About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

LA Times notes Dem criticism of Path to 9/11, but not its own review's

September 05, 2007 4:42 pm ET

SUMMARY: A Los Angeles Times article on the DVD release of ABC's The Path to 9/11 reported that the original miniseries "ignited a political firestorm, almost entirely from high-profile Democratic leaders who viewed its account ... as a right-wing hatchet job," overlooking factual inaccuracies in the film and sharp discrepancies between the film's account of certain events and the findings laid out in the 9-11 Commission's report, upon which ABC claimed the miniseries was based. Those inaccuracies and discrepancies were pointed out in the Times' own review of The Path to 9/11, which also noted the film's "partisan politics" and its "hopeless muddle of the line between fact and 'dramatization.' "

42 Comments

A September 5 Los Angeles Times article by Martin Miller concerning the DVD release of the ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11, headlined "Is Clinton's candidacy blocking the 'Path to 9/11?' " described the original miniseries, which aired in September 2006, as "highly controversial" and stated that "[e]ven before 'The Path to 9/11' aired on ABC late last summer, the docudrama ignited a political firestorm, almost entirely from high-profile Democratic leaders who viewed its account of events leading up to the terrorist attacks as a right-wing hatchet job on the Clinton administration and its efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden." However, by characterizing the criticism as coming from "Democratic leaders who viewed its account ... as a right-wing hatchet job," Miller simply overlooked factual inaccuracies in the film as well as sharp discrepancies between the film's account of certain events and the findings laid out in the 9-11 Commission's report, upon which ABC said in a July 2006 press release the "epic miniseries [was] based." These falsehoods and discrepancies have been documented by Media Matters for America and noted by numerous others, including the Los Angeles Times itself in a review by staff writer Samantha Bonar, who wrote in a review published September 9, 2006, that "the main problem with 'The Path' is that the interspersing of real news footage with dramatized scenes, a technique employed throughout, makes a hopeless muddle of the line between fact and 'dramatization.' "

Despite ABC's assertion in the July 2006 press release that the network regarded it as "absolutely critical" to "get it right," The Path to 9/11 contained inaccurate and even fabricated scenes that cast the Clinton administration as insufficiently aggressive in combating terrorism and that showed President Bush taking aggressive action not indicated in the 9-11 Commission report. In addition -- contrary to Miller's suggestion in the September 5 article -- the film was sharply criticized, not just by partisan Democrats, but by former Clinton administration officials, journalists, and conservatives alike, who noted that significant parts of the "docudrama's" content were not supported by the 9-11 Commission's findings.

Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, described one scene in the film as a "total fabrication." Further, Berger and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated in a September 8 letter, "Actors portraying us do contemptible things we never did, and say things we neither said nor believed." Conservative author and journalist Richard Miniter criticized parts of the film as "based on an Internet myth" and having "no factual basis." In addition to Miniter, numerous others criticized the film's accuracy, as Media Matters has noted:

  • On the September 8, 2006, edition of CNN's American Morning, conservative radio host and former Reagan administration official Bill Bennett acknowledged that "the Clintons had a point" in pressuring ABC to correct the film and admonished ABC for "falsify[ing] the record," adding, "I think they should correct those inaccuracies."
  • On the September 7, 2006, edition of CNN Headline News' Showbiz Tonight, Harvey Keitel, the film's star, noted that "[i]t turned out not all the facts were correct" and claimed: "Where we have distorted something, we have made a mistake, and that should be corrected. It can be corrected."
  • On the September 7, 2006, edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz criticized ABC for "putting a movie on a serious, sensitive topic on the fifth-year anniversary of 9-11 that contains fiction."
  • On the September 7, 2006, edition of MSNBC's The Most, Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, criticized the film for treating facts "cavalierly," as well as ABC's response to critiques of the film, noting: "[T]hey [ABC] said that complaints about the film are irresponsible because they are still editing the film, yet they were very happy to send out review copies."
  • On the September 8, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann interviewed former FBI agent Tom Nicoletti, who said he was hired as a consultant during the film's production but objected to numerous scenes in the film which he said reflected "improper research." In particular, he faulted the film's depiction of former FBI special agent John O'Neill, who was killed in the 9-11 attacks and is portrayed in the film by Keitel. Nicoletti told Olbermann that he resigned as consultant to the film based on scenes that remained inaccurate despite his input, and that in his opinion The Path to 9/11, "should be reshot and a lot of it corrected."

