House Democrats Demand Accuracy in ABC 9/11 Docu-Drama, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 6-9-2006 @ 05:43 PM by shots

It would appear several house democrats are not very happy with the up-coming ABC mini-series titled The Path to 9/11 and without even seeing it are demanding the producers change it.

Democrats Demand Accuracy

Representatives John Conyers, Jr., John Dingell, Jane Harman, and Louise Slaughter today called on ABC to fix the inaccuracies in its mini-series The Path to 9/11, before its scheduled airing on September 10th and 11th. Read the letter:

[....]

We are advised that ABC is scheduled to air a two-part mini-series entitled "The Path to 9/11" on September 10 and September 11. While we have not yet seen this program, news reports raise serious questions about its accuracy. Therefore, we request that the inaccuracies described herein be addressed immediately and that the program be thoroughly reviewed and revised for accuracy before it airs.

Among our concerns about the program are the following: first, it reportedly contains a scene in which Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser to President Bill Clinton, declines to give Central Intelligence Agency operatives the authority to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, and in which those operatives are outside a house where Bin Laden is located. This account has been expressly contradicted by Richard Clarke, a high-ranking counterterrorism official in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

Yes you read it right they clearly say they have not seen it yet they are demanding it be changed

Just what is wrong with that picture???

It is not a documentary it is a docu-drama, hello what ever happened to free speech in America?

reply posted on 6-9-2006 @ 05:57 PM by mythatsabigprobe

I don't think free speech has ever meant that you're free to commit libel against a person.

This account has been expressly contradicted by Richard Clarke, a high-ranking counterterrorism official in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

reply posted on 6-9-2006 @ 06:07 PM by shots

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I don't think free speech has ever meant that you're free to commit libel against a person.

Where is the libel in this? Kindly site the specifics.

All they are doing as giving their interpretation of what took place

reply posted on 6-9-2006 @ 06:21 PM by mythatsabigprobe

Well the specifics would be portraying a scene where Sandy Berger (not a fictional character) witholds approval for CIA operatives to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden.

As per your own source, this is untrue. Hence, libelous.

reply posted on 6-9-2006 @ 06:30 PM by shots

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Well the specifics would be portraying a scene where Sandy Berger (not a fictional character) witholds approval for CIA operatives to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden.

Can you prove that Sandy Berger did not withhold CIA approval? Of course he is going to deny it. Many have accused the current administration of doing the very same thing and no libel lawsuits have been filed that I know of.

Edit to add, just for clarification Berger never denied anything Clark is the one who is sayig this is not true.

[edit on 9/6/2006 by shots]

reply posted on 6-9-2006 @ 06:40 PM by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by shots
Can you prove that Sandy Berger did not withhold CIA approval? Of course he is going to deny it. Many have accused the current administration of doing the very same thing and no libel lawsuits have been filed that I know of.

Richard Clark can prove it apparently, and he should know. If you'll present an example of a Bush administration official named as being accused of preventing the capture of Bin Laden, I'll take it under consideration.

reply posted on 6-9-2006 @ 06:50 PM by RRconservative

Sandy Berger...isn't he the one that was caught taking information pertaining to 9/11, out of the National Archives. He actually stuffed them in his pants!

I really don't think you can take the word of this criminal anyway.

reply posted on 6-9-2006 @ 06:53 PM by shots

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Richard Clark can prove it apparently, and he should know.

No one has accused anyone of wrong doing here, all the docu-drama is doing is giving a different view of what took place just like Moore did with Fahrenheit 911, there in lies the difference.

That to me means they are trying to show the blame goes both ways and I think that is what you are missing.

No one can deny that Clinton was the first to strike Al-qaeda in afghanistan can they?

[edit on 9/6/2006 by shots]

reply posted on 6-9-2006 @ 08:54 PM by Boatphone

Looks like the DEMS don't want the American public to be reminded of the truth...

Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson was a military aide to President Clinton from May 1996 to May 1998 and one of five individuals entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football"—the bag containing the codes for launching nuclear weapons.

A highly reliable man...

Lt. Col. Patterson offers a damning list of anecdotes and charges against the President, including how Clinton lost the nuclear codes and shrugged it off; how he stalled and lost the opportunity to launch a direct strike on Osama bin Laden at a confirmed location

www.buzzpatterson.com...

And yes, Sandy was trying to cover this up and other damming evidence about 9/11 by stuffing those documents into his pants...i mean its pretty cut and dried here people...these are the facts. And ABC i guess is going to give people some of it.

-- Boat

[edit on 6-9-2006 by Boatphone]

[edit on 6-9-2006 by Boatphone]