wow…double epu

I knew I’d get epu’d from last thread but I had no patience to wait

anyway, it’s more apropos here anyway;

here’s something everyone is REALLY going to get a kick out of

watch the think progress clip

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Miniter — conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror”
drawn from internet myth…”we never had Bin laden in our sights pre 9/11″, the commision looked into this extensibly, I’ve looked into this extensively, there’s just no basis for this at all”

wow, I NEVER thought I’d quote this guy defending Clinton, but there it is, laying the internet myth to waste

never to be used again in political discussion without getting ridiculed

Christy! (my first first!)

The pushback is working because this really is a value proposition for Disney: scrutiny by Congress is not something to invite, nor is loss of revenue from advertisers, nor is the possiblity of subject to liable.

To write off the $40 million in production costs is far less costly than the possible costs of the above.

And while you are waiting for your telephone calls to connect on the lines that Christy has suggested, you can also click off a few e-mails, either on a mail-to-Disney web page or at mailto:investor.relations@disneyonline.com

Would love to see ABC “yank” something other than…

Prof @ 3

you can also click off a few e-mails, either on a mail-to-Disney web page

I should have been more clear: This particular link is where you explain that you have decided to cancel your plans to visit Disney World on a weekend with your children this fall because . . . . [fill in the blank; be truthful]

OT and EPUd: here

I wonder….

If wonder if this thinly desguised advertisement for the GOP would make ABC in total a de facto “527″ organization and hence the whole Road to 9/11 a paid political advertisement?

It would be interesting to file suit under McCain-Feingold to see what would happen….

hizzhoner

I cannot get over how nimble we have become.

Brava and bravo (as the case may be) to all here

Tst, tst, tst, what a dog world no place for rats or mice, Kobe.

Why don’t they just pull the program and show Farenheit 9/11 in stead?

I SURELY hope abc puts in something like;

due to the fact that this work of fiction was promoted as based on fact, and due to the fact that it instead contains lies designed to help get republiicans elected when they’ve done nothing but harm this nation, we have decided to pull this flick”

think that might happen?

It’s great if ABC yanks the series, but the patronizing tone of the Variety article is tells you everything you need to know about ABC is gonna spin this thing.

From the Variety article linked to above 2 things struck me:

One thing ABC doesn’t need to worry about: advertiser defections. Net decided to air the five-hour mini sans commercials after failing to find an appropriate sponsor for the project (Daily Variety, Sept. 5).

Of course, the controversial nature of the project — even before the left-wing attacks — may have caused many sponsors to shy away from a sponsorship deal.

and this:

Cliff Kincaid, editor of publications for conservative watchdog group Accuracy in Media, said the Democratic outcry is a bit of a surprise.

“Usually Democrats can count on the support of big media in Hollywood,” he said. “It’s like things are upside down now.”

It’s upside down world alright, buddy and we have Had Enough.

CNN could loan them it’s Bin Laden series to show.

Or we could watch a loop of Pres. Bush’s Monday speech and his Gibson interview. ;)

People just LUV watching President Bush.

looseheadprop @
8

I cannot get over how nimble we have become.

Brava and bravo (as the case may be) to all here

LHP — we’re all driven by the market now. :)

Not that it will matter if, in the best-case scenario, the whole thing is pulled but …

EPU’d from your thread yesterday:

Christy,

Question for you as a lawyer … If Berger and Albright are portrayed, by name, in totally ficticious scenes that defame them, would they not have cause for a slander/libel suit?

From RL…
One more thing about this movie, “Does the Clinton administration get blamed for this?” Not directly, but when you watch this, there is no escaping the fact that all during the nineties and all during his administration — the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole — oh, that one really comes through. The administration wouldn’t do diddly-squat about that. They were just afraid. I think that might have been the incident that Albright refused to do anything about because of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks going on. I’m not quite sure. But from the 1993 World Trade Center explosion and bombing to the Khobar Towers to the embassies that were blown up in Africa, to the USS Cole, it is abundantly clear this country didn’t do anything in retaliation and was hamstrung.

Any time an opportunity was presented to take to take out the people who had done this, hunting down, for example, Ramzi Binalshibh and Ramzi Yousef and so forth — and they did get Yousef, and that required an effort like you can’t believe. It had an informant, but the administration was barely able to pull the trigger, but on that one Yousef and his buddies were sentence to do 240 years in jail. We didn’t even have the death penalty for them and they’re still in jail. But in terms of retaliation for any of it, there was none — zip, zero, nada, for all of those attacks in the nineties. Nothing, and you know full well that after 9/11, we have been mobilized and we have been on the march, not only retaliating but trying to wipe these people out to prevent further attacks and a mixture of other foreign policy objectives as well, such as Iraq and democracy and freedom for these nations and so forth.

Glad to hear that our efforts are still rocking the boat; fingers crossed as to the outcome.

A quick question…I’ve now variously heard this series described as being four, five, and six hours long. Has that ever changed, or are these just factual errors by the reporters?

li$t of

ABC Entertainment $ponsor$ - with link$

http://birdoblog.birdobot.com/disney_propaganda

would love to hear that Bob Iger ‘barely touches’ or ‘nervously picks at’ his poached salmon with dill sauce lunch today, wouldn’t you ?

sponsors or no sponsors - Iger hearing from any of the folks linked above (especially as they roll out their new season)is a big deal

remember to be polite but firm in your willingness to boycott their products/services

Calling ABC gets you to a comment recording system. Not sure how effective it is, but left a msg.

30 second limit. Plan ahead.

Yeah i heard…

Wammo @ 16

From RL…
One more thing about this movie, “Does the Clinton administration get blamed for this?” Not directly, but when you watch this, there is no escaping the fact that all during the nineties and all during his administration — the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole — oh, that one really comes through. The administration wouldn’t do diddly-squat about that. They were just afraid. I think that might have been the incident that Albright refused to do anything about because of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks going on. I’m not quite sure. But from the 1993 World Trade Center explosion and bombing to the Khobar Towers to the embassies that were blown up in Africa, to the USS Cole, it is abundantly clear this country didn’t do anything in retaliation and was hamstrung.

Any time an opportunity was presented to take to take out the people who had done this, hunting down, for example, Ramzi Binalshibh and Ramzi Yousef and so forth — and they did get Yousef, and that required an effort like you can’t believe. It had an informant, but the administration was barely able to pull the trigger, but on that one Yousef and his buddies were sentence to do 240 years in jail. We didn’t even have the death penalty for them and they’re still in jail. But in terms of retaliation for any of it, there was none — zip, zero, nada, for all of those attacks in the nineties. Nothing, and you know full well that after 9/11, we have been mobilized and we have been on the march, not only retaliating but trying to wipe these people out to prevent further attacks and a mixture of other foreign policy objectives as well, such as Iraq and democracy and freedom for these nations and so forth.

But really…Richard Clarke, as portrayed in this movie, comes across as one voice trying to get everybody to pay attention here. Sandy Berger comes across as gutless. In this one episode where bin Laden in 1998 is surrounded in his digs over in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance and the CIA team have the house surrounded. They know exactly what building in this complex he’s in. They are ready to go in and either kill him or capture him, and they don’t get the approval from Washington. Berger says (summarized), “Nope, can’t do it. If you guys do it you’re going to do it on your own and if it falls apart you get the blame.” In another incident similar to this where it was possible to take out bin Laden and perhaps other terrorists who were — and this is before 9/11 — planning 9/11, Madeleine Albright and Berger both refused to allow the CIA and the military to take any action whatsoever.

Albright says, “The president is deeply involved in peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and if there is an attack on any Muslim or Islamic people right now, it will set that back,” and I’m sitting there watching this and I’m in stunned disbelief because those negotiations never led to anything! It was all about fear. That administration was afraid of failure and what it would mean to their approval ratings, but there were problems throughout. All of the information that the FBI offices in Phoenix and in Minneapolis had that were transferred to New York FBI office and then the CIA, but they couldn’t share the information. The Zacarias Moussaoui case is well gone into.

They had his computer. He was the 20th hijacker. His computer had the data on the plans. It didn’t have the date, but had the plans. The justice department said, “Nope, we can’t open the computer. We don’t have a warrant. We’re not going to get a warrant. We’re not going to violate this man’s rights this way, so forth.” It makes it clear that nobody was serious about dealing with this prior to 9/11. As for the Bush administration, they don’t get off the hook here. They are not let off the hook. They, too, are portrayed as — well, they’re caught up and sort of hamstrung by the existing procedures that are in place. They haven’t had a chance to change them, such as getting rid of the wall and this sort of thing.

CJ at 15 — I was not a specialist in that sort of case, and it can be a tough one to argue when you have a public figure involved — the laws on slander/libel/etc. for public figures are very loose due to their higher profile. That said, I would think if they attribute specific actions or statements or the like to Berger or Albright or any other real person that they (a) never did or said and (b) which portrays them in a bad light and (c) they could show based on evidence and testimony that it was patently false and the producers and writer should have known this from documents they purport to use for the show, that they could at least get past a summary judgment standard and potentially to a jury. If there are folks who have dones those sorts of cases, please chime in — it’s a highly specialized legal area, because it is VERY nuanced in terms of what is and is not allowable — and I’d be much more comfortable hearing from someone who has successfully tried a case or two like this as to what they think. (Sorry, I know that isn’t much of an answer, but you have a fairly wide berth with public figures…and it depends on a lot of factors.)

Might I suggest a tactic for addressing both your local ABC station and Mr. Iger? Tell them that if The Path to 9/11 airs, you’ll delete the ABC station from your remote: you won’t even be channel surfing past their products. It kicks the specter of a boycott up a notch.

Joe Scarborough at the top of his program was addressing the issue as it is all Clinton’s pushback that is causing Disney to reconsider it’s options.
In our area he is on after KO and I did not get the channel changed fast enough.
What a dirtbag.

update #2 up top

ABC spent $40 million to produce it. Even in Hollywood, that’s not chump change — especially for a television program.

ask Jery Falwell about the whole public figure - slander/libel thingy *g*

someone was asking about Professor Foland -

Physics Professor at Cornell - degree from Yale (?)

I have sent my emails to ABC nationally and regionally as well as to my local BOE about Scholastic. Scholastic caught on very quickly about what a hot potato this is and dropped out by saying that they had nothing to do with it and the materials (I’m not sure whose materials) did not meet their hight standards.

I realize that I am but a drop of water in this vast ocean, but I really, really appreciate the righteous anger and quick response at this blog and others of the same outlook. The residents and visitors here give me hope that we can right (in the proper sense) the country. If only the entrenched biggies in the Democratic party would begin actually to care about winning and governing.

President Clinton’s appearances are confined to images from news conferences and his deposition: There he is denying his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, then explaining it away, and finally announcing his determination to battle terrorism. He comes off as fatally detached from America’s greatest challenges. In fairness, though, the miniseries does allow for a different interpretation: Although Clinton brought the Lewinsky mess upon himself, Republicans are to blame for letting it become a national distraction — and one that had bad consequences for O’Neill and his fellow terror hunters. Also, it’s worth mentioning that in Monday’s installment, when the miniseries turns to the early days of the Bush administration, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice (played very effectively by 24 veteran Penny Johnson Jerald) comes off as an ignoramus, especially in a scene when she downsizes the responsibilities of counterterror official Richard Clarke (an unsung if earnest hero, by the film’s lights, and played by Stephen Root of Office Space). To call this a pro-Bush miniseries, as its critics surely will do, is a bit too simple.

Professor Foland has a blog:

http://nuclearmangos.blogspot.com/

Kean Hasn’t Talked To Clinton About Path to 9/11 Because ‘He Was Out Campaigning Against My Son Yesterday’

Thanks, Christy. Your response is perfect as usual - wouldn’t it be nice if everyone stayed within the bounds of their expertise and tempered their opinions accordingly. Your sound reasoning and temperment are precisely why I appreciate your posts. I realize it is a nuanced area - given the context I wasn’t even sure whether it would come under slander or libel but then I’m a scientist, not a lawyer.

I think I made this clear yesterday, but it is worth reiterating: constructive criticism of both the Clinton and the Bush Administrations for failures or omissions is not only appropriate, it is a good thing — we need to learn from past errors. But it needs to be done based on actual facts — not based on shit someone makes up for a better visual effect on screen or to subtly manipulate the viewer toward one ideology and away from another, etc.

It should be factually accurate — or they should call it fiction from the get go.

But the fact that the producers and writer have only given out review copies to right-wing pundits and bloggers, refuse to give the same courtesy to President Clinton or members of his staff who are portrayed in the movie says a LOT to me about CYA for the folks who made the movie. And about agenda. And about manipulative practices that they have used to gin up interest in the film. And anyone who wants to say otherwise needs to stop and think how this would have been perceived had the producers of The Reagans done the same with left-wing pundits and bloggers and the time — imagine the outcry.

Prof. Foland, I’ve just copied to the Orlando ABC affiliate’s programming director (to but not with whom I’ve been corresponding since yesterday) your exquisite letter, with this intro:

Dear Ms. Bartelt:

Good morning. I am sharing with you the following letter from a friend of mine, a Disney shareholder, to George Mitchell, in the hopes it can support your own efforts to help extricate ABC and its affiliates from the dangerous situations you all now face.

Best wishes,
[lotus]

According to donnie wahlberg’s website, the Path to 9/11 will also air in UK and Australia. Hope it gets pulled there also.

Doctor Bud @ 22

Might I suggest a tactic for addressing both your local ABC station and Mr. Iger? Tell them that if The Path to 9/11 airs, you’ll delete the ABC station from your remote: you won’t even be channel surfing past their products. It kicks the specter of a boycott up a notch.

I just added my two cents to the DNC letter including the ease with which I can eliminate both the ABC and Disney channels from my remote. Poof! Gone. Great idea!

twolf1 @ 30

Kean Hasn’t Talked To Clinton About Path to 9/11 Because ‘He Was Out Campaigning Against My Son Yesterday’

Has anyone put Tom Kean Junior, the Republican running for then US Senate for Menendez’ seat in NJ, on the spot about this controversy? Make him either support the propaganda or repudiate his Dad’s role in it.

BTW, spellcheck is busted.

this from Howie Kurtz’ column today:

Thomas H. Kean, the Republican who chaired the 9/11 commission and is a co-executive producer of the film, said in an interview that he recently asked for changes that would address complaints raised by the former aides to President Bill Clinton and that ABC is considering his request.

“These are people of integrity,” Kean said of the filmmakers. “I know there are some scenes where words are put in characters’ mouths. But the whole thing is true to the spirit of 9/11.”

(snip)

Bruce R. Lindsey, who runs Clinton’s foundation, wrote Kean last night that he was “shocked” by the former New Jersey governor’s role, saying: “Your defense of the outright lies in this film is destroying the bipartisan aura of the 9/11 Commission and tarnishing the hard work of your fellow commissioners.”

Kean said he has worked without a contract and told ABC that if it wants to pay him after the movie airs, he will donate his fee to charity.

Kean said the filmmakers have made changes — in one case, reshooting an entire scene — based in part on his recommendations. “The suggestion that this is some right-wing group in Hollywood is absurd,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01454.html

beemer @ 19

Calling ABC gets you to a comment recording system. Not sure how effective it is, but left a msg.

30 second limit. Plan ahead.

http://abc.go.com/site/contactus.html

Just a feedback box- not sure how effective that is either, but left my opinion

It should be noted that Robert Iger is predisposed to favor our cause.

Opensecrets.org shows him contributing mostly to Democratic interests.

Linked to it yesterday, no time today.

I find it interesting that ABC is paying attention to the letter from the Democratic Senators. At the moment, those legislative threats in the letter are empty since Dem is the minority party. ABC must be thinking that the Democrats will be majority party before long, certainly before this incident is forgotten.

T- at 38 — I am told by a couple of folks who know Mr. Iger that he is a decent guy. Which just lends some more weight in my mind to the whole potential that this is an Eisner stink bomb left hanging for the new management to deal with after he left. This would have had to have been in production for a while — from acquisition to script to casting to filming to final product takes a while — and the location stuff they would have had to do with this would have required some logistics work that couldn’t have been done in a short time frame, I wouldn’t think.

If Path to 9/11 is aired, I believe we need to select 10 of ABC largest advertisers and boycott them hard.

I wrote to Ford informing them that their company is on the Target List…and I asked them to join with defenders of Democracy and Truth to ask ABC to NOT air this show.

