I have been around - still alive, but not been wanting to blog much lately. Frustrated with the things I see and hear around me, that it is hard to put that frustration to words.
It really is quite sickening.
Let's recap a bit of what is currently going on:
ABC is coming out with "The path to 9/11", which seems to have set the Democrats and former President Clinton into a tizzy.
The trailer can be seen HERE
Actor Donnie Wahlberg gives an interesting take on the tizzy being thrown by certain individuals:
TVGuide.com: What do you think of the brouhaha that's going on now? You had to know that this project could be a hot potato.
Wahlberg: I didn't think it was a hot potato. I think there's a stink being made because certain people aren't happy with the way they're being portrayed, but the reality is that in most cases, the producers took a gentle hand with this stuff. The writers and the producers and the director tried to use as much integrity as possible.
Hat Tip: NewsBusters
I am not much for Wikipedia as a source, BUT in this case after reading several defintions on Docu-drama, of which "Path to 9/11" is, I think this fit very well:
A docudrama or docu-drama is a type of work (usually a film or television show) that combines elements of documentary and drama, to some extent showing real events and to some extent using actors performing set pieces to take dramatic liberty with events.
So in a Docudrama as this is being stated it is, and dramatic liberties are being taken to some degree to make the scene, while it may not be true to the fullest extent of 100 percent, it does sound like it fits exactly with how it is being billed.
This is also not the first time that it was reported that Clinton had passed on previous chances to nab Bin Laden.
In the middle of all the controversy surrounding ABC’s upcoming docudrama “The Path to 9/11,” something very important has been lost: Regardless of the protestations of the left, there were indeed some missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden before our nation was attacked. In fact, on March 16, 2004, the NBC “Nightly News” did a report on one such chance the Clinton administration passed on.
Hat Tip: NewsBusters
More idiocy HERE
from Howard Dean wanting ABC to reveal funding and backers of ABC's "Path to 9/11" Docudrama.
Sister Toldjah is all over Clinton and the Democrats like white on rice with Clinton’s lawyers get in on the act, demand of ABC that Path to 9-11 be pulled (UPDATE VIII)
. Her posting includes two letters sent by Clinton's Lawyers, the reactions of the moonbats and what they are screeching, quotes from several people linked with the Clinton Administration.
Meanwhile, thinly vieled threats from the Democrats at revoking ABC license and to ABC's editting of "possible" errors, this is what is said:
Former national security adviser Samuel R. Berger and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, whose depictions are at the center of the controversy, asked Thomas Kean, the Republican ex-governor of New Jersey who led the commission looking into the attacks, to use his influence with filmmakers to pull it.
"You can't fix it," Berger said on CNN. "You gotta yank it."
The film's executive producer, Marc Platt, responded that many of the film's most vocal critics haven't yet seen it.
I agree with Michelle Malkin
when she says:
TS at Seixon (hat tip: Allah) has helpfully crafted a TV slate for ABC to "insert into every scene the champions of free speech nutroots or poor Bill Clinton objects [to] (because, from the looks of this massive jihad they are waging , it appears ABC will be using this slate quite a bit):"
For the most part I can understand from Former President Clinton's view of things, this will severely "stain" his Legacy. It was all about Clinton during his Presidency, and now it seems all that is about to become another controversy surrounding his administration, especially when Democrats want to hang what happened during 9/11 on President Bush.
I wonder in all this, what Hillary is has to be thinking.
She has to be just LIVID!
Some interesting Clarifications on ABC's Blog
A chronological story
We have worked hard to make this not a political movie. We show both administrations with an unvarnished truth. Because our show is chronological - if a viewer watches just the first night of the mini series it could be perceived as anti Clinton. If a viewer watches just the second night it could be perceived as anti Bush. It sounds as if you are getting your information from someone who has only seen one night.
D. Cunningham, Director of The Path to 9/11
1) This is not a documentary. It is a movie told in two parts with 247 different actors led by Harvey Keitel playing FBI Counterterrorism agent John O’Neil.
2) This is not a right wing agenda movie. The team of filmmakers, actors and executives that are responsible for this movie have very different political views. There was no emphasis given to one party over another. By the way, we are also being accused of being a left wing movie that bashes Bush.
3) Yes – we do show the PDB report in night two and many other missteps by the Bush administration.
-D. Cunningham (director of The Path to 9/11)
Even Further Clarification
It seems that people keep referring to this movie as a "documentary". A documentary is a journalistic format that gives facts and information through interviews and news footage. This is a movie or more specifically a docudrama. Meaning, it is a narrative movie based on facts and dramatized with actors.
The team of filmmakers, actors and executives responsible for this movie have a wide range of political perspectives. I would say that most of those perspectives (which is the vast majority in Hollywood) would be considered "liberal" or "left". Some of the very people who are being villified by the left as having a 'right wing agenda' are the very people who are traditionally castigated by the right as being 'liberal dupes' in other projects they have presented. To make a movie of this size and budget requires many people to sign off on it. One person's "agenda" (if anyone should have one) is not enough to influence a movie to one's individual politics when a far broader creative and political consensus is an inherent part of the process. And the consensus that emerged over and over during development, production and post production is that we tried, as best we can, based on 9/11 Commission Report and numerous other sources and advisors, to present an accurate and honest account of the events leading to 9/11.
The redundant statement about Clinton and the emphasis to protect his legacy instead of trying to learn from the failures of BOTH administrations smells of "agenda". You may feel we "bash" Clinton and/or you may feel we "bash" Bush but the facts are that the eight years from the first WTC bombing to the day of 9/11 involved two administrations with plenty of culpability all around. Something needs to explain how that happened.
Watch the movie! Then let's talk. If you haven't seen the movie with your very own eyes - don't castigate the movie out of ignorance.
I think it should be released and let the public decide.
If Clinton and the Democrats want to sue ABC afterwards then that is their choice, BUT in doing so there should be investigations on what they seem to dispute. After all, I am sure they wish to make sure the world really knows the truth right? So they should have no problem if there was any kind of investigation to prove what they say is either right or wrong.....
There has been multiple cries of defamation
from people like Berger, Albright and Clinton. For a bit of clrrification on public figures and defamation, see below:
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".
Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.
The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.
Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.
Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.
In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.
Others blogging this:
Karl at Leaning Straight Up with "Open Post Weekend: The path to 911 edition"