"Wicked" Producer Marc Platt behind the inaccurate 9/11 ABC Mini-Series- Page 2

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 9/7/06 at 11:25pm

Its a story full of lies? Can you give me examples of what are lies, since obviously you are so informed about this. I am assuming you have seen the film because you know so much about it.
Updated On: 9/7/06 at 11:25 PM

Posted: 9/7/06 at 11:27pm

Jimmy only likes the results of the money that George Soros throws around

[jimnysf]

Posted: 9/7/06 at 11:30pm

GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD. THE LIES ARE DISCUSSED THERE. You can also go to the off-topic board and see more there or maybe pick up a newspaper, or check the right wing Drudge Report or left wing Huffington Post or maybe watch the news someplace other than Fox.

Posted: 9/7/06 at 11:30pm

While you've all been arguing, ABC has caved into Bubba. They're editing the show before it airs. It's sad that a sexual predator has such power.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 9/7/06 at 11:33pm

I don't watch FOX NEWS?

The newspaper even says NOBODY HAS SEEN THE MOVIE because it is not done yet.

So how can you say there are lies then?

I didn't ask you to tell me where to find these. I asked you to tell me EACH AND EVERY SINGLE lie in the whole film, since you are so convinved the whole film is a lie.

Posted: 9/7/06 at 11:35pm

Jimnysf will be discussing it further as soon as he gets his Democratic Party talking points e-mail in the morning

[jimnysf]

Posted: 9/7/06 at 11:36pm

What's sad is that the right wing was able to get the Reagan mini-series removed from CBS and stuck on a low rated cable channel because Rush and the rest of them made threats. When the left has the same problem with content and voices their concerns, the right resorts to name calling.

ABC is not removing the series. They are making slight edits. They should do the same thing that CBS did. They can put it on one of their cable channels instead of the main network.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 9/7/06 at 11:39pm

Again, please tell me what the edits are since you know so much about it.

And you keep dodging the question.

What are the lies? I want specific examples.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 9/7/06 at 11:41pm

But Neddy, people have seen it! See below.

Tom, talking points can be found at the following link:

http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&&year=2006&

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 9/7/06 at 11:44pm

I didn't ask if people saw it.

I asked YOU what the specific examples are of lies. And notice the people who have "seen" it, even said they haven't seen the final version.

served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway

Nice evidence.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 9/7/06 at 11:48pm

They have seen the film. Rush Limbaugh has seen it. The only reason the film is being edited now is because of the complaints.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 9/7/06 at 11:50pm

Still no answer to my question.

What are the SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of the lies in the film.

Rush Limbaugh hasn't seen the final version of the film because it IS NOT DONE YET!

[jimnysf]

Posted: 9/8/06 at 12:07am

Rush saw the film. When he saw it and sung it's praises, it was considered to be finished. However, IT HAS SINCE BEEN PULLED FOR EDITING DUE TO PUBLIC UPROAR. The critics have also seen it, prior to the new edits. The lies/inaccuracies have been reported in all of the places I mentioned. Since it is still being edited we don't know how much will be changed. Some news stories have reported that there are only slight edits being made.

The bottom line is this. Right wing groups were given copies of the film. Democrats, including the Clinton folks asked for a copy and were turned down. 9/11 commissioners who have seen it have pointed out lies/inaccuracies. