The Liberals were lining up on the red carpet to see Farenheit 9/11 yet want Path to 9/11 censored Ironic ?

Question

Clinton wants the network to pull it
Harry Reid is threatening ABC pulling the License to broadcast.

Answer 1

I think it's pretty amazing myself. As much as they say they are willing to fight for the right of free speech for everyone. I guess they mean everyone that agrees with them.

Answer 2

It should be interesting... I wonder what Michael Moore will be doing.

Tune in Folks!!!

Part I
Sun 09/10/06
08:00 PM EDT

The Path to 9/11"
A dramatization of events in ``The 9/11 Commission Report'' includes the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the capture of Ramzi Yousef.

Date: Sun., Sep. 10, 2006
Time: 8:00PM

Part II
Mon 09/11/06
08:00 PM EDT

The Path to 9/11 (CC,STEREO)
A dramatization depicts events in ``The 9/11 Commission Report,'' including the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, the Sept. 11 attacks and the formation of the 9/11 Commission.

OK Thomas.. you want the truth about BinLaden? Read....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Michael Moore's F 9/11 was no more a documentary than this is. The only difference is the folks at ABC are honest about that up front. You aren't interested in the truth.

Answer 3

Go to http://pol.moveon.org/abcdoc/ to sign MoveOn's petition to stop the movie.

An excerpt from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733545/

<< OLBERMANN: You were privy to everything the president read each day, you had daily access to him. Is there any truth to the principal insinuation here that he was distracted from terrorism by the Lewinsky affair?

SEAN MALONEY: Absolutely not. Let me tell you what. I was there. I saw the president every day during the entire Lewinsky episode, from the day it started to the day it ended. And it was my job to provide him with his daily workload, a mountain of stuff that goes through the Oval Office. And I can tell you, that guy was focused like a laser beam on doing his job. And you know what else I did, I saw all the national security information that went to the president every day, including all the information on the growing threat of al Qaeda. And I can tell you, this — President Clinton was focused like a laser beam on it. And I‘m just telling you as a guy who was there. It is a smear to say that he wasn‘t. It‘s a subjective view, there is no evidence to support it. And I can tell you, as a guy who was in the room, it‘s just not the case. And you know who else knew it? The American people. And that‘s why they stood by him, because he was doing his job. And that‘s why he enjoys the favorable ratings he has today.

OLBERMANN: Do you fear that people will actually believe the docudrama, and now put more blame on President Clinton than he deserves for the events that led up to 9/11?

MALONEY: Well, look, why would ABC be so careless with the truth? Let‘s be clear, there is no dispute that there are factual mistakes in this movie, and they are serious. They just say things that didn‘t happen. And ABC doesn‘t dispute that. Now, the president of ABC Entertainment has said it‘s critically important to get it right. So why not get it right? Why not clean this thing up, or take it down until you get it right? You know, I‘m a New Yorker, and those of us in New York are getting to celebrate the five-year anniversary of this terrible episode. And you know what we‘re thinking about? We‘re still getting on handle on what was in the toxic cloud that went out. The families are still grieving with their loss. This should be a nonpartisan day to come together. This is a terrible time, using falsehoods, to inject politics into this commemoration. I just don‘t know why ABC would do it. It‘s wrong. They ought to fix it. >>

Answer 4

Clinton wants it changed or pulled. A quick search on yahoo news supports the claim. Is that censorship? They are challenging three scenes claiming the 911 Commission Report refutes the scenes. Fine. But Clinton was one of the few people who testified before the committee with a lawyer, so who knows what could have been said. The makers 0f Path to 911 state that they used the 911 Commission Report as well as other sources, yet call this a dramatization and not a documentary.

You do make a good point. Liberals hailed Moore's opinion piece to the point it won best documentary despite documented problems. They relished in the moved to Showtime movie about Reagen despite documented problems. However, let it be a Democrat in the cross-hairs and suddenly all the talk about free speech goes out with the bath water. It's more about image then truth.

To be fair. Conservatives hated the movie about Reagen and wanted it pulled. Conservatives hated Moore's opinion piece, though I don't recall them wanted it pulled. Conservatives are loving the Path to 911. It's more about image then truth.

