Election Central
In New Letter, Clinton's Lawyers Demands ABC Yank Film
By Greg Sargent | bio
On Friday evening, Bill Clinton's lawyers sent a new letter to ABC chief Bob Iger demanding that ABC yank "The Path to 9/11." We've obtained a copy of the letter, and it reads in part: "As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. `The Path to 9/11' not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film."
Even if it is a total lie, they have a right to publish it.
Michael Moore published all kinds of lies, half truths and distortions.
I'll bet you didn't complain then. From you previous statements I believe you are being hypocritical.
Liberals only protect the first amendment right of free speech when it matches their agenda.
Yea,...I already adressed this several posts ago. I provided the evidence then. Buy what you want. I'll be so upset about it I will only eat two omlets in the morning.
Huh. The letter itself doesn't "demand" anything, but the person writing the article nevertheless labels it as such - you feel it is more appropriate to go with the mischaracterization than the truth of the letter itself?
That's an interesting, but ultimately unsurprising, choice.
A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script.
In an interview with WND, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty" as a source for the drama.
Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of "The Path to 9/11" to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor.
Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said.
"I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur," Patterson declared.
The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11.
As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson was one of five men entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football," which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons.
Reached by phone at his home in Southern California, Nowrasteh affirmed to WND he consulted with Patterson and gave him a preview of the drama.
During the interview this morning, Nowrasteh took a moment to watch as President Clinton's image turned up on his nearby TV screen to criticize the movie. The director did not want to respond directly to Clinton's comments, but offered a general response to critics.
"Everybody's got to calm down and watch the movie," Nowrasteh told WND. "This is not an indictment of one president or another. The villains are the terrorists. This is a clarion bell for people to wake up and take notice."
Patterson pointed out the Bush administration also is depicted in an unfavorable light in the months before 9/11.
It's funny to see the hypocrisy of those who were outraged by a movie about Reagan, perfectly happy to see "poetic license" with the truth in the case of Clinton.
Of course it does "to you." But you are not exactly objective about it. For Dems (or Repubs) to call for a movie to edited because they don't like the content is purely and simply a call for an infringement on free speech. How can you not see that?
it wasn't snide and it was true. So according to your standard, doesn't that make it okay? I thought it was just lies and slander that weren't "free speech." Perhaps you can enlighten us (and please try to be consistent ... we have already seen you dodge consistency when it fit your personal ends).
From reading this thread, it seems that when some of you were in college and took apologetics, it was administered by the RNC and DNC.
How can anyone with half a brain defend either party are being pure, honest, and have the interests of the American people at heart?
Both parties are rotten to the core, and should be dismantled and start over.
This is like debating whether Ahab or Judas was worse.