Moreover, the film's writer and producer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, has admitted that at least one scene was fabricated. That scene falsely portrayed Berger hanging up on CIA director George Tenet as he asks for authorization to let CIA officers and Afghani fighters raid an isolated compound in Afghanistan in order to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. The New York Times quoted Nowrasteh as saying that "Berger did not slam down the phone. That is not in the report. That was not scripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place."

In her Los Angeles Times review of The Path to 9/11, Bonar noted: "The film shows real news footage of Clinton's denials of 'sexual relations ... with that woman, Monica Lewinsky' in 1998 while [John] O'Neill [a character played by Harvey Keitel] and other CIA and FBI agents were desperately scrambling to find Bin Laden and thwart more attacks. And then the partisan politics begin to emerge in the script -- big time." Bonar further called The Path to 9/11 "an irresponsible film, with its factual distortions wrapped in a really terrific package that lulls viewers into complacency, setting them up for the propaganda that is to follow."

From the September 5 Los Angeles Times article:

Among the nearly two dozen television DVDs slated for nationwide release on Sept. 11 is the second season of "Bones," the third season of "Grey's Anatomy" and the miniseries "The Starter Wife" that aired earlier this year. Not on the list on that day or any other in the near future is last year's highly controversial "The Path to 9/11."

The $40-million, five-hour ABC miniseries, which recently received seven Emmy nominations and drew a combined two-night audience of more than 25 million viewers, is for now on the path to nowhere. Its Amazon page reads: "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock."

With no date for the release, questions are being raised about whether political pressure is behind its current status as a stalled or discarded DVD project. The reasons are murky, but the miniseries' writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, believes it's crystal clear: Powerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton's presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House.

Nowrasteh, also one of the miniseries' many producers, said he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that "if Hillary weren't running for president, this wouldn't be a problem."

"Whatever anyone may think about me or this movie, this is a bad precedent, a dangerous precedent, to allow a movie to be buried," added Nowrasteh, who received death threats even before the miniseries was broadcast last September. "Because the next time they'll go after another movie. The Bush administration may go after a movie. The next administration may go after a movie. No matter who it is, they may go after a movie. I think this town needs to stand up."

Even before "The Path to 9/11" aired on ABC late last summer, the docudrama ignited a political firestorm, almost entirely from high-profile Democratic leaders who viewed its account of events leading up to the terrorist attacks as a right-wing hatchet job on the Clinton administration and its efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Attempts to pressure ABC to cancel the miniseries at the time were unsuccessful, but last-minute network edits were imposed to quell the critical outcry.

An ABC spokeswoman reached Tuesday would say only that the company "has no release date at this time," and she declined to comment further.

Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton's campaign staff did not return an e-mail or a phone call seeking comment.

Last year, a Clinton spokesman referred to the ABC enterprise as "despicable," and then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and four other Democratic senators signed a letter to Disney Chief Executive Robert A. Iger stating that if the miniseries were shown it would "deeply damage" Disney's reputation. As a result of the tumult, ABC was unable to attract advertisers for the miniseries.

Thus far, few have noted the DVD's absence in the marketplace. Among those who have are conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, who questioned last month why the disc isn't available on the nation's retail shelves. (Limbaugh and Nowrasteh have met on several occasions but do not regularly socialize, Nowrasteh said.)

From the September 9, 2006, Los Angeles Times review of The Path to 9/11:

The miniseries was a massive undertaking, with close to 250 speaking parts, more than 300 sets and a budget of $40 million. The production values and acting skills cannot be faulted, and of course the topic is compelling. But something strange starts happening around hour three of the miniseries, when the film none-too-subtly suggests that then-President Clinton was too busy dropping his trousers and later struggling not to lose his shirt in impeachment hearings to pay much attention to what was going on in the world, terrorism-wise. The film shows real news footage of Clinton's denials of "sexual relations ... with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" in 1998 while O'Neill and other CIA and FBI agents were desperately scrambling to find Bin Laden and thwart more attacks.

And then the partisan politics begin to emerge in the script -- big time.

According to "The Path," the Clinton administration was too concerned with such trifles as respecting international laws and treaties, protecting civil liberties, following diplomatic protocol, displaying cultural sensitivity and pursuing larger goals (like Mideast peace) to bring down the bad guys.