I’ll let you know if Ford responds.

more from thinkprogress:

Clinton On Path To 9/11: Film Contradicts ‘The Factual Findings of the 9/11 Commission’

Kean, for his part, described the miniseries as “pretty accurate.” He also added: “It’s dramatized in a couple of areas, but it’s a dramatization that’s true to the story.”
John C. @ 28

President Clinton’s appearances are confined to images from news conferences and his deposition: There he is denying his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, then explaining it away, and finally announcing his determination to battle terrorism. He comes off as fatally detached from America’s greatest challenges. In fairness, though, the miniseries does allow for a different interpretation: Although Clinton brought the Lewinsky mess upon himself, Republicans are to blame for letting it become a national distraction — and one that had bad consequences for O’Neill and his fellow terror hunters. Also, it’s worth mentioning that in Monday’s installment, when the miniseries turns to the early days of the Bush administration, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice (played very effectively by 24 veteran Penny Johnson Jerald) comes off as an ignoramus, especially in a scene when she downsizes the responsibilities of counterterror official Richard Clarke (an unsung if earnest hero, by the film’s lights, and played by Stephen Root of Office Space). To call this a pro-Bush miniseries, as its critics surely will do, is a bit too simple.

Even if ABC pulls the miniseries & doesn’t try to “fix” it up to air later, I’m not inclined to forget this. Disney/ABC has a history.
Work up to the eyeballs but I called local abc affiliate this am & got voicemail, left a message, but will call again.
I’m fed up with the flagrant rewriting of history & deliberate distortion of facts by arrogant & greedy power brokers. They are truly ugly americans.

I have a question of my own: Where can I get an Ahmed Massoud t-shirt?

oh, Christy….

Firedoglake’s Christy Hardin Smith invokes her mother’s advice:

“Look, it is perfectly legitimate to provide materials from both sides of the political aisle, to discuss theories with kids in school, to talk about legitimate differences of opinion or approach or philosophy/ideology and political viewpoint. It’s called education in terms of political discourse — and a discussion of how things can be manipulated or used to further one agenda or another is a very, very useful discussion in terms of public education.

“What is clearly not acceptable is to provide materials that are slanted or which have facts substantially in dispute — from the very document from which they purport to be gleaned, in this particular case, since the materials in some spots don’t even track the facts in the 9/11 Commission Report — and then fail to label them as ‘theories’ or ’spin’ or ‘partisan’ or ‘propoganda’ or some other label other than truth. (You know, what your mom and mine called ‘lying’ when we were growing up.)”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00264.html

Christy, agreed w/ your 7:31 am.

I’m glad you included your graceful words of wisdom to “Be polite,” when e-mailing Mr. Iger.

Rush Limbaugh is a cash cow for ABC Radio — somewhere on the internets yesterday, I read an opinion that this project may have bubbled up from the right wing cess pool at ABC Radio, rather than being a top down decision to air defamatory GOP propaganda.

If so, the suits in the boardroom are mighty pissed right now — having a stink bomb like this dropped in their laps is not what any corporation wants.

scory @ 14

looseheadprop @
8

I cannot get over how nimble we have become.

Brava and bravo (as the case may be) to all here

LHP — we’re all driven by the market now. :)

We need to use that nimbleness to save the War Crimes Act.

I apologize for my obsessiveness, but the Iran/Contra affair shows how difficult it is to go after a sitting president. In the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the White House has violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. And the War Crimes Act makes violations of Common Article 3 a federal crime.

To save Bush’s ass, the White House now seeks to gut the War Crimes Act via stealth legislation. “The proposal is in the last 10 pages of an 86-page bill [sent to congress on Wednesday] devoted mostly to military commissions, and it is a tangled mix of cross-references and omissions,” according to an article by Adam Liptak, THE NEW YORK TIMES NEWS ERVICE, 08 September 2006, http://www.statesman.com/news/.....egal.html.

If you want a glimpse of the official pitch, see http://www.pe.com/localnews/op.....ab547.html

despite the serial mischaracterizations of progressive bloggers by MSM, etc.. am willing to bet we are also seen as an affluent, better educated and therefore prized demographic by the ad folks (someone with more info can disabuse me of same if you know)

which is why it is so important to hit the advertisers (see link upthread)

gotta go Firedogs, will try to check in via work

Go Dogs Go !

Angie: Wow. Thanks for posting the WaPo link. If anybody had told me a year ago that Howard Kurtz would be quoting Christy or another great FDL voice in a newspaper article, I would have thought the prediction overly optimistic, to say the least.

Though we have far to go, I think this a huge hurdle achieved…the fact that such articulate and reasoned commentaries as Christy’s and Jane’s have burst through the MSM “gate”…

The wisdom of Michael Jordan, endorser of footwear:

“Republicans buy shoes, too”.

That should go both ways, as Democrats watch television and movies, too. ABC needs to be made aware about how badly they are about to piss off a lot of people.

ABC, The Mouse That Whored

http://rogerailes.blogspot.com.....0838239668

LOL!

btw — here’s my letter to Iger:

My husband and I took our honeymoon at Walt Disney World in 19**. We have been back to visit on 11 occasions since then and brought our three-year-old daughter to WDW for the first time this past spring. We had been considering purchasing Disney time share — that will be postponed indefinitely at this point — as are our plans to go back to WDW next spring for another week-long vacation.

Our daughter’s Halloween costume was purchased yesterday — it was to have been Ariel, but we have gone with a non-Disney costume instead. I have not yet started my Christmas shopping, but you can bet that I will carefully weigh my purchases — this year and in the years to come — depending on whether Disney and ABC act with integrity or with manipulative, callous disregard for facts and history.

Both my husband and I are well educated, and we work very hard for our income and our family’s security. We have loved the Disney company, it’s movies, it’s theme parks, and it shows in the toys and movies that we have purchased for our daughter. But integrity is earned every single day by your actions and words, and at the moment I am ashamed of the Mouse. That you would allow a miniseries to go on the air about a subject so integral to our nation as 9/11 is, riddled with factual inaccuracies and nasty, manipulative political spin is appalling.

You have not only failed to exceed my expectations, but you may have lost loyal Disney customers, and all of the disposable income that used to flow from us to you. For shame.

There is still time to do the right thing, Mr. Iger — please carefully consider that 9/11 is too sacred to lie about it for too many people who lost friends and family in the Towers, the Pentagon, and on the planes. To do anything other than tell the honest truth about it is blasphemy and shameful — please pull this movie before it is too late.

angie @ 48

oh, Christy….

Firedoglake’s Christy Hardin Smith invokes her mother’s advice:

“Look, it is perfectly legitimate to provide materials from both sides of the political aisle, to discuss theories with kids in school, to talk about legitimate differences of opinion or approach or philosophy/ideology and political viewpoint. It’s called education in terms of political discourse — and a discussion of how things can be manipulated or used to further one agenda or another is a very, very useful discussion in terms of public education.

“What is clearly not acceptable is to provide materials that are slanted or which have facts substantially in dispute — from the very document from which they purport to be gleaned, in this particular case, since the materials in some spots don’t even track the facts in the 9/11 Commission Report — and then fail to label them as ‘theories’ or ’spin’ or ‘partisan’ or ‘propoganda’ or some other label other than truth. (You know, what your mom and mine called ‘lying’ when we were growing up.)”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00264.html

Oh dear. Christy and firedoglake get quoted by H. Kurtz, and linked with motherhood and apple pie. It’s the new conventional wisdom. What are we to do? Never trust anyone over . . . uh, 30.

Does anyone have standing to seek an injunction against the airing of PT911? The DNC, based on campaign finance or FCC violations that would cause irreparable harm to the Democratic party if the GOPudrama was shown? Individuals portrayed inacurately?

Christy Hardin Smith @ 22

CJ at 15 — I was not a specialist in that sort of case, and it can be a tough one to argue when you have a public figure involved — the laws on slander/libel/etc. for public figures are very loose due to their higher profile. That said, I would think if they attribute specific actions or statements or the like to Berger or Albright or any other real person that they (a) never did or said and (b) which portrays them in a bad light and (c) they could show based on evidence and testimony that it was patently false and the producers and writer should have known this from documents they purport to use for the show, that they could at least get past a summary judgment standard and potentially to a jury. If there are folks who have dones those sorts of cases, please chime in — it’s a highly specialized legal area, because it is VERY nuanced in terms of what is and is not allowable — and I’d be much more comfortable hearing from someone who has successfully tried a case or two like this as to what they think. (Sorry, I know that isn’t much of an answer, but you have a fairly wide berth with public figures…and it depends on a lot of factors.)

Defamation inthe case of public figures has a an extra prong to prove. In most defamtion cases, for the liabilty portion, you only have to prove that the published statement was false and that it was offered as a statement of fact, not opinion. In short, that it was a lie. (for the liability phase, you must prove that it harmed you in reputation, or some other specific way).

“Pulished” is a term of art here. don’t worry about it for the purposes of this discussion.

For a public figure, you must additionally prove malice. That the lie was told with the intention of harming the public figure.

In NY State, where ABC has it’s HQ and where Clinton lives (so it gets my “choice of law” vote) there is also something called “slander per se”. That occurs with only certain enumerated slandrs, sucha as calling a married woman unchaste, or calling someone ina licensed profession unqualified to do that work, or accusing someone of a an of moral turpitude when they have a job that includes fiduciary repsonsibilites.

So, accusing a lawyer of embezzlement or of kiting checks, if untrue, is slander per se. You do not have to prove damages in salnder per se. Damages are assumed as a matter of law.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 56

btw — here’s my letter to Iger:. . .

Wow.

That ReddHedd from West Virginny, she shore does know how ta write a letter.

Bravo

The whole idea a pulling up a “dramatization” of a tragic event like 9/11 is simply ridiculous: such fresh scar on the hearth of your nation (but of the whole world I would say) cannot and should not be handled with any other tool that the whole unbiased truth. As Christie wisely said if the western society can learn something from this tragedy it can do it only if the analysis is done on what really went on, not only on the day of the tragedy, but before that in the years that led to it. It is of capital importance that the USA, being the nation focus of these events and the leading voice of the western world, would take the lead on this but outside great communities like the one of this site what one can see is an incredible apathy if not complete denial.

I really do not what can be done to change that but I know for sure that this apathy is the reason why know people like the executives of ABC-Disney were so sure they could have put on air such outrageous piece of propaganda as “Path to 9/11″ without none complaining. It is a great thing to see that at least the blogger community has no intention to take this laying down: it is a hearth warming experience to see the razor sharp wits and skills of the great persons I can see posting here (but also on other great left-leaning blogs), cut through all the crap and expose the naked true of the lies and manipulation the powers-that-be are trying to feed you.

