The Bush half of ABC’s mocumentary contains made up scenes that help Bush. Hard to believe that a film funded, written and directed by conservative activists would slant the blame entirely in one direction, I know, but sadly that appears to be the case. ABC has pissed on the memory of the most traumatic event in America’s recent history.
At least American Airlines appears ready to pull its advertising and probably sue. As for me, I plan on telephoning WTAE today ((412) 244-4444) to let them know that I have better things to do than watch their station. They made a decision to ally with one party over the other and since I am not in that party, I see no reason why I should go on supporting them.
BlogReeder
Pretty harsh for one mockumentary. Sounds like you can’t HANDLE the TRUTH. :)
Speaking of truth(ers), I heard Oliver Stone was thinking of doing a movie about the conspiracy theories behind 9/11.
If they showed that or “Loose change” on NBC, would you stop watching that network too?
Punchy
This is why God gave us The Simpsons and Family Guy opposite such crap–for a healthy dose of reality. If I wanted fictionalized, made-up, cartoonish figures doing drawn-up activities…maybe THEN I would have watched this ABC shizzit.
The Other Steve
Today is Be Nice to Bush Day
So in light of that, I refuse to say anything bad about Bush.
But, ABC on the other hand. You know, this is quite unbelievable, and certainly worse than Dan Rather making a mistake and reporting on a questionable document. The CBS thing was a mistake made by not aggressively verifying enough.
This ABC thing was purposeful, as has been well documented. The funding of the movie, the director, the author all had an ulterior agenda right from the start. It was pure propaganda, and ABC played it unquestiongly.
It’s also pretty sad for the Republicans. That they have to rely upon Hollywood fiction to believe in themselves.
Actually, that last point brings up an interesting thing I’ve noticed. See, I never really give a shit about what Barbara Streisand or such says. So I’m always amazed when Republicans whine about Hollywood. But then you notice how much they fall over Hollywood actors turned politicians, and you realize…
Republicans actually care about what Hollywood thinks.
It shows a lack of self-esteem, frankly.
Punchy
Good point, Steve That Isn’t The First Steve. Here’s my attempt:
I like Bush’s penchant for laughing at…well..damn near anything. A president MUST have a sense of humor, and I’m proud of the fact that our Prez knows humor in spades, whether it’s a joke from Laura, a crack on his long vacations, the number of dead Iraqis….whatever.
The guy could usurp Kramer in Seinfeld episodes. And for this, I’m thankful he’s our leader.
McNulty
Actually, it was a pretty idiotic point made by TOS. This Republican actually spent the time slot of the “mocumentary” switching back and forth between the Colts/Giants game, and the season premiere of “The Wire”, as did just about every other Republican I know.
Further, I couldn’t care less what Hollywood thinks, and said to numerous people when the subject came up that 9-11 is far too serious a subject to play fast and loose with facts, regardless of whether or not you refer to it as a “docudrama”.
I think a better sign of low self esteem is someone who goes around projecting on blogs in an effort to make themselves feel better.
p.lukasiak
Unlike most of my lefty compatriots, I actually sat through all five hours of the terror-porn called Path to 9-11. I wanted to be able to say “Yes, I watched it, and it was as bad as I was lead to believe.”
Having watched it, I can say that it was worse than I thought it would be. It bears about the same relationship to the 9-11 Commission Report as the film “Clueless” bears to Jane Austen’s “Emma” — and those who watched it thinking they were learning something are the kind of people who would watch “Clueless” and think that they understood “Emma”.
As to the actions I’ve taken, I used my “parental controls” to block all ABC/Disney owned/affiliated stations — and notified my local ABC affiliate and the Disney corporation that I have done so. (Its far too easy to say “I won’t watch” — and I have the feeling that cable and sattelite companies have the capacity to report to corporations like disney how many of Disney’s stations have been blocked by the cable/sattelite company’s customers.)
The distortions started at the very beginning of the show (a montage that implied that Airlines notified NORAD in a timely fashion, and that NORAD acted appropriately by putting jets in the air immediately) and were relentless throughout. Some lies were obvious — but the most insidious device used was the creation of completely idealized heroes that bore no relationship to the actual person being portrayed who consistently spouted off right-wing talking points.
For instance, the primary reason that O’Neil was investigated had nothing to do with his lost briefcase — it was because of a series of significant lapses in security, culminating with the time he allowed ONE OF HIS TWO MISTRESSES to use the bathroom at a secret FBI office. O’Neil went from being merely careless with classified information to acting with complete disregard for it. And you never got a hint that O’Neil has essentially abandoned his wife years before 9/11 — indeed, his wife is shown attending a dinner with him at the World Trade Center just weeks before the attack. O’Neil was presented as a flawless hero — and one who consistently communicated the message that right-wingers wanted to convey.)
The Other Steve
Now that’s not fair. I didn’t say that it was the only sign of low self-esteem.
You are, of course right that the habit of Republicans projecting on blogs in an effort to make themselves feel better is a better sign of low self esteem.
Which again, is why they claim they don’t care what hollywood thinks, while constantly attacking Hollywood.
It’s quite interesting, really.
neil
I bet more people have learned about how Republican activists want to rewrite history than have learned about how Clinton was responsible for 9/11.
Success!
p.lukasiak
I bet more people have learned about how Republican activists want to rewrite history than have learned about how Clinton was responsible for 9/11.
doubtful… which much of the audience for the show may have been aware of the controvery, the details regarding YWAM and TFF and the writer and directors ties to the far right got little coverage. That coverage focussed primarily on specific falsified scenes, and the reaction to them, rather than the overall insidious propaganda nature of the show, and background on how it came to be that way.
The Other Steve
Why don’t you knock it off with them Negative Waves! Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here. Why can’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change.
– Oddball
BlogReeder
Unlike most of my lefty compatriots, I actually sat through all five hours of the terror-porn called Path to 9-11. I wanted to be able to say “Yes, I watched it, and it was as bad as I was lead to believe.”
Good for you. No, I really mean it. I didn’t have the time.
carpeicthus
Given that this is an election season, I think I should be allowed to produce a six-hour miniseries called “President Bush: Goatfucker” for ABC, which shows that the reason Bush couldn’t pull away from My Pet Goat after the attacks is his sexual attraction to them.
Because I don’t think even a six-hour airing of truths (and even that won’t happen) would be equal time for six hours of partisan lies. At leasy my partisan lies would be funnier.
scs
Good going Tim. You are going to boycott a station because of some minor inaccurate scenes that aren’t favorable to your boy. That’s a great idea. I’m going to boycott NBC, as I believe they are the parent company of Bravo, as they are showing Michael Moore movies, such as Fahrenheit 911, which we all know from statements from people portrayed in the movie, contains a bunch of inaccuracies as well skwed to bolster one party.
God you all are such babies. You didn’t even see the movie. Those scenes you are referring to are so minor in the movie- like Atta was screened in Maine instead of Boston, the president said that “swatting flies” comment at another time, he gave the military the ability to ‘do what they want’ instead of telling them to shoot down planes. It’s just silly.
Although I agree I wish the film had been more accurate, as they didn’t need those lines, again all those things were so minor in the movie, that once again Lefties have lost all sense of perspective. They are finding yet another silly thing to whine and bitch and moan about. But what else is new?
Mac Buckets
So weak. Bush deserves criticism, but this is just partisan whining from people who just wouldn’t be happy unless the movie had a disclaimer saying “9/11 was all Bush’s fault, and Clinton was blameless.” I mean, the fact that it came from the fantasists at Media Matters should be a tip-off! Here are MM’s “falsified scenes bolstering Bush”
1) The President didn’t say he was tired of “swatting flies” and wanted to “take the fight to the terrorists” after the PDB, but actually a couple months earlier. Uhhhh, wait, haven’t the Bush-haters spent the last week telling us how Bush knew nothing about terrorism, was unaware of the problem, never mentioned it, and didn’t care about making a plan to fight terrorists? So the President obviously didn’t need a vague, unactionable PDB to tell him we were in danger of domestic terror attacks — he was pushing the development of a stronger “take the fight to them” strategy almost as soon as he took office. Again, will you guys finally decide what version of history you’re going to try to rewrite? Consistency, gentlemen.
2) No “Shootdown Order,” reached NORAD before all the planes were down. And thank God it didn’t — because all the hijacked planes were down by one minute later and NORAD was chasing regular flights at that point!
I’m not sure whether this makes Bush look more or less adept at handling terrorism. The terrorist attacks had already been successful at this point, the intelligence had failed, information about the attacks was sputtering aimlessly around the FAA and NORAD, the people on United 93 were going to die, and the plane never reached the target, so whether Bush gave an authorization to shoot down possible hijacked planes just before or just after 93 crashed seems fairly insignificant in the overall picture of how the government was performing.
It takes a insanely partisan Democrat (fortunately, we have Media Matters!) to think that some viewer is going to watch them say “The president just gave the shootdown order” on United 93 and go “Woo-hoo! That’s the way to fight terrorism, George! You da man!” and to think there would be a different reaction to Bush giving a similar order a few minutes later regarding future flights that may have been taken that day.
3) Atta wasn’t red-flagged, but still allowed to board his plane in Boston, but rather in Maine. That’s just devastating to the entire Bush administration. Impeachment proceedings must follow. ABC must turn in its broadcast license. No, wait — Media Matters are just morons who can’t even keep their own whining on-topic.
John S.
Nothing.
Your writing still stinks, although your latest attempt is riddled with more contrary arguments than usual. I particularly like how you manage to excoriate a ‘liberal’ film using one type of logic then abandon that same logic as applied to a ‘conservative’ film. “I never saw Farenheit 9/11, but I heard it was filled with lies! How dare you criticize Path to 9/11 for being filled with lies, you never saw it!” Classic stuff.
Is it possible that you might actually be losing what little grasp you had over making a cogent argument?
scs
I heard that he was investigated because he lost his laptop, probably in his briefcase. I think you are wrong there. Anyway, I’m still waiting for some real lies in the movie. So far all I’ve heard were a handful of conversational statements shown at wrong dates, Atta boarded in Boston instead of Maine (who cares, unless your the American Airline CEO), they showed John O’Neill’s absent wife for a millisecond (I don’t even remember that, did they actually say it was his wife? – could have been his mistress). None of those have any meat.
The only scene I agree was pretty stupid was the scene where the Northern Alliance, with Massoud, and CIA guys stand in front of Bin Laden’s tent and Berger puts the kabosch on the bombing. That one was not necessary. Although I know it reflected the spirit of the times where members of the Northern Alliance were nearby Bin Laden and could have been ready to go and were called off by Clinton Admin officials, Mahmoad or the CIA were never standing together in eyeshot of Bin Laden’s tent, so that scene should have been redone. They could have split the scene and had CIA guys and Mahmod in separate places, talking about getting Bin Laden on the phone, etc, not actually standing there.
Other than that, the outcries amount to a whole lot of nothing.
scs
Did I write I never saw Fahrenheit? Just because I never saw it on Bravo, doesn’t mean I never saw it at all. There are such things as videos you know. Man DJ, give up the John S spoof, he is getting really annoying cause he’s so damn stupid.
Mike S
The movie was exactly as I expected. I spoke to the GOPropagandist twice on winger radio shows and while he was smooth his agenda was clear.
The most common argument by the propagandist and his shills was that he was hard on the Bush admin. “Just watch the scenes with Condi.” And he was hard on Condi, she was the sacrificial lamb of the movie. But he made it look like Condi was the ONLY person who blundered. He gave the impression that Condi made every decision all by her lonesome.
I can see in my mind the thought process that went into that. Cyrus sitting with Horowitz and knowing that the best way to get people to believe propaganda is by having something to point too that will give you cover.
Zerthimon
There’s no evidence that there was a meeting in early September before 9/11 to discuss the threat of terrorism? Go read pages 212-213 of the 9/11 commission report and come back to me.
