Why are they caving into Clinton so easily in regards to the upcoming mini-series “The Path to 9/11”? Does he have something on them or do they feel somehow threatened?
2006-09-09 08:32:43 · 19 answers · asked by scarlettt_ohara 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I doubt Willie has the juice at this time to have another murder covered up like he did with the secret service and Park Police when he had Vince killed. So the short answer is No! He has threatened their license to broadcast if the Dem's get back in total power and that was indeed the threat he made to ABC exec's.
2006-09-09 08:40:47 · answer #1 · answered by trumain 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Members of the 9/11 commission report, on which this movie was supposedly based, have said that some key scenes in the movie are inaccurate and do not reflect their findings. Maybe the executives at ABC are "caving" because they new they new Clinton was right about the inaccuracies. Maybe the Lawyers for ABC advised their client that if anyone from the Clinton administration sued ABC for libel that they could win.
I'm sure the ideal for you would be a movie that Bashed Clinton and was accurate. But what would you do if you had to chose between bashing him or having an accurate film?
The Foster comment doesn't deserve comment.
2006-09-09 08:49:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Mainly they are re-evaluating the facts which they were going to present. They are questionable and there's an agenda with the guy who made the docu drama.
Now Vince Foster is a real serious issue. I always wondered why Ken Starr never bothered to really dig into that. Vince is found with a pistol in the wrong hand after his body is moved onto the park to make sure the park police completely bungle any potential investigation.
Somebody murdered Vince Foster and it should be important to the American people to know who did it and why.
As for ABC ending up like Vince Foster...I don't think they should cave in to calls for censorship, but they do have a real responsibility to present truthful information.
Would you want them to present falsehoods just because it fits your impression of events???
Is it that important to keep bashing Clinton? Aren't you guys tired of it yet....
2006-09-09 15:13:09 · answer #3 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Are you still suggesting Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster? This is how I know Conservatives are lying morons.
no fewer than 5 investigations have determined Foster killed himself and the Clintons had nothing to do with it. This includes an investigation done by Ken Starr. Remember him. The Right-wing attach dog the Republicans sent after the President?
Even he said Foster's death was a simple suicide, nothing more. If you right wing wackos won't believe Ken Starr, who do you believe?
2006-09-09 08:41:38 · answer #4 · answered by arvis3 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
this is solved a good number of issues for the Clinton's in the previous, so why does not she think of of this as her saving grace? She is a despicable individual. She isn't elected dogs catcher after this. I doubt that there is a unmarried Obama supporter who does not situation that some nut activity will attain removing him from the competition. This jogs my memory of Huckabee's NRA comments final week. this is a photograph into the soul, the black soul, of somebody devoid of ethical compass. That this might have even entered the ideas, no longer to show pop out of the mouth of the two of them is horrifying revealing of their force for ability.
2016-12-15 05:16:50 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
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.
2006-09-09 12:13:10 · answer #6 · answered by iknowtruthismine 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
ABC distorted history. They portrayed events that never occurred as being real - they deserve censure. Oh but wait... it must be the "liberal media's" fault! The 9/11 commission report disagrees with what ABC was doing... of course, what if ABC said that the Bush administration distorted the truth about getting us involved in a war in Iraq - oh wait... they did! ABC deserves the treatment they are getting. It wouldn't be fair to HISTORY if they lied, and they DID.
2006-09-09 08:38:10 · answer #7 · answered by Paul H 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think they're afraid to lose their license as our elected officials have threatened to pull it. It's a disgrace. People should be appalled that our government would THREATEN the media if they don't CENSOR a FICTIONAL movie. I don't even want to watch the crap, I'm still horribly offended. Big picture here, people. This is more important than Clinton getting a little fictional egg on his face.
2006-09-09 08:35:45 · answer #8 · answered by MEL T 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good question.
There are still many people in Arkansas who are afraid of ending up like Vince Foster, and others.
Dangerous situation.
2006-09-09 08:35:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I seem to remember a proposed TV movie on Ronald Reagan that was never aired because of the protests of conservatives.
A little hypocrisy in the air today?
2006-09-09 09:02:20 · answer #10 · answered by Steve 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