At the same time, a fine ribbon of misogyny starts to unwind alongside the wide streak of rah-rah masculine bravado in the film, with just about every woman in authority portrayed as an arrogant witch, from onetime ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine (Patricia Heaton) to Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (Shirley Douglas) to Bush's then-national security advisor, now Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (Penny Johnson Jerald). (The one exception is CIA agent Patricia Carver, played by Amy Madigan, who is prone to outbursts of hysterical tears.) When Ahmed Shah Massoud (played by Mido Hamada), commander of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and a key U.S. ally, demands of U.S. operatives: "Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?," he means this literally as well as figuratively.

But the main problem with "The Path" is that the interspersing of real news footage with dramatized scenes, a technique employed throughout, makes a hopeless muddle of the line between fact and "dramatization."

Although it claims to be based in part on the 9/11 Commission Report, writer-producer Nowrasteh, a self-described conservative, said in an interview with frontpagemag.com that the report goes back only as far as 1998, and that he did his own research for the years 1993 to 1998.

Yet even if there are not outright lies in the film, as some are claiming -- Albright, for one, has called a scene depicting her actions as "false and defamatory" -- there are many omissions. Notably, one of the most famous images of Sept. 11, President Bush's frozen response while visiting a Florida classroom when he was told of the attacks, is not depicted.

With a projected TV audience in the millions, "The Path" is an irresponsible film, with its factual distortions wrapped in a really terrific package that lulls viewers into complacency, setting them up for the propaganda that is to follow.

If there is one good thing that will come out of the controversy over ABC's "The Path," it is that it hopefully will make citizens read the 9/11 Commission Report for themselves. After all, a democracy is a terrible thing to waste.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by archae (September 05, 2007 5:07 pm ET)
         

      "The Path To 9-11" will end up (when it's released on DVD) in the same place as that miniseries from 20 years ago, "Amerika."

      In the bargain bin, or as a giveaway for NewMax.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (September 05, 2007 5:19 pm ET)
           

        A better use might be as drink coasters, or ground up into fill dirt for use in a sanitary landfill.....

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (September 05, 2007 5:32 pm ET)
             

          Oh, and all this fuss over a drink coaster or landfill deposits?  Better tell your friends here at MMFA, they obviously disagree, for they feel this misinformative DVD is quite important.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (September 05, 2007 6:43 pm ET)
               

            The Path to 9/11 is worthless propaganda, not worthy of distribution.  The concern is that some people think this piece of crap is based on facts, when it's about as truthful as your typical day's Rush Limbaugh Show.

            In other words, not so much.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (September 05, 2007 7:41 pm ET)
               

            the fact is that cyrus nowrasteh, the writer of this propaganda, is a liar, as in he lies.  he told frontpagemag.com in this link that:  "i also expanded my research beyond the commission report, which only goes back to 1998, concluding that i needed to go back to the first attack on the wtc in 1993..".   which must be quite a surprise to the 9-11 commission, which wrote this [pages 71-72] about the clinton administration's response to the 93 bombing:  

            "president bill clinton ordered his national security council to coordinate the response.  government agencies swung into action to find the culprits.....as a result of the investigations and arrests, the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york prosecuted and convicted multiple individuals."

            http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={8B539A0C-D4E3-46E5-BB50-B635722C8574}

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (September 05, 2007 8:04 pm ET)
                 

              and where did nowrasteh get his "research" from before 1998?  as it shows in this link,  from another liar, colonel buzz patterson, one of five people who carry the "nuclear football", and who greatly exaggerated his role in a book he wrote about his two years with clinton.

              http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51898

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (September 05, 2007 8:17 pm ET)
                   

                and why is patterson a liar?  because as this colorado media matters link shows, he told a denver radio station last year that clinton failed to launch an attack against bin ladin in "may 1996".  the only problem being that patterson said in his book that it was an attack on iraq.  there were no air attacks on bin ladin until after the african embassey bombings in august 1998.   which is another patterson problem, because in his book he said his white house service ended in "may 1998".  but that did not stop buzz from claiming on the radio that he observed another failure to go after bin ladin in "fall 1998". 

                http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200609140002

                Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (September 05, 2007 8:33 pm ET)
                   

                Is that the same Buzz Paterson who is on the road with Melanie mOrgan? The same mOrgan who just said at one of her "prep" rallies that saddam got his for attacking us?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by mefirst (September 05, 2007 8:44 pm ET)
                     

                  i'm pretty sure it's the same guy.  he's also written other books, stuff like how liberals undermine the military and want to see the terrorists win, that kind of thing.

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (September 05, 2007 5:19 pm ET)
         

      Maybe they can bundle the dvd's with Leonardo Di Caprio's movie, "11th Hour"

      Does anybody know if anyone watched either movie?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (September 05, 2007 5:41 pm ET)
           

        11th hour? Never heard of it, unless you're referring to the boat movie that shall remain unnamed. I think it sunk in the 11th hour.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by anotherjoe (September 06, 2007 2:46 am ET)
           

        It's a bit early to be talking about "The 11th Hour" to be released on DVD as the film just opened August 19.  Like many other documentaries, the film opened in limited release (4 theaters its opening weekend, earning nearly $61,000).  By the 26th, it had expanded to 20 theaters and took in an additional $70,000 in its 2nd weekend.  This past weekend, it expanded to 111 screens and took in another $240,000* (good enough to be the weekend's #34 film), and by the end of Monday, the film has earned nearly $420,000.  Not bad for a film which has only been seen in fewer than 120 theaters (and is already the year's 5th biggest documentary).

         

        *That's the 4-day weekend total, for the record.  Over the regular 3-day weekend, the film took in $175,000.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by sfcretired (September 05, 2007 5:24 pm ET)
         

      Ole GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll goAl-Qaeda is there we all know, Iraq-Iraq we’ll go With a “bang-bang” here and a “bang-bang” thereHere a "bang" there a "bang"Everywhere a “bang-bang”Ole GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll goOle GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll goWMDs are there we were told, Iraq-Iraq we’ll goWith a (ka-boom) here and a (ka-boom) thereHere a (ka-boom) there a (ka-boom)Everywhere a (ka-boom, ka-boom)WMDs are there, this we knowSo Iraq, Iraq we’ll goOle GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll goA fools errand now we know, Iraq-Iraq we’ll go  With a “bang-bang” here and a “bang-bang” thereHere a "bang" there a "bang"Everywhere a “bang-bang”Ole GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll go  Ole GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll go Thousands dead and injured we know With a (ka-boom) here and a (ka-boom) thereHere a (ka-boom) there a (ka-boom)Everywhere a (ka-boom, ka-boom)WMDs are there, this we knowSo Iraq, Iraq we’ll goOle GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll go The Iraqis will love us this we know

      So Iraq-Iraq we’ll go…….

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by shoes89 (September 05, 2007 5:27 pm ET)
         

      The central theme of the article is that the Clinton camp is making a concerted effort to halt a DVD from being released to the public!

      Hold on! What happened to the First amendment? ("Powerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton's presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House.")

      The Times is simply reporting the facts, and it fully supports the Democratic point of view about the film. ("And then the partisan politics begin to emerge in the script -- big time.")

      So the Clinton camp wants to censor a DVD from being made public, and this is the reaction from MM?!

      Whoa. Is this the kind of bullying and attempted censorship that we can expect from a Hillary Clinton administration? Kinda scary, IMHO.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by sfcretired (September 05, 2007 5:44 pm ET)
           

        Fictional movies touted as “documentaries” and then sold at Wal-Mart are O.K. with me.

        But only if a very large sticker is displayed on the cover identifying it as fiction.   

         

         

        Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (September 05, 2007 5:45 pm ET)
           

        This coming from a guy who supports a President who would not go under oath or testify in public about 9/11?  Really?

        So, if there was a factually incorrect DVD produced about your family and it was a widestream production you would just say: "Oh, its freedom of speech, I don't mind."  And before you tell me that you would sue them, please keep in mind that the level of culpability in a slander suit is far different for a public figure.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by shoes89 (September 05, 2007 7:04 pm ET)
             

          Please ... "Fiction"? "Factually incorrect"?

          The factual basis for The Path to 9/11 is very solid. Clinton supporters have advanced the canard that the film was supposed to be based entirely on the 9/11 Commission report. Wrong. The report was only one of several sources for the film.

          Witness:"[B]etween January 1996 and June 1999 ...  I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden - either by capture or by U.S. military attack. I witnessed and documented, along with dozens of other CIA officers, instances where life-risking intelligence-gathering work of the agency's men and women in the field was wasted." - Former CIA officer Michael Scheuer.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (September 05, 2007 7:26 pm ET)
               

            Try this:[link to www.9-11commission.gov]

            Report Abuse
            • Author by shoes89 (September 05, 2007 7:37 pm ET)
                 

              Thanks for proving my point! The Clinton administration went about bin Laden as a "law enforcement" operation. The when they made this supposedly big plan to capture the guy, they "decided not to proceed with the operation." Scheuer is right on.

