Monday, September 11, 2006

ABC Ran With It, Sort Of

Hey folks,

All the way up to the time, people sat and waited. Was "Charlie Brown" or a repeat of one of their shows, or maybe some sort of special coming on, or was ABC going to grow a set, and actually show the movie "The Path to 9-11"

Well, they did show night one. Now I cannot speak to the changes that were made, having not seen the original version. I will be tuning into "Rush" today at 12pm to see what he has to say. He saw the original uncut version.

According to this AP article


"ABC made several editing changes to the first part of its miniseries "The Path to 9/11" following furious protests by Clinton administration officials that it fabricated scenes about their actions prior to the terrorist attacks."

Here are some of the changes according to this story.

"In the original scene, an actor portraying White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke shares a limousine ride with FBI agent John O'Neill and tells him: "The Republicans are going all-out for impeachment. I just don't see in that climate the president's going to take chances" and give the order to kill bin Laden.

But in the film aired Sunday, Clarke says to O'Neill: "The president has assured me this ... won't affect his decision-making."


O'Neill replies: "So it's OK if somebody kills bin Laden, as long as he didn't give the order. It's pathetic."

Another scene in the critics' cut pictured O'Neill asking Clarke on the telephone: "What's Clinton going to do (about bin Laden)?"

Clarke replies, "I don't know. The Lewinsky thing is a noose around his neck."

This was cut entirely from the film that aired Sunday.

Another scene in the movie that depicted a team of CIA operatives poised outside of bin Laden's fortess in Afghanistan, ready to attack, was substantially shortened from the original. Pictures of the waiting Afghanistan operatives are interspersed with those of officials in Washington, who had to approve the mission.

The original version depicted national security adviser Samuel R. Berger hanging up on CIA chief George Tenet as Tenet sought permission to attack bin Laden. The movie aired Sunday did not include Berger hanging up."

OK, here’s the problem, like this hang up scene. It really happened. So did the fact we had numerous time to get bin Laden. The time when we had him surrounded HAPPENED. The ex-President has come out, on tape, with his own words, said he had many opportunities to get him, he CHOSE not to. Why is it so hard to understand, that he WAS preoccupied? Not to mention the fact he was clueless when it came to national security.

The last two paragraphs are true.

"John Lehman, another Republican commission members, said on the ABC News show that he's told the film is equally harsh on the administrations of President Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush.

"And if you don't like the hits to the Clinton administration, well, welcome to the club," Lehman said. "The Republicans have lived with Michael Moore and Oliver Stone and most of Hollywood as a fact of life."

Like a movie depicting Bush being assassinated. Did you hear President Bush protesting the movie? Threatening the makers? Have you heard President Bush complain about ANY of those who attack him on a daily bases? Do you remember him complaining about "Fahrenheit 9/11"? Do you remember President Bush complaining that he did not receive a preview? He doesn’t, because he doesn’t have to. His administration, and the legacy he leaves behind, is not build on media spin.

It should be really interesting to see the fall out today. The "Clintonites" will be in overdrive today. Then again, if you think about it. If you hear nothing, or very little today, then you will TRULY know, just how much ABC cut and changed. But I have a feeling it will be a busy day.
Peter

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I know this does not belong here but it was the last topic you posted and it kind of fits in to the theme of our ongoing debate.

Form The Young Turks

http://www.theyoungturks.com/


If Bush Won't Fire Rumsfeld, We Must Consider Firing Bush
09/09/2006 07:40:02 PM ESTBy Cenk

The President leaves us with no recourse. By refusing to fire the man who purposely did not allow post war planning, he is endorsing that decision. The President is telling us that it was a good idea to not plan for what would happen after the initial combat operations in Iraq. That is beyond unconscionable. If he will not fire this grotesquely incompetent and purposely malicious Secretary of Defense, we must fire the President.
First, let me start out with this interesting fact. The latest CNN Poll says that 30% of the country believes George Bush should be impeached. The latest CBS News-New York Times Poll has George Bush's approval rating at 36%. There are almost as many people in the country that want George Bush impeached as people who approve of his job performance. It's only a matter of time before the impeachment number catches up to the job approval number.
These are awful numbers. And they indicate a public that is beginning to get comfortable with the idea of firing the President.

Now, on to the worst Secretary of Defense this country has ever had. Today we found out that Donald Rumsfeld said before the war that he would fire anyone who even dared to mention post war planning in Iraq. That has to go down in history as the single largest act of incompetence by any Secretary of Defense.

I would say that it is the worst act of incompetence by any United States government official ever, except that there are several Bush officials with dogs in that hunt. The other reason I hesitate to label it as such is because I'm not convinced it was incompetence.

Brig. General Mark Scheid, who was one of the five or six original war planners at Central Command, has come out and explained why the Secretary of Defense didn't want any post war planning. It seems clear from Scheid's comments that Rumsfeld had a specific intent in preventing post war planning - make sure we go to war no matter what!

Please read all of Brigadier General Scheid's comments for yourself here. But this is the most important part:


Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like security, stability and reconstruction.
Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

In other words, we are going to go to this war no matter what the consequences are, no matter what the American people think - and we'll keep the truth away from them if we have to.

Does any reasonable person still have any doubt that these guys lied us into this war? How can you? How can any rational person read that (along with everything else we have read) and still think they were simply acting based on the best evidence they had?

