“Can anyone really imagine seeing what those firefighters saw — first one plane, then another — and saying, ‘Goodness gracious, what rare deed is this?’ when ‘What the –’ more accurately captures the moment?” columnist Kathleen Parker asks on today’s Opinion pages. She was responding to the misguided vow by the American Family Association to flood the Federal Communications Commission with complaints if CBS stations air the documentary “9/11,” which contains some cursing (it’s scheduled to air at 7 p.m. Sunday on KWCH, Channel 12 in Wichita). “Surely the American Family Association’s biblical ethics leave some wiggle room for common sense and context,” Parker argued. “Besides, children too young to hear raw language are far too young to watch something as horrifying as the mass murder that took place on Sept. 11.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pedant on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Franklin on The GOP’s white-bread convention
- cosmos_originally on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- BlueJay on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- Regular on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- lindainks55 on The GOP’s white-bread convention
- BlueJay on The GOP’s white-bread convention
- Pedant on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- BlueJay on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
- outlander on Palin’s record a ‘mixed bag’
40 Comments
Does anyone really care what the AFA thinks?
oh oh oh …
NOT ME…
I check with the AFA hourly to see if I’m outa’ line with who they want me to be.
And YES I AM.
ABSOLUTELY! Just like with Private Ryan - that is called reality!
Did Southwind have something to say about this? But then again, if these firefighters are gay, then Terry Fox and Joe Wright will get into the fight.
http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/include/default.aspx
Statement From 9/11 Families Regarding the Media’s Portrayal of 9/11As we mark five years since 9/11, we are inundated with the media’s portrayal of that tragic day. Television miniseries, Hollywood films, comic books and countless “documentaries” are dramatizing and sometimes distorting the events leading up to and happening on 9/11. Families of September 11 believes the best way to honor those who were lost is to make sure that what happened to them never happens again. As such, we must understand exactly what took place, and not allow “entertainers” to promote misleading or incorrect information as fact to the public.
continued…follow link for PDF
Yeah, I think I pretty much expressed something similar on another thread, Tracy. But your post certainly reinforces the reminder that there are families and friends of those lost on 9/11 that would appreciate it if we would leave those they loved and lost alone. Let’s stop this grisly barrage of docus and films. It’s way too soon, and why open old wounds for people who may be beginning to heal?
Oh, that’s right. It helps build the fear.
Letter from Clinton’s attorney to the Network:
September 1, 2006
Dear Bob,
As you know, ABC intends to air a two part miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” which purports to document the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. ABC claims that the show is based on the 9/11 Commission Report and, as Steve McPherson, President of ABC Entertainment, has said: “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
By ABC’s own standard, ABC has gotten it terribly wrong. The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known.
Despite several requests to view the miniseries, we have not been given the courtesy of seeing it. This is particularly troubling given the reputation of Cyrus Nowrasteh, the drama’s writer/producer. Mr. Nowrasteh has been criticized for inaccurately portraying historical events in the past. In response to previous criticism, he has even said, “I made a conscious effort not to contact any members of the Administration because I didn’t want them to stymie my efforts.” Indeed, while we have not been given the courtesy of a viewing, based upon reports from people who have seen the drama you plan to air, we understand that there are at least three significant factual errors:
– The drama leads viewers to believe that National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told the CIA that he would not authorize them to take a shot at bin Laden. This is complete fiction and the event portrayed never happened. First of all, the 9/11 Commission Report makes clear that CIA Director George Tenet had been directed by President Clinton and Mr. Berger to get bin Laden (p. 199 & 508-509). Secondly, Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism from 1999-2001, has said, on more than one occasion, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”
In addition, ABC’s own counter-terrorism consultant, Richard Clarke, has said that contrary to the movie:1) No US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden;2) The head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was nowhere near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see bin Laden; and3) CIA Director Tenet said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single-sourced and there would be no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.
As Clarke and others will corroborate, President Clinton did in fact approve of a standing plan to use Afghans who worked for the CIA to capture bin Laden. The CIA’s Afghan operatives were never able to carry out the operation and the CIA recommended against inserting Agency personnel to do it. The Department of Defense, when asked by President Clinton to examine the use of US troops to capture bin Laden, also recommended against that option.
– The drama claims that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright refused to sanction a missile strike against bin Laden without first alerting the Pakistanis and notified them over the objections of the military. Again, this is false.
– Using newsreel footage of President Clinton, the drama insinuates that President Clinton was too pre-occupied with the impeachment and the Lewinsky matter to be engaged in pursuing bin Laden. This allegation is absurd and was directly refuted by ABC News consultant Richard Clarke in his book, Against All Enemies: “Clinton made clear that we were to give him our best national security advice without regard to his personal problems. ‘Do you recommend that we strike on the 20th? Fine. Do not give me political advice or personal advice about the timing. That’s my problem. Let me worry about that.’ If we thought this was the best time to hit the Afghan camps, he would order it and take the heat.”
While these are three examples that we are aware of that are utterly baseless, they are clearly indicative of other errors in the substance and bent of the film. Indeed, the overall tone in the advertisements we’ve seen for this drama suggest that President Clinton was inattentive to the threat of terrorism or insufficiently intent upon eliminating the threat from bin Laden. Note that the 9/11 Commission Report says:
– We believe that both President Clinton and President Bush were genuinely concerned about the danger posed by al Qaeda.” (p. 349)
– “By May 1998 … clearly, President Clinton’s concern about terrorism had steadily risen.” (p. 102)
– “President Clinton was deeply concerned about bin Laden. He and his national security advisor, Samuel ‘Sandy’ Berger, ensured they had a special daily pipeline of reports feeding them the latest updates on bin Laden’s reported location.” (p. 175)
– “President Clinton spoke of terrorism in numerous public statements. In his August 5, 1996, remarks at George Washington University, he called terrorism ‘the enemy of our generation.’” (p. 500)
We challenge anyone to read the 9/11 Commission Report and find any basis for the false allegations noted above or the tenor of the drama, which suggests that the Clinton Administration was inattentive to the threat of a terrorist strike.
Frankly, the bias of the ABC drama is not surprising given the background and political leanings of its writer/producer, Mr. Nowrasteh, which have been well-documented on numerous conservative blogs and talk shows in his promotion of this film. Mr. Nowrasteh’s bias can be seen in an interview he gave to David Horowitz’s conservative magazine Frontpage, during which he said:
“The 9/11 report details the Clinton’s administration’s response ‚Äì or lack of response ‚Äì to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing.”
But as Sandy Berger told the 9/11 Commission: “[T]o go to war, a president needs to be able to say that his senior intelligence and law enforcement officers have concluded who is responsible.” And as the 9/11 Commission report repeatedly acknowledges, the US did not have clear evidence of bin Laden’s connection to the attack on the USS Cole before the end of the Clinton Administration (p. 192, 193, 195 & executive summary).
While ABC is promoting “The Path to 9/11″ as a dramatization of historical fact, in truth it is a fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans. Given your stated obligation to “get it right,” we urge you to do so by not airing this drama until the egregious factual errors are corrected, an endeavor we could easily assist you with given the opportunity to view the film.
Sincerely,Bruce R. LindseyChief Executive OfficerWilliam J. Clinton Foundation
Douglas J. BandCounselor to President ClintonOffice of William Jefferson Clinton
Cc: Ms. Madeleine K. AlbrightMr. Samuel R. BergerMr. Richard A. ClarkeMr. Stephen McPhersonMr. George J. MitchellMr. John D. PodestaMr. David WestinNational Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States
JOE, do you still LOL @ TRACY?And where is the list of lies from Moore’s film?That’s what I thought!
If Kathleen Parker really believes that “children too young to hear raw language are far too young to watch … Sept. 11″, then she should have no objection whatsoever to people insisting that 9/11 documentaries be shown AFTER the family hour.
Maybe she wants to argue that children shouldn’t be allowed to watch TV _at_all? Is that her goal?
Clinton is like the rest of the religious fruitcakes..worthless, phoney, and corrupt
Mom, he still did a HELL of a lot better than this fruitcake.
Is TRACY on topic? I think TRACY’s off topic. I think CBS and ABC are different companies, with different shows, and this thread’s about the CBS show, not the ABC one.
Are you the moderator?Or just picky?
Kathleen Parker . . . now I know why I’m not a syndicated big-shot columnist.
I’m not a complete effing moron.
This is not news. This is not even infotainment.
This is kind of thing that makes people stupidier for having read it.
See, I read it, and now I can’t even spell “stupider.”
That’s kinda what I thought Capn.But I proffered straying from our topic.Great cutnpaste though.
“If Kathleen Parker really believes that “children too young to hear raw language are far too young to watch … Sept. 11″, then she should have no objection whatsoever to people insisting that 9/11 documentaries be shown AFTER the family hour.
Maybe she wants to argue that children shouldn’t be allowed to watch TV _at_all? Is that her goal?”
That’s kind of an unjustified red herring criticism don’t you think? Parker was responding to the stated concerns of the AFA. Parker’s main point was that the firefighter’s language should not be censored, not to comment on what children should be watching. As I say this I should note that I don’t agree with Kathleen Parker often (she’s conservative, although not dogmatically so).
I for one have been dreading the upcoming media feeding frenzy on 9/11. The ABC miniseries in particular sounds very disturbing, since it appears (from Nowrasteh’s own behavior and words-such as his discussion with that hypocrite Limbaugh) that this film is a piece of election propoganda for the Bush Administration and the Republicans, which is just wrong (and it would also be wrong if the Democrats did it-and yes, I have some serious problems with Moore’s film as well).
This ald..whatever, seems to be the king/queen of non-sequitors.
FUCK THE AFA.
Disney which owns ABC is the same people who wouldn’t distribute Farenheit 9-11 to MOVIE THEATERS because in their words “it was too close to the election.”
But they’ll show this Orwellian travesty right before the election on national TV.
Damn LIBERAL media!
ABC = Always Blame Clinton
The righties will take the movie as gospel! Should go along way with smoothing out any wrinkles in the 2nd phase of the 9/11 ‘investigation’.
An interesting opinion:
On 9/11, keep war politicsout of classroomBy JONATHAN ZIMMERMANNext Monday, schools in Killeen, Tex., will host “Freedom Walks” to commemorate the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. In Little Rock, Ark., one high school will stage a dramatic play about victims and survivors of the tragedy. And in Arlington, Va., students will observe a moment of silence at 9:37 a.m., when a plane struck the Pentagon.That’s all as it should be, of course. Some 3,000 Americans lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2001, and all of us should pause to honor their memory.
But in a democracy, schools must do more than simply commemorate important national events. We also need to ask tough questions about why they occurred - and how we should respond to them. And on that score, I fear, most classrooms will fall far short.
Consider the “Freedom Walks,” which will take place in 117 cities across the nation next Monday. The walks are sponsored by America Supports You, a Pentagon-funded organization that aims to “support America’s Armed Forces, especially in forward-deployed areas of the Global War on Terrorism,” according to the group’s Web site.
For “forward-deployed areas,” think “Iraq.”
But is the Iraq war part of a wider, worldwide struggle against terrorism? That’s what President Bush says, of course. But over half of Americans disagree, according to recent polls.
Why, then, should our schools endorse the Iraq-terrorism connection? It would make just as much sense for them to condemn the war and call for the troops to come home.
That’s not the job of public schools. Given our profound disagreements over the war in Iraq, schools shouldn’t endorse or denounce it. Instead, they should educate students - and help them come to their own informed conclusions about this conflict and its alleged connections to global terrorism.
Following brief ceremonies to honor the dead, then, schools should devote next Monday to wide-ranging conversations about the causes, meaning and consequences of the 9/11 attacks. In every classroom across the land, except for the very youngest grades, teachers should ask students three basic questions:
1. Who attacked us five years ago, and why?
2. How did the United States respond - and do you agree with the responses?
3. What policies should we pursue in the future?
None of these questions have easy answers. And that’s precisely the point. If you believe in democracy, you believe in the ability of citizens to deliberate difficult public issues and arrive at reasoned points of view.
So next Monday, save us the flag-waving, pro-war rallies. And please, teachers, no easy attacks on Bush and his decisions, either. On Sept. 11, all of us need to reach our own decisions about this tragic event and its complicated aftermath. Anything less will do violence to the very freedoms that we purport to defend.
Zimmerman teaches history and education at New York University and is author of the forthcoming book “Innocents Abroad: American Teachers in the American Century.”
Originally published on September 7, 2006
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/449991p-378748c.html
Nothing like brainwashing our young. :(—–
As long as the Firefighters don’t cuss against Democrats, we should allow them to cuss.
Tracy, the REAL political_mom agrees wholeheartedly. Please remember there is a poster who likes to try to use my name.
I agree, most people don’t give a hooey about what the AFA thinks.
I wish the people who don’t like the AFA would show up on election days so we can move beyond the hollow christianity facade so popular among the finger pointing republicans.
The suck a** Democrates didnt whine about lLil Mikey Moore’s BS movie now did they?
Hi Troller of political_mom!
I am merciless with trolls kiddo!
I gunned down LRB.
Can the trolling or you are next. Kapish?
It is obvious that these AFA fools have never been to New York or have ever had the pleasure of hearing authentic “cabbie” language. Any documentary in about New Yorkers in which there is no cursing is counterfeit, and an inaccurate portrayal of the native experience. On a remarkable note, i noticed that my cussing has lessened since I left!
JR,
“Capiche”
Parliamo Italiano?
hehehe
I think the AFA and other people who are told to be offended want 9-11 to be portrayed like in an Andy Griffith show.
“By golly Andy, one of the towers in New York City just got all blowed up.”
“Now Barney don’t go getting all riled up about this.”
“But, Aaaaandy!”
*plays laughtrack
Sorry MOM, I’ll pay more attention.
LOL@Tracy will still continue my friend.
You want some disputed facts about Moore’s movie?