I am really hoping that the long need change in the government of the USA is going to arrive very soon: the world is really a scary place when the only super power left behaves like the bad guy out of a James Bond movie. I have just gone through the content of the latest Bush speech and I really can’t believe what that *****ss just publicly admitted without even a moment of embarrassment or of hesitation : 14 CIA super-prisoner are going to join Guantanamo’s happy family, enjoying the thrills of detention under the ..oh so nice… BuscCo interpretation of that “pesky”, “vague” Geneva Convention (and why should be necessary to confirm that Geneva Convention is going to be respected… how this people was treated up to now ?!?!?). From where, may I ask, do these “happy tourists” come from? Maybe from those non-existing CIA secret prisons safely hidden away in East Europe or in some sympathetic Arabian country ? Or were they hidden away in some cozy little prison in the middle of the USA? One wonders which of the two possibility Bush would confirm: because Condoliza Rice (you remember her, she is supposed to be USA Secretary of State… the public face of the country, the head of USA diplomatic corps) assured several times Europe and its members that “The United States has respected — and will continue to respect — the sovereignty of other countries. ” and that “The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture” and finally that “The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured. ” (Rice on the 5/12/05). So the mysterious guests cannot be coming from anywhere else than within the USA, where they have spent the last 2 or 3 years in prison outside the control of the police or of the military forces: does this sit well with the rule of the law of your country? Oh right, the law does not apply to the mighty “decider” (no thanks, no capital letter needed or deserved here). Anyway there is nothing to be worried about: those mysterious CIA “black prisons” are no longer active so there is nothing to complain about, just move along… (and look! over here here ! American idol ! the exclusive photos of Suri Cruise !!)

Then again Rice has already given us some craftily worded lies as the following one: (5/12/05) (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/57602.htm).

“our intelligence agencies have handled the gathering of intelligence from a very small number of extremely dangerous detainees” .

Like for example Khald El Masri, German citizen kidnapped on December 31, 2003 on the border of Macedonia, because his name was identical (except for variations in English spelling) to that of Khalid al-Masri, “extraordinarily rendered” to Afghanistan where he was beaten, repeatedly interrogated and (allegedly) raped. He was released on 28/05/05 when CIA realized the “silly” mistake. They flew him out of Afghanistan and released him at night on a desolate road in Albania, without apology, or funds to return home.

Don’t get me wrong I am not saying that Europe can act as the “white pure knight” here since I am still deeply ashamed from the outrageous behavior of the right wing government that led Italy for years up to this last April. They covered up this kind of things stonewalling for example the investigation on the kidnapping of Abu Omar(**) by CIA in Milan on the 17/03/2003, then “extraordinarily rendered” to Egypt where he was interrogated and tortured. But even if our own wingnuts thought they could pull off something like that without any complain, this thing blew up in their sorry faces: the whole public opinion was against them and the people involved have being relentless prosecuted by the magistracy that finally got to the point of issuing 25 arrest warrants for CIA agents (never to be carried out of course…) and to put under close scrutiny our own secret services (SIMSI and SISDE) and the involved governement officials. I am really flabbergasted and amazed by the lukewarm reaction of the public opinion and even more by the press in the USA: people should be screaming outrage on the top of their lungs and demanding the heads of all the people involved on a plate. How can these events do not strike as unjust and un-american, not to mention unethical and unacceptable, to very single person who hears them: I can see them to be all of the above and I am living on the other side of the ocean, in Italy, for God’s sake! How can be possible that the majority of the USA feels absolutely fine about the trashing of the tradition of freedom and respect that has always been so proudly worn on USA’s sleeve?

(!) The rant really got out of control today (it ’s a good thing work is quite slow this week, no such luck next week): I hope you (all) are going to forgive me for the lengthly and disjointed post but I really needed to take it off my chest . Next time I will keep my mouth shut I promise :-P

Peace.

(**)Is Abu Omar a terrorist? I don’t know, probably yes, what I know for sure is that Abu Omar should have had a correct and lawful trial and if found guilty should have faced the punishment according the law: that is how we can prove ourselves and the world that we are better that the terrorist, that we have the moral standing for lead this *****ng world somewhere else than to its utter destruction.

Kean looked as if he embarrassed himself with the nonsense he spouted about the film farce.

Aren’t liberals supposed to be against preemptive strikes? They’ve certainly announced their opposition to pressuring networks over such matters, or at least former senator Tom Daschle has: When CBS axed The Reagans, he said that it “smells of intimidation to me.”

Unlike recent movies such as Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center and United 93, the ABC miniseries doesn’t concentrate solely on the events of 9/11. It does dramatize that day, but the bulk of the show focuses on what led up to the catastrophe: the failed attempt to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993, the embassy bombings in 1998, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, and so on. The main character is FBI agent John O’Neill (played by Harvey Keitel), who leads a counterterrorism operation aimed at nabbing Yousef, Osama bin Laden, and their ilk. He is a diligent G-man, but the miniseries is, for the most part, a chronicle of massive failure.
Wammo @ 20

Yeah i heard…

Wammo @ 16

From RL…
One more thing about this movie, “Does the Clinton administration get blamed for this?” Not directly, but when you watch this, there is no escaping the fact that all during the nineties and all during his administration — the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole — oh, that one really comes through. The administration wouldn’t do diddly-squat about that. They were just afraid. I think that might have been the incident that Albright refused to do anything about because of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks going on. I’m not quite sure. But from the 1993 World Trade Center explosion and bombing to the Khobar Towers to the embassies that were blown up in Africa, to the USS Cole, it is abundantly clear this country didn’t do anything in retaliation and was hamstrung.

Any time an opportunity was presented to take to take out the people who had done this, hunting down, for example, Ramzi Binalshibh and Ramzi Yousef and so forth — and they did get Yousef, and that required an effort like you can’t believe. It had an informant, but the administration was barely able to pull the trigger, but on that one Yousef and his buddies were sentence to do 240 years in jail. We didn’t even have the death penalty for them and they’re still in jail. But in terms of retaliation for any of it, there was none — zip, zero, nada, for all of those attacks in the nineties. Nothing, and you know full well that after 9/11, we have been mobilized and we have been on the march, not only retaliating but trying to wipe these people out to prevent further attacks and a mixture of other foreign policy objectives as well, such as Iraq and democracy and freedom for these nations and so forth.