The real threat here though is the democrats veiled threat to pull their license if The Path to 911 is aired. Can anyone support that kind of goverment censorship?

Answer 5

Farenheit was a documentary, with the facts checked many times from multiple sources. You can check Moores web site for a complete list of souces.

Path to 9/11 is a "docu drama", as ABC calls it, and they admit to 'bending' facts to make it more entertaining. The problem is they are passing it off as fact, when many people who were actually at the events such as the head of the CIA, the Sec. of Defense and State, have said that the events portrayed did not happen at all, or are very different from the truth.

Read the 9/11 commision report, it directly contradicts some of the scenes in the docu drama.

Answer 6

No, if you went (I did not) and saw F 9/11 you were going to watch a documentary. It was Mr. Moore's presentation of the facts which you could research and then agree or disagree. ABC in their docu-drama bypassed the facts and decided to "make some things up." They were caught but you keep defending them because it doesn't matter. The Republicans are always right and the Democrats are always wrong. Little FYI for you, they both lie and everyday you get screwed by both of them. Try looking for the truth instead of just repeating every mantra they present you with.

Answer 7

I think that the propaganda piece, "Path to 9/11" should be shown in it's entirety AFTER the November elections. It is obvious that this cheesy manipulated pile of crap was created and funded by the the right-wing to sway the electorate (not all that sophisticated to begin with) to vote for candidates who support the Bush regime's rape of America. That ABC would participate in such a sham seems to indicate that they have either been intimidated or infiltrated by the fascist elements trying to totally control America for their own benefit.

Answer 8

Several Democrat office holders have asked that it be pulled, and have mentioned the government license process. That, to me, is a veiled threat.

People can criticize all they want. They have a right to.

People boycotted the CBS Reagan movie, and they pulled it. (It ran on Showtime.) Private citizens have a right to exert pressure, by saying they will not patronize advertisers, etc.

But threats of government action are something else. No matter who is doing it. If it happened in the Reagan movie case then that was wrong too.

If any Republican had done this, the reactions would be different.

That's what I object to most of all.

What we have here, though, is Democrats on record as favoring government censorship.

Prior restraints on media are VERY hard to obtain. If a private person threatens libel suits, they still can't stop publication. But if the publisher is wrong they will likely fold, so as not to be whalloped with a lawsuit. Legally, you cannot libel a dead person though.

And whatever portions are removed will become 100 times more famous. They will be plastered all over the internet.

Unless the Democrats try to censor that too.

My suggestion is that Bush ask for the exact same cuts, VERY publicly. then ABC will be sure NOT to make them, so it will not be seen as "caving in to King George."

NO DOUBLE STANARDS!!!

Answer 9

The path to 9/11 is a dramatization based on propaganda. One could argue that Fahrenheit 9/11 was another example of propaganda, except that most of the movie was just presenting facts that the media like to leave out of their reports. The path to 9/11 is a drama, with a script based upon ideas that many people disagree with. I dont find it ironic at all. In fact it goes well with the latest string of speeches given bY bUSH. what i find so funny is that he keeps drilling his followers with the same rhetoric. He keeps drilling it deeeper and deeper so that YOU WILL BELIEVE. Are his follwers that numb that they cannot recognize when the wool has been pulled up over their eyes? Are they so numb that they cannot recognize when they are given the same awnsers over and over, awnsers that do not make sense, and are contrary to facts??

Answer 10

Liberals love Freedom of Speech.

It is conservatives that hate Freedom of Speech.

I want to see the new ABC Mini-Series.

I love all the true life non-partisan documentaries from Michael Moore and other great producers.

I am anxiously waiting to see the true life documentary, "Dixie Chicks, Shut up and Sing", which I have heard, describes how much Conservatives Hate Free Speech!

Answer 11

The liberal definition of "censorship" is "banning those things we think are correct." There is much hypocrisy from the left on the issue of censorship. Go to Cal-Berkley and see the liberal groups throw a whole stack of conservative magazines in the trash or liberals who shout and heckle at conservative rallies.

Even the "political correctness" garbage was an attempt to silence those they disagree with.