Should ABC edit the Path to 9/11 docudrama or drop it?

Question

I think it should be shown as is and let the people decide what they believe.

Answer 1

I find this very interesting that people are accusing ABC of leaning conservative in this movie? It's funny in lieu of Michael Moore's documentaries nobody fought to keep his movies out of the general public when he deliberately slanted them against the Bush admin. but I digress...yes I think the movie should be shown as is and let the people decide for themselves. I heard the writer of the movie on the Sean Hannity radio show yesterday, and he said that all the hub-bub is stemming from a screening of the movie in which they only played the 1st night's part, not the entire movie due to time constraints. The objections are because the movie chronicles the path to 9/11 starting w/ the 1993 WTC attack. Hmm lets see...1993-2001, a period of 8 years, 7 of which Clinton was the president. It seems only logical that a movie in which rougly 88% of the time falls under the Clinton presidency would show some aspects of the Clinton pres. in which they dropped the ball. Is the Bush admin. the only admin. that can be criticized for dropping the ball?

Let me explain further: Bush was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2001...that was less than 8 months before 9/11 happened. As we know the terrorist had been planning 9/11 for much longer than 8 months and as the movie points out, starting in 1993 with the first terror strike on US soil, our government KNEW that terrorism was a problem, that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were enemies of the US and that if we didn't become proactive we would find ourselves victims again. It has been demonstrably proven that President Clinton, with his 7 years of presidency from the 1st attacks until his presidency ended, had the chance to take bin Laden and he turned it down. People try to weigh all the evidence against Bush because they don't like his personal beliefs and policies, but its clear that Clinton most certainly had a hand to play in this story. How can the person who had 8 months of presidency be soley responsible while the person before him who had 7 years from a major terror attack and many after that abroad not be held to any accountability at all? Pehaps Clinton was too preoccupied getting sucked off in the Oval Office and the subsequent backlash to really focus on what was important. Remember the 9/11 hijackers came to America and began flight school and training on CLINTON'S watch-not GWB's.

Answer 2

People need to understand the difference in a "docudrama" and a "documentary". This is marketed as a docudrama and shouldn't be changed or edited to appease anyone. Both former President Clinton and President Bush are alive and capable of disputing anything that is incorrect. In demanding changes to this, Clinton is insuring that people will tune in, he should have kept quiet. It's amazing how much the man has gotten away with, his followers would not change their minds and dis-tractors aren't going to be swayed if they edit it. I agree with leadfoot willie, hollywood (with a small h) is notorious for rewriting history, and will again, and I don't mind the word "whore" in describing hollywood at all, I think it is a perfectly appropriate word to describe them. (excuse me for using the word also).

Answer 3

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 4

I was as opposed to the inaccuracies of the Reagan story as I am this one.

Hollywood is and always has been a whore (forgive my use of terms but a spade is a spade).

Hollywood has a history for distorting the truth. But the alarming notion the this Iger guy has to distribute this fantasy to our school children and present it as a documentary is just not American.

To teach our children more lies will only make them distrust the older generation when they (the kids) grow up and find out the truth.

The "establishment" tried to teach us lies in the fifties and sixties and I hope you all remember the backlash that caused.

Answer 5

Well first off it is a docudrama.That was their first mistake.If they wanted to do something like this why not just go by the finding of the 9-11 commission?Why are they making up scenes and putting together stuff that never happened?It is why to early to be taking poetic license with this story.Do it as a documentary and not embellish it.

Answer 6

I usually agree with Bill O'Reilly, but do not agree with him on this question. He says that because the movie has characters in it that are alive, that what they say in the movie should be factual. Fahrenheit 9-11 did not have characters in it that are living so they were not restricted on their dialogue. Of course, Fahrenheit 9-11 had characters in it that REPRESENTED living characters, but not by the living character's real names so, according to old Bill, they could lie, tell half truths, and make inferences about the living characters. I merely say that if it is a MOVIE, the writer, director and actors should be able to say what they want with the plot and dialogue.

Answer 7

Let me see Ok, let the democrat party do away with freedom of speach and threaten ABC to not show a movie.

So what the heck with civil rights and liberties.

Answer 8

They should strive to make it as accurate as possible, despite the conservatives trying to make it dishonest.

I can't wait until the broadcast the true life honest non-partisan documentary "Dixie Chicks, Shut up and Sing"!!

Answer 9

I believe they should show it, we want all the facts of this tragedy!