Where are those harbingers of free speech the ACLU?

Question

Path to 9/11...

Uhh... ya No one ever said it was fact. As a matter of fact ABC said the miniseries "The Path to 9/11" is a “dramatization,” not a documentary.

Answer 1

Uh...the harbingers of free speech were, I believe, the framers of the Constitution of the United States. Oh yeah, also all of them silly military guys who bled and died defending freedom around the world.

Answer 2

I don't think the hard cores will read this, but it's a good try, at least its truth!
ACLU doesn't infringe on free speech, no matter who speaks, they fight to protect it.
As for Path To 9/11, the producers have issued a disclaimer saying that since it is a Docudrama, they could fictionalize it. It is based on a true story but doesn't have to be the absolute truth.

The main lies concern Clinton's dealing with the possible threat of Bin Laden. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. These detail are not in the ABC drama.

Bush Administration's "national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions."

On April 30, 2001 Richard Clark presented a plan he had been working on per Clinton to get troops on the ground to hunt down Bin Laden to Cheney's chief of staff Lewis Libby, the State Department's Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and John McLaughlin from the CIA. This spawned more meetings, however the administration still took no action after a fourth meeting.

On June 10, 2001 Phoenix FBI agent Ken Williams sent a memo to Washington regarding concerns over a group of Middle Eastern students at an Arizona flight school.

On July 5, a month and a day before President Bush's now-infamous briefing on possible al Qaeda hijacking, Richard Clarke warned that "something spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon."

On August 6, George Tenet delivered a PDB to Bush entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Bush was busy playing golf.
While this is the memo most people are now familiar with, it's important to note Bush received memos from April to July with the following titles:
-- "Bin Laden planning multiple operations."
-- "Bin Laden public profile may presage attack."
-- "Bin Laden network's plans advancing."
-- "Bin Laden threats are real."
-- "Bin Laden planning high profile attacks."

This is Bush's answer when ask why he didn't respond to this threat, he replied:
"I was prepared to look at a plan that would be a thoughtful plan that would bring him to justice and would have given the order to do that. I have no hesitancy about going after him but I didn't feel that sense of urgency."

So much for dumping on Clinton in the ABC drama.

Answer 3

No one is denying anyone their free speech!

Do you remember the CBS movie, "The Reagans," that ended up being aired on Showtime? The conservatives did their best to keep it form being aired on CBS while the liberals were screaming "censorship!" Now I predict the liberals will do their best to keep it from airing while the conservatives cry "censorship."

What a bunch of hypocrites on both sides!

If the conservatives cry "foul" when this movie gets bumped from ABC to cable, then they will be hypocrits, too.

* The petition says *
""The Path to 9/11" is a partisan movie, written and produced by a right-wing activist who fabricated key scenes to blame Democrats and defend Republicans.
The movie appears to be part of a coordinated push -- including speeches by President Bush and millions of dollars in advertising -- to exploit the five-year anniversary of 9/11 for political gain.
ABC must not air partisan propaganda on 9/11."

I have no problem with the liberals expressing their opinion through this petition. I only have a problem with the hypocrisy. When the conservatives did the same type of thing for the "Reagan" movie, the liberals were screaming "censorship!"

Answer 4

It is a dramatization based on the facts of the 911 commission report, and it is the facts that are facts and, not lies, or stories that the dems are trying to hide, and keep hidden from the public.
They don't want people reminded about how Sandy Burger stuffed secrets down his pants never to be seen again in order to defraud the 911 commission, and Clinton, refusing to go after Osama when he had the chance but was to interested in a golf game. Oh the humanity of the deceipt of the clintons is unbelieveable these are facts that are documented.....You libs just can't handle the truth.

Answer 5

WHAT? Coragryph, are you nuts? What the hell are you talking about? In your asinine assessment, as long as a story is censored, as fiction, as long as it is not the truth, it isn't a violation of free speech? You know damn well that the democrats pushing ABC to cancel this film is an absolute violation of free speech as well as other issues of gross negligence! Where was this complaint from the Democrats when Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" was released?

(Additional to Coragryph) I'm going to assume you didn't change anything in your first post. When I went back to read it again, and with your edit... I completely agree with you on your point! What was it, the fact that I didn't eat and had a low blood sugar attack? Who knows! But what you say in your post is correct! I stand corrected, and I apologize!

Answer 6

The movie is a story. Nobody's constitutional rights are being infringed. So, it's not a legal issue.

{EDIT to blakest.anthony} I don't understand your argument.

Just because a bunch of people are yelling about the movie, that doesn't mean it is going to be censored. There's no way a court is going to issue an injunction banning the movie from airing. No way.

So, just because the Democrats are mad, they don't have the legal authority to do anything about it. Hence, no legal issue.

Or are you making a different argument, and I'm missing it?

Answer 7

I love how Clinton is sweating on this and demanding it not be shown. I guess he's sorry now he turned down all those chances to have bin laden given to him and that nothing was really done after the first attack on tower one.
ANYHOO, I will watch the movie. Either way it happened, BOTH SIDES of our government screwed up

remember when the liberals wet themselves over farenheit 9/11 declaring it the greatest movie ever made

Answer 8

No one has banned it - people have simply used their freedom of speech to protest it. What could possibly be more American than that?

After all, this is precisely what conservatives did with the Reagan movie.

Answer 9

The ACLU are too busy over in Iraq trying too defend Saddams rights....

After all they only stick up for their own kind...

Answer 10

It's so "American" that this is getting more press than real issues. Who cares about some movie of the week.