In fact, in the report it has the administration taking action against terrorism even BEFORE the meeting they show in the film. So actually the presentation of Bush in the movie was worse than it is in the 9/11 report.
Media Matters is correct that there is no evidence the meeting was in response to the PDB. But they are incorrect in saying there’s no evidence Bush didn’t take aggressive action. The 9/11 report flatly contradicts it.
But don’t take my word for it. Read the report yourself.
Zerthimon
gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec6.pdf
Now are you honestly going to tell me that the depiction of the Bush aministration is BETTER than in the 9/11 report?
Zerthimon
Furthermore, the scene with Tenet talking about how they’re getting swamped with alerts about an impending terrorist attack, thus indicating that the administration should have been aware such an attack was coming, fails to mention that Tenet said all those alerts were about attacks, not attacks inside the United States. By actually omitting that, the movie made the administration look worse than what is reported in the 9/11 report.
I see little evidence the Bush administration was made to look better than in the 9/11 report. And a mountain of evidence that they look worse.
John S.
Why would say you were going to boycott a product that you already consumed? That makes no sense, but then again nothing abut your posts ever does.
And you really need to can the “everyone is a spoof” schtick. You really look like a fucking moron, not that the quality of your posts doesn’t already do a excellent job of that.
elledblu
Ah, so it’s not that they “made a decision to ally with one party over the other” that outrages you, it’s that it’s not YOUR party.
Interesting.
scs
Because they are showing it on TV, the mass market, for other unknowing people to stumble upon, duh.
scs
Hey if it looks like a spoof, walks like a spoof, and quacks like a spoof, chances are it’s a spoof. Especailly with DougJ on the loose.
Richard 23
Hmm, so did you see it or not. This seems to be a content-free revelation.
Ooh, do tell. Tell me more about these things called “videos.”
What I appreciated about PT911 were the references to civil liberties getting in the way and how domestic spying would be a useful tool and the subtext that taking the gloves off (torture?) would be a good thing indeed (if only!). Woven into the dialog was justification and pleading for the right wing positions taken by the current administration.
Mac Buckets
So I think we’re in agreement here that you might want to reconsider, as Media Matters can’t ever be trusted to tell the truth. I mean, think what you’d be missing! Like, well…Lost…and that chick doctor show…ummmm, what else? NFL, no. Well, go ahead and “boycott” ABC — it would be like me swearing off American beer.
Zerthimon
Well 4 hours have passed and no one has attempted to rebut my previous comments. And so I take it to mean there’s a consensus that the movie did not make the administration look better than the 9/11 commission report.
Good, now that that’s settled I expect a retraction from those who accused the movie of doing such a thing.
As to whether the movie was propaganda though, there’s enough evidence that there is for me to tolerate others believing so. Even though I think the evidence is inconclusive. But if you want to accuse the movie of being propaganda knock yourself out. Just don’t use the evidence Tim mentioned in his post to do it, as it’s not true.
Mike S
Does that work for everything? If you are trying to pick up a girl and she ignores you does that mean that she wants you?
John S.
scs, be thy name!
So… you’re a spoof?
Zerthimon
Well if my arguements could be refuted, why aren’t they? If someone is accusing the movie of making the administration look better than the 9/11 report, why would they let challenges to it go unanswered? Seems to me that if they could refute it they would, as it would just further strengthen their accusation. To not do so seems detrimental, so I have to assume it’s because they can’t.
I’ll admit my comment was a bit snide. As I was hoping to provoke someone to respond.
Mac Buckets
Just post something about how Olbermann sucks, and count the lefties leaping to refute (in their limited fashion)!
John S.
Don’t break your neck self-fellating, Mac.
Zerthimon
I wonder if Tim is still reading these comments. He seems like a reasonable and fair individual, and I believe if he thinks that I effectively refuted his point he’ll retract his statement. So if he doesn’t, I’m guessing that either he isn’t reading these comments, or disagrees with me. If he does, I’d like to know why.
Mac Buckets
Witness, Zerth.