But Hollywood can allow a fabricated mess on behalf of Michael Moore on 9/11?? Interesting! It's about time the other half is exposed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14707869/?GT1=8506
2006-09-07 06:44:19 · 19 answers · asked by COblonde 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
MishMash I'm blowing it out of proportion? I think the media is already doing that as that's where I got my info. from!
2006-09-07 07:31:02 · update #1
You are so right about the documentary. This fat idiot moore can show his lying film, but let someone come out with a film Clinton's failure as a president and all H*** breaks loose. It absolutely is about time to drop the other shoe and make sure it drops real hard on all of these lies about 9/11.
2006-09-07 06:59:03 · answer #1 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "Path To 9/11" film makers have said and I quote;
• More politics news ..Washington Post 9/7/06
ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes."
It is a docudrama made for TV, not as nonfiction, not historical fact.
The uncensored documentary is being shown. Ficton and all.
2006-09-07 14:18:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
ABC has said that some scenes are fictionalized. Members of the 9/11 commission have said that the scenes the Clinton officials are objecting to are not accurate. Doesn't that matter to you? Or do you just want to see Clinton hammered, even if it's based on lie? That's what Michael Moore's critics accuse him of doing.
BTW nowhere in the article did it say that ABC was canceling the show.
2006-09-07 14:35:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The liberals dont want the truth to get out because if it did people would turn against them. They create these lies and people believe them. Fahrenheit 9/11, loose change, its all bullsh*t. If the liberals can blame something on a republican, they will.
Also Syria offered Osama to President Clinton 4 times, and President Clinton denied them. This was after the first wtc bombing and the embassy bombings in africa.
But libs will cover it up when a democratic senator drives off a bridge and kills an innocent girl, i.e. TED KENNEDY
2006-09-07 13:45:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It will air with disclaimers. That's all. You are blowing it out of proportion. What ABC tries to pass off as facts needs to be noted as fiction. It is a docudrama, really a crockudrama. Michael Moore is his own disclaimer. We all know what kind of films he makes. ABC, however, is trying to depict fiction as fact. All the neocons will eat it up and spit it out as truth. That should not happen.
I just mean that it's a docudrama, end of story. No one should take it as complete and 100% factual. That's all. What Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright wanted, they got. It will air with disclaimers. They will still be trashed and smeared, but now it won't be labeled as "fact."
2006-09-07 14:01:19 · answer #5 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maj. Oliver North warned a congressional committe about Osama 12 - 15 years befor 9/11. Al Gore laughed out loud and called North paranoid. Gee, who was right?
2006-09-07 13:47:22 · answer #6 · answered by Spirit Walker 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
This is just alot more of the same old thing going around today .Did clinton let osama escape did clinton bomb people to draw attention away from his impeachment did clinton do this and that .
Who cares he is out of office now and no longer a threat to the security of the United States of America .
Reducing the military to all time lows and cutting defense spending and putting college grads out of work .What was Clinton thinking .
We need to take tax dollars from working americans and spend it all on defense .THE poor need to get educated and go to work no handouts .
2006-09-07 13:50:06 · answer #7 · answered by playtoofast 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You are retarded.... Facts in F-9/11 have been vetted many times over. Of course its Moore so there is plenty of opinion and leading but that facts are accurate (Bush did sit there and read My pet goat for several minutes AFTER he was told we were attacked)
Nobody says ABC can't air the docudrama (It's NOT a documentary by the way). But they should at least be accurate in their representation.
Did you even read the article? It's supposed to be based on the 9/11 commission report and even folks on that commission said its innacurate. Clinton did get his lumps to an extent in the 9/11 report. Maybe YOU should read that
Retards--- OMG this country is full of retards!
2006-09-07 13:48:18 · answer #8 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Not the Oliver North that helped President Reagan to trade weapons for hostages. You wanted President Clinton to believe him.
2006-09-07 13:58:26 · answer #9 · answered by smitty 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe that the controversy isn't regarding the content half as much as it is regarding how the show is being promoted. The advertisements aren't stating that it is a dramatization or docu-drama, so people are of the belief that it is a documentary, stating what really happened, and not what is believed to have happened. It is like the James Frey "A Million Pieces" scandal.
2006-09-07 13:48:00 · answer #10 · answered by debmichelle1972 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