              As far as your comment below about the war in Iraq ... Way to change the subject!

              Report Abuse
              • Author by friedbergboy1422 (September 05, 2007 7:53 pm ET)
                   

                If its "solid" why did the FBI agent who consulted on the film quit?  He thought the producers and writers were "making things up."  Is that a quality of a solid movie?

                http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/fbi-agent-quit/

                If its a solid movie, why not give advance copies to both liberal and conservative talk hosts?  Why just conservatives?

                 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801949.html

                If its a solid movie, why not talk about all of the anti-terror measures Clinton enacted?

                http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/63/22170

                If its a solid movie why not discuss all of the warnings given to Bush in 2001?

                http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/63/22170

                Were you this upset when CBS pulled the Reagens documentary?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by mefirst (September 06, 2007 7:13 am ET)
                     

                  the 9-11 report, signed by 5 republican members, said on page 174:  "president clinton was deeply concerned about bin ladin.".  contrast that to bush before and after 9-11, you can read them in the link.  bush told author bob woodward about bin ladin, it's in the book "bush at war", that pre 9-11:  "i was not on point...i didn't feel that sense of urgency."   and on 3-13-02, when asked about bin ladin's whereabouts:  "it's not that important...it's not our priority." 

                  http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=1732

                  Report Abuse
              • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (September 05, 2007 11:05 pm ET)
                   

                Shoes, how I love people who blame Clinton for 9/11 when Junior was president.

                Let Junior tell you what his priorities would be when assuming the Presidency:

                MR. RUSSERT: So military missions... GOV. BUSH: And it must be... MR. RUSSERT: ...without a national security purpose would be—would not exist...

                GOV. BUSH: Would not be a part of the Bush administration, that's right. I—you know, I say that. I mean, maybe there will be an exception down the road. I understand that oftentimes people will replay statements I've made on shows like this three years into my presidency. But I said in my speech it is important for a president to set clear priorities, clear priorities, and to stay with those priorities. And let me just quickly run by the priorities: Russia and a strong NATO in Europe; China and our alliances in the Far East; our own hemisphere; as well as the Middle East.

                You will note that the Middle East was last on his list. Once again Bill Clinton was not President on 9/11 and unless the rules have changed and the presidency comes with a 9 month probation period, STOP blaming Clinton and place the blame on JUNIOR!

                Report Abuse
              • Author by Uncle Rico (September 06, 2007 1:28 pm ET)
                   

                "The Clinton administration went about bin Laden as a "law enforcement" operation."

                As opposed to the Bush Administration, which went about ignoring bin Laden until 9/11- dispite many warnings.

                 And The 9/11 commision was only one several sources?? -Yes, it was the fact based source, unlike the other right wing propaganda/Clinton hater sources. 

                Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (September 05, 2007 7:32 pm ET)
               

            You are obviously against the War in Iraq and believe in blowback too then, right?

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

            In the Republican Presidential Debate on May 15, 2007, presidential candidate Ron Paul stated that American foreign policy was a “contributing factor” in anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Rudy Giuliani denounced this as "absurd" and that he’d never heard such a thing before. In an interview on May 18, Michael Scheuer defended Paul, stating: "I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate."[8]

            On May 24, 2007, Ron Paul and Scheuer held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC about the causes that led up to 9/11, American foreign policy and its implications on terrorism, security and Iraq.[9] Paul and Scheuer explained why Rudy Giuliani is wrong on security and foreign policy and provided documentation about the unintended consequences of interventionism - known to many in the intelligence as blowback - and assigned Giuliani a reading list of foreign policy books, including Dying to Win, Blowback, Imperial Hubris and the 9/11 Commission Report.[10]

             

            Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (September 06, 2007 8:16 am ET)
               

            If you think the "Path to 9/11" is factual, I know of a bridge in Brooklyn and some lovely swampland in Florida you might be interested in buying.

            :-)

            Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (September 05, 2007 6:01 pm ET)
           

        You're not fully quoting the article.

        "The reasons are murky, but the miniseries' writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, believes it's crystal clear: Powerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton's presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House."

        Shoes: "The Times is simply reporting the facts"

        The only "facts" are that Nowrasteh has a conspriacy theory, for which he offers no proof, and a quote from an ABC spokeswoman : the company "has no release date at this time."

        Shoes: "So the Clinton camp wants to censor a DVD from being made public, and this is the reaction from MM?!"

        Where's the proof? 

        Oh and did you see that part that mentions that ABC lost money on the project because it couldn't attract advertisers?  Could it be purely a business decision not to release it?  Maybe they don't want to continue the PR nightmare that it caused?  At this point, we don't know.

        Nowrasteh may have a right to have his POS work distributed, but is Disney legally bound to do so?  He should at least be able to shop it around and see if anyone else is willing to take the financial risk of printing and releasing it.

        Shoes: "Is this the kind of bullying and attempted censorship that we can expect from a Hillary Clinton administration?"

        And what about The Reagans? was the gripe fest from the right that got that series shoved onto pay cable another form of bullying and censorship?  Or was it a legitimate protest about falsehoods?

         

        Report Abuse
      • Author by anotherjoe (September 06, 2007 2:49 am ET)
           

        Hmm, seems as though someone not only jumped to a conclusion, but polevaulted well past it.  Reread the article.  The comment about the Clintons is NOT A FACT.  It's what's known as SPECULATION.

         

        Report Abuse
      • Author by johnrtorres638 (September 06, 2007 10:50 am ET)
           

        shoes89 nails this one on the head -  this LAT story promotes a lib/left agenda, and it still isn't good enough for the whiny little crybabies at MMFA!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by political_left-religious_right (September 06, 2007 3:04 pm ET)
             

          The Terrors of Torres 

          shoes89 nails this one on the head

          Spoken as one who's probably received a few sharp jabs in the cranium himself.  If you mean he "hit the nail on the head," then you've got the saying right and only the facts wrong.  Our friend Shoes has swung and missed every time at bat, and your own record is just as feeble.

          this LAT story promotes a lib/left agenda,

          Easily disproved, but you wouldn't accept anything contrary to your viewpoint, anyway. 

          and it still isn't good enough for the whiny little crybabies at MMFA!

          Well then, let's see.  What would be "good enough"?  How about... doing exactly what the article says and having the Times point out the factual errors in the movie that even they had made mention of before?  Anyone reading the current Times piece without knowing what has been clearly demonstrated before would come away thinking--erroneously, like yourself do--that the facts of this so-called documentary are impeachable, and that the only people who object to the film do so for purely partisan reasons.

          What's the deal, Torres, did you actually read the article, or did you go straight to the comments to find someone to attack or another troll to buddy-up with?

          By the way, how does it feel to be consistently out-manned by "crybabies"?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by sfcretired (September 05, 2007 5:33 pm ET)
         

      Sorry for the jumble, sure wish MMfa would get a better posting template, something that works with MSword

       

      Ole GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll go

      Al-Qaeda is there we all know, Iraq-Iraq we’ll go With a “bang-bang” here and a “bang-bang” thereHere a "bang" there a "bang"Everywhere a “bang-bang”Ole GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll go

       

      Ole GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll goWMDs are there we were told, Iraq-Iraq we’ll goWith a (ka-boom) here and a (ka-boom) thereHere a (ka-boom) there a (ka-boom)Everywhere a (ka-boom, ka-boom)WMDs are there, this we knowSo Iraq, Iraq we’ll go

      Ole GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll go
      A fools errand now we know, Iraq-Iraq we’ll go  With a “bang-bang” here and a “bang-bang” thereHere a "bang" there a "bang"Everywhere a “bang-bang”Ole GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll go   Ole GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll go Thousands dead and injured we know

       With a (ka-boom) here and a (ka-boom) thereHere a (ka-boom) there a (ka-boom)Everywhere a (ka-boom, ka-boom)WMDs are there, this we knowSo Iraq, Iraq we’ll go

       Ole GW had a plan, Iraq-Iraq we’ll go

      The Iraqis will love us this we know

       So Iraq-Iraq we’ll go…….

      Report Abuse
    • Author by archae (September 05, 2007 6:24 pm ET)
         

      I watched a part of the movie, when it was broadcast.

      Even political smears aside, it was simply a LOUSY movie.

      For one thing, they over-used the "hand-held camera."

      The picture was wobbling all over the place, and giving me a headache.

      That may be (may have been) "trendy," but it makes a movie or TV show unwatchable for me.