But really…Richard Clarke, as portrayed in this movie, comes across as one voice trying to get everybody to pay attention here. Sandy Berger comes across as gutless. In this one episode where bin Laden in 1998 is surrounded in his digs over in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance and the CIA team have the house surrounded. They know exactly what building in this complex he’s in. They are ready to go in and either kill him or capture him, and they don’t get the approval from Washington. Berger says (summarized), “Nope, can’t do it. If you guys do it you’re going to do it on your own and if it falls apart you get the blame.” In another incident similar to this where it was possible to take out bin Laden and perhaps other terrorists who were — and this is before 9/11 — planning 9/11, Madeleine Albright and Berger both refused to allow the CIA and the military to take any action whatsoever.

Albright says, “The president is deeply involved in peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and if there is an attack on any Muslim or Islamic people right now, it will set that back,” and I’m sitting there watching this and I’m in stunned disbelief because those negotiations never led to anything! It was all about fear. That administration was afraid of failure and what it would mean to their approval ratings, but there were problems throughout. All of the information that the FBI offices in Phoenix and in Minneapolis had that were transferred to New York FBI office and then the CIA, but they couldn’t share the information. The Zacarias Moussaoui case is well gone into.

They had his computer. He was the 20th hijacker. His computer had the data on the plans. It didn’t have the date, but had the plans. The justice department said, “Nope, we can’t open the computer. We don’t have a warrant. We’re not going to get a warrant. We’re not going to violate this man’s rights this way, so forth.” It makes it clear that nobody was serious about dealing with this prior to 9/11. As for the Bush administration, they don’t get off the hook here. They are not let off the hook. They, too, are portrayed as — well, they’re caught up and sort of hamstrung by the existing procedures that are in place. They haven’t had a chance to change them, such as getting rid of the wall and this sort of thing.

I just sent this to the Disney-Investor site (thanks for including the address here)

Dear Sir/Madame,
I am deeply concerned over Disney’s role in the upcoming 9/11 propaganda piece scheduled at present to be aired on ABC. This December, my daughter and her winning Varsity basketball team are scheduled to travel to Disney for a basketball tournament. I know it will be hard for her, but I will not only insist that she not go, but also will lobby the coach, principal, and other parents (in this blue state) to pull their daughters as well if this travesty does in fact get aired.
I realize that this TV “special” is not the sort of thing that Disney usually does, and that some who may have been responsible are no longer at Disney, but Disney, like the rest of us needs to stand on principle for what is right and fair.

Bill Clinton loyalists are demanding wholesale changes to the upcoming miniseries — and while ABC is making some snips, the alterations, insiders say, may not please the Dems.

It’s funny, I haven’t seen that much “Bill Clinton loyalism” in the outrage expressed here. What I have seen is an ethical insistence that a drama allegedly based on factual events actually contain some fact-based events. “Path,” by all evidence, is a pure right-wing partisan fantasy.

Another hit to this, in the LA Times:
9/11 Miniseries Is Bunk
Former ambassador to Yemen says ABC traded fact for drama in portraying events after the 2000 bombing of the destroyer Cole.
By Barbara Bodine, BARBARA BODINE was U.S. ambassador to Yemen from 1997-2001. She is a visiting scholar at MIT’s Center for International Studies.
September 8, 2006

ON THE MORNING of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans — and the world — froze, saddened and angry. Five years later, we stop to remember those we lost and those who have sacrificed in our defense since, and to reflect on what we must learn. History will define us not by the events of that day but by who we choose to become as a result.

Regrettably, ABC has chosen not to document but to dramatize this most critical of times. Its miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” opts for fiction when fact is needed and chooses mythmaking when the candor of history is called for. The 9/11 commission report tells the story with clear-eyed honesty, precision and studious impartiality. The ABC drama does not. The 9/11 commission spent hours interviewing virtually everyone connected not just with the events of that day but those involved in counter-terrorism over 25 years — Republican as well as Democrat. ABC did not.

lbd @ 12

It’s great if ABC yanks the series, but the patronizing tone of the Variety article is tells you everything you need to know about ABC is gonna spin this thing.

Exactly. This is how the right wing extremists justify their mindless loyalty–by failing to imagine that anybody else works on any other basis.

op99 @ 58

Does anyone have standing to seek an injunction against the airing of PT911? The DNC, based on campaign finance or FCC violations that would cause irreparable harm to the Democratic party if the GOPudrama was shown? Individuals portrayed inacurately?

Well, a number of us lawyers can weigh in on that.

As for “irreparable harm” to a political party, the courts do not (well, they better not) issue injunctions against free speech in this country. Not even against lies that cause harm.

To put the government (i.e., the courts) in the business of defining truth and lies and harm to politics is to take us in the direction that … well, that maybe a certain current President might be willing to take us (and you’ll love what his judges do with that kind of power) but that our Constitution forbids.

No prior restraint by the courts. Period. (Criminal trials excepted.)

But we have every right to use our own rights of free speech to demand honesty.

Trust our democracy, not the courts, to protect our democracy.

Call and write to Disney, ABC, Iger.

I would think Berger and Albright might.

op99 @ 58

Does anyone have standing to seek an injunction against the airing of PT911? The DNC, based on campaign finance or FCC violations that would cause irreparable harm to the Democratic party if the GOPudrama was shown? Individuals portrayed inacurately?

Mary, lhp, et al., this OT’s for you:

Writer: Mainstream media ignored torture, homicide

A column at The Columbia Journalism Review has detailed the media establishment’s collective reluctance to report incidents of detainee abuse, torture, and even homicide in the early days of the “war on terror,” RAW STORY can report. […]

EPU for TREX –

I think Dangerstein’s invocation of the old wife-beating clich betrays a sordid secret at the very heart of the Lieberman campaign. It’s not Lieberman who beats his wife but Dangerstein! And not Dangerstein’s wife. Lieberman’s! UGH!

Wammo: Wag.The.Dog.

How many times did you hear that about anything the Clinton Administration tried to do in terms of police action or military internvention?

Who would have approved the budget for any action? Who were the chairs of the Intel and Armed Forces Committees during the Clinton Administration?

Wag.The.Dog. That was the answer from Congress to the threat of terrorism.

Someone funneled $40 million (that’s the figure currently being mentioned) to Disney in order to broadcast a lying mockudrama on the ABC network — sans commercials or any known sponsor. Who?

The impetus — and perhaps the cash — seems to have come from a bizarre Christian cult called Youth With a Mission (YWAM), founded in the 1960 by Loren Cunningham, father to David Cunningham, the film’s director.

read the rest here: http://cannonfire.blogspot.com.....o-911.html

Prof @ 68

op99 @ 58

Does anyone have standing to seek an injunction against the airing of PT911? The DNC, based on campaign finance or FCC violations that would cause irreparable harm to the Democratic party if the GOPudrama was shown? Individuals portrayed inacurately?

Well, a number of us lawyers can weigh in on that.

As for “irreparable harm” to a political party, the courts do not (well, they better not) issue injunctions against free speech in this country. Not even against lies that cause harm.

To put the government (i.e., the courts) in the business of defining truth and lies and harm to politics is to take us in the direction that … well, that maybe a certain current President might be willing to take us (and you’ll love what his judges do with that kind of power) but that our Constitution forbids.

No prior restraint by the courts. Period. (Criminal trials excepted.)

But we have every right to use our own rights of free speech to demand honesty.

Trust our democracy, not the courts, to protect our democracy.

Call and write to Disney, ABC, Iger.

I would not want to see politcal parties doing that, ever. I’m woth Prof on that. But Berger and Albright are having deliberate lies told about them. I think their situation is quite different.

And then there’s the complete idiocy of suggesting 9/11 was not dramatic enough to be told truthfully.

In case you haven’t seen this on C&L, Harvey Keitel acknowledges his concerns about the truthiness of the film in which he plays one of the characters.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....e-correct/

I wrote ABC AGAIN:

Dear ABC,

I am hearing that your network is considering pulling ‘The Path To 9/11′. I hope that this is true. I have personally contacted all of your prime time sponsors and registered my intention to NOT purchase their products and services if they continue to advertise with ABC.

9/11 was a serious event with consequences that are still being felt. To fictionalize real people’s statements and real events is irresponsible. If you air it, I will literally never watch your network again.

[name redacted

kimba1970– thank you very much for your words.

wow.

Here’s my note to Disney, sent a few moments ago:

To ABC/Disney:

I am a 49 year old DC resident. I grew up watching the Wonderful World of Disney on Sunday nights as a child. I am saddened and outraged beyond words that Disney now stands for a distorted fantasy concerning the most tragic event of my lifetime.

My office was three blocks from the White House on the morning of September 11th. I evacuated onto Pennsylvania Avenue after the plane hit the Pentagon, and the street was unpassable with crowds wondering where to go and whether a plane would suddenly appear and strafe or bomb us as we stood completely in the open. A friend of mine was incinerated when the nose of the jet entered the Pentagon precisely where he sat.

This docudrama is profane. I cannot believe that Disney would destroy a lifetime of
goodwill by associating with such an inaccurate and inflammatory work.

For shame.

Scott Pritchett

OT to Kimba1970 (before I’ve even read your comment):

Hey, Luca’s uncle — I hope you noticed how many people have been salivating over your carbonara recipe since you shared it with us yesterday! Feel free to embellish your culinary fame around here anytime you like, okay?

Prof @
3

And while you are waiting for your telephone calls to connect on the lines that Christy has suggested, you can also click off a few e-mails, either on a mail-to-Disney web page or at mailto:investor.relations@disneyonline.com

Below, see the email I just fired off to Disney:

Let me see now, $40 million production costs, two nights prime time revenue lost, the threat of legislative action against Disney/ABC, forget the copyright extension, loss of the goodwill of progressives if it runs, loss of the goodwill of the conservatives if it doesn’t, add on the old business of the lost revenues from the Michael Moore film. Gee, what a good investment opportunity!

Every ABC affiliate is in a war with its 6PM and 10PM news products. If ABC can air such BS regarding the 9/11 attack then my regard for their news product has dropped to absolute zero. Tell the local news editor that you have no intention to view news from such an obviously biased network.

just wanted to add that I wrote to Disney and Iger using three of the email adresses found here, pointing out I’m a native New Yorker who is a long-time shareholder in Disney, and damn, am I pissed. Promised no more Disney/Pixar merch for my wonderful nieces, nephews and Godschildren, and that I’d be at the next shareholders meeting raising hell if this ‘docudrama’ airs.

thanks for the links, they helped alot. I’ll be on my cell phone in a hour (while waiting at the airport for a friend to arrive) to call the local station and ABC HQ.

geez, activism sure can be fun.

keep it up FDL’ers!

Aye Aye Captain Re