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Since this website finds fault with the movie, liberals will tell you it’s nothing but right wing propaganda. But you asked for faults people found - here’s one person’s listing. Draw your own conclusions.
Here’s another site with multiple links discussing various parts of the film:http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/f911
One quick example that illustrates MM’s methods….
At the end of F911 Michael Moore quotes Condoleeza Rice as saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”
The entire quote was, “‚”Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”
Certainly changes the meaning, doesn’t it? Even thought technically the quote is accurate.
Here’s a good one. http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/just_the_fax_maam/
This shows a newspaper article MM used in F911, and then compares it with the actual news article as printed. What appears as a headline in the paper reading “Latest Gore Recount Shows Gore won election” was actually an editorial sent in by a reader.
Thank you JR. sic em, boy.
Hey fake me…if you’re going to use my name at least learn how to freaking spell.
I am a D E M O C R A T…there is no e on the end.
Or better yet, don’t. Then people could tell the difference without having to check the email addy.
Zimmerman asks the question–”who attacked us and why?”
Then says “none of these questions have easy answers.”
Actually, this question DOES have an easy answer, but you’ll never hear BushCo. say it.
After the Gulf War in ‘91, we left large numbers of Americans stationed in Saudi Arabia, even though lying POS Dick Cheney (Sec’ry of War at the time) said that our troops “wouldn’t be there a minute longer than necessary.”
The jihadis didn’t want them there to begin with. When the King and his minions let them stay, they were beside themselves and vowed to kick the Americans out and overthrow the monarchy.
‘91 — US troops put into Arabia’92 — Gulf War ends, troops remain’93 — first World Trade Center bombing’94 — plots to kill Clinton, to blow up American airliners over the Pacific’95 — military base in Riyadh destroyed, 5 Americans killed’96 — Khobar towers attacked with a truck bomb, 19 Americans killed; OBL issues fatwah demanding the US leave Arabia’98 — Embassy bombings in Africa’99 — Millenium plot foiled’00 — USS Cole nearly sunk’01 — 9-11, 3000 dead’03 — Bush pulls troops from Arabia
Look at the timeline. Troops in Saudia Arabia, the place of the two holies = terrorism against the US.
Direct connection.
Joe you win!!Moore’s an asshole!!
While ABC has been busy peddling the “it’s only a docudrama” stateside, they have been planning on worldwide simultaneous broadcast blitz - billing “The Path to 9/11″ as the true story of what really happened. And featured in this Australian promo is that big lie scene that shows the Clinton administration choosing not to go after Bin Laden, while the voiceover announces he could have been stopped and “how one decison changed our world.” The opening sequence also has the words “The Official True Story” over the backdrop of the twin towers.
Richard Clarke — the counterterrorism czar for the Clinton administration, now himself a consultant to ABC News — describes a key scene in “The Path to 9/11″ as “180 degrees from what happened.” In the scene, a CIA field agent places a phone call to get the go ahead to kill Osama Bin Laden, then in his sights, only to have a senior Clinton administration official refuse and hang up the phone. Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor, called the same scene “a total fabrication. It did not happen.” And Roger Cressey, a top Bush and Clinton counterterrorism official, said it was “something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.”Another scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder — contrary to “The Path to 9/11″ — rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times.The former National Security Council head of counterterrorism says that President Clinton “approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda,” and the 9/11 report says the CIA had full authority from President Clinton to strike Bin Laden. Yet chief “Path to 9/11″ scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh, a friend of Rush Limbaugh, says the miniseries shows how President Clinton had “frequent opportunities in the ’90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks — but lacked the will to do so.”ABC asked only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, Sr., to advise the makers of “The Path to 9/11″. The producers optioned two books, one written by a Bush administration political appointee, as the basis of the screenplay — yet bill the miniseries as “based on the 9/11 Commission Report.”
This is a picture of bias — a conservative attempt to rewrite the history of September 11 to blame Democrats, just in time for the election.
A vote for Talent is a vote for Bush.
I THINK THAT ABC SHOULD ONLY PORTRAY ACTUAL EVENTS NO DRAMATIZATION, BUT YESTERDAY THERE WERE BLOGGERS ON HERE STATING THAT F 9/11 WAS FACT. ITS NOT FACT, BUT INNUENDO, AND SPIN, CIRCUMSTANTIAL AT BEST.
ITS WRONG TO PORTRAY THIS EITHER WAY, OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL TRUTH. 3000 PEOPLE DIED.
MAYBE WHAT WE SHOULD ALL DO IS STEP BACK AND SEE WHAT WE CAN PERSONALLY DO TO MAKE OUR COUNRTY AND OUR LIVES BETTER
HAWKEYE
I’ll second that motion…………..