizing his subject matter, but was rather creating a documentary. Therefore, he had no reason to consult anyone other than the chorus of voices in his own head.