      As for Nowrasteh, he's a liar and a hack.

      http://mediamatters.org/items/200701290009

      http://mediamatters.org/items/200707020005

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (September 05, 2007 6:47 pm ET)
           

        I can't stand shaky vision.  It belongs in journalism and home movies.  If I wanted to watch a motion picture this way, I would prefer to have the option of jumping up and down like an idiot to achieve the same effect. 

        The Steadicam is a wonderful invention.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (September 05, 2007 7:21 pm ET)
             

          Better stay away from the Bourne Ultimatum then the shaky camera thing ruined the movie both my wife and my daughter complained throughout the movie about it.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by sundog (September 05, 2007 8:29 pm ET)
             

          Hey Pete, just wanted to point out that I totally agree with you here. Seemed worth doing because I don't think there are too many opportunities otherwise. Ruined that movie for me. Makes me want to slap the cameraman upside the head and yell, "Hold Still!" Really stupid pseudo-art.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by sundog (September 06, 2007 12:10 am ET)
               

            Oh, sorry you may be a different Pete than I was thinking.  Is there another Pete here often with OTHER numbers after his name?  That's the guy I would rarely agree with.  Hell, that guy probably likes shaky cameras.  He might even shake cameras himself. 

            Report Abuse
    • Author by sundog (September 05, 2007 7:52 pm ET)
         

      Almost no one on the left is making this case as strong as the facts on the ground demand. The fact is the outgoing Clinton administration warned the Bushies coming in about terrorism in general and Bin Laden specifically. They TRIED to hand over their info so the Bushies could continue going after al quaeda and try to stop whatever madness they were planning. Does anyone else remember Bush's main defense agenda was that first year? Missle Shield. Absolutely irrelevant to the real threat that they were specifically warned about. So they push a useless program and clear brush down in Texas until the very group they were warned about gives Bush a pile of cement, steel and dead people to pose on top of and be declared a Hero. Do you think it gave Rove and all those guys some satisfaction that many of the bodies he was standing on were 'New York Liberal Elites.' ?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (September 06, 2007 8:21 am ET)
           

        If I remember correctly, Bush's main priority pre-9/11 was pushing through tax cuts for all his fat-cat supporters.

        I'm sure if you went through the text of all the speeches he made before 9/11/01, he mentioned "tax cuts" far more than he mentioned "bin laden" or "terrorism".

        Report Abuse
        • Author by sundog (September 06, 2007 9:51 am ET)
             

          There was all that brush too. Tax cuts and it seemed that being President finally cleared his schedule enough to get down and clean up that ranch. Foriegn policy meant pulling out of treaties and cutting off funding for medical programs in poor countries if those programs included women's health. But they knew the country was under a serious threat. In a surprise time warp, the Soviet Union of 1972 was threatening to send American school children under their desks to protect them from incoming ICBM's. And they were willing to tax and spend if it meant they could fund a program that could shoot down one in every couple of dozen missles headed for the Heartland. Bin Laden? Yea, saw a bunch of memos about that. Bunch of Clinton paranoia. Heck the guy is Saudi. Good folks the Saudis. Looked into their eyes and all that. Friends of Dad. Anyway, someone's got to clear all this brush.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by anyfreedomleft (September 06, 2007 10:21 am ET)
             

          Other important stuff bush was working on prior to 9/11/2001:

          Tying Jim Jeffords to an unsolved murder; getting his "rangers" joyrides on nuclear subs, allowing them to pilot them; spying on China; seeing if presidential pardons could be overturned when it involves someone who contributed $$$ ... 

          Report Abuse
    • Author by johnrtorres638 (September 06, 2007 4:20 pm ET)
         

      OVERVIEW OF MMFA's "STANDARDS":

      MMFA's criticism of this movie is pretty lame.  "Path to 9/11" is NOT a documentary.  It's a MOVIE that happens to be based on certain factual documents.  This category of entertainment is sometimes called a DOCU-DRAMA.   When you make a movie such as this sometimes certain fictional elements are necessary for plot development. 

      But the larger point is that when lard-ass Moore packages a bunch of half-truths, lies and slanders into something that he (for some unknown reason calls a "documentary"**)  I never notice any concern for ACCURACY about MM's crapola on the part of the left/libs. 

      Some people have suggested that this is pretty hypocritical on MMFA's part.  

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (September 06, 2007 7:00 pm ET)
           

        it is not based on fact.  it is untrue that clinton was unconcerned about bin ladin.  it is untrue that bush was concerned. 

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.