My God, here's a clear admission that Secretary Rumsfeld blocked any planning which might bring out information that could prevent the war. Only the pathetically self-deluded can still hold on to the idea that the Bush administration didn't really want to go to war, that war was thrust upon them by the intelligence and the evidence.

At this point, we all seemed to have gotten used to the idea that our president lied to us about why we needed to go to war and invaded a country that had nothing to do with attacking us. If any of you believe the Republicans wouldn't have tried to impeach Clinton over that, there are no words to describe how disingenuous or gullible you are.

But let's put that aside for now and focus on this: 1. We have a Secretary of Defense who has gotten us mired in a war in Iraq for the last three and a half years -- at the cost of thousands of American dead, tens of thousands American injured, and hundred of thousands of Iraqi dead. 2. One of the main reasons we are in this mess is because he specifically ordered that there be no post war planning. 3. The President absolutely refuses to fire him or change direction.

This cannot stand. This is not the straw that broke the camel's back. This is the two by four that smashed the poor camel's head in. You are looking at the deadest camel in history and President Bush is still trying to ride him to victory.

The President leaves us with no recourse. By refusing to fire the man who purposely did not allow post war planning, he is endorsing that decision. The President is telling us that it was a good idea to not plan for what would happen after the initial combat operations in Iraq. That is beyond unconscionable. If he will not fire this grotesquely incompetent and purposely malicious Secretary of Defense, we must fire the President.

I am not saying this for political reasons. In fact, I think it's a bad political idea to start talking about impeachment two months before an election. But what else are we supposed to do?

Every day more American fighting men and women are killed in Iraq, more Iraqi civilians are murdered by all sides of the civil war, more terrorism takes place throughout the world - and we have a president who refuses to fire the guy in charge. Are we supposed to sit by and watch all those American kids die because we thought it might be bad form?

Are we so vain that we will not change our leader simply because it makes us look bad, even when we know it's causing the deaths of so many more people? Is there anyone left in the country who honestly believes this administration knows what it's doing in Iraq?

If their incompetence (again it's kind to call it that, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for the purpose of this argument and simply assume they are the most incompetent people we have ever had in office) is getting people killed, can you really live with yourself if you didn't support some sort of change?

And if the President will not change on his own, then perhaps change must be thrust upon him. I'm not sure, we have any other choice. If the President doesn't fire his Secretary of Defense, we must consider firing the President.


If Bush Won't Fire Rumsfeld, We Must Consider Firing Bush


food for thought

Betty

Anonymous said...

"again, I On the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy, Forty-one percent (41%) of American adults approve of the way that President Bush is performing his job. Fifty-seven percent (57%) disapprove.

In the immediate aftermath of those horrific attacks, most Americans thought our nation was changed for the better. Now, however, most take the opposite view. Half of all Americans continue to believe that the world would be a better place if other countries were more like our own. That number has declined over the past couple of years.

Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That's up three points from a month ago, but the August figures matched the lowest level of confidence ever recorded on this question. Americans are also pessimistic about the situation in Iraq and just 33% give President Bush good or excellent ratings in this arena. Questions concerning the War on Terror and Iraq continue to reveal huge perception gaps between Republicans and Democrats.

On this September 11, the economic confidence of American consumers is just 9% over the levels experienced in the month following the attacks. Looked at from another perspective, today's confidence levels are more than 15% below the post-9-11 peaks.

On the political front, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (R )has reached the 50% level of voter support in his bid for re-election. West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd (D) has reached the 60% level of support.

In our most recent Balance of Power update Rasmussen Reports shifted the Tennessee Senate race from "Leans Republican" to "Toss-Up," based on the our most recent poll results. This reduces the number of states in the Republican category to 49. Forty-five Senate seats are favored to remain in Democrat hands while 6 are now in the Toss-Up category (see State-by-State Summary). The other Toss-Up states are New Jersey, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, and Rhode Island. To see our latest results, check out the Election 2006 summary page.

In August, the number of Americans calling themselves Republican has fallen to the lowest level since Rasmussen Reports began releasing this data in January 2004.

At Rasmussen Reports, we adjust our party identification weighting targets each month based upon actual survey results from the previous 90 days. For the month of September, our partisan weighting targets are 37.0% Democrat, 32.7% Republican, and 30.2% unaffiliated. This represents a slight increase in the number of Democrats and unaffiliateds. The impact on the President's Job Approval rating is less than a percentage point compared to data from the prior three months. See our monthly update on Partisan Trends.

See also our comments on comparing Job Approval numbers from different polling firms.

The national telephone survey of 1,500 Adults was conducted by Rasmussen Reports over the past three nights. Margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence."

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.




know this is a bit off topic but there is no way for me to start a new topic so here goes. You keep saying what "most americans" believe and that "most americans" believe as you do. here is some more food for thought.


Betty

Anonymous said...

new stuff for you to argue with.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060925path_to911


Betty

Peter said...

Hey again Betty,

I responded to you on the "Just My Thoughts" section. Sorry, I only have time for one at a time for the most part. I sometimes find it difficult to get on for just the "Daily Article". But I will respond soon. Just check in daily, I know you most likely do, just to see how much of an idiot I am, {Smile}

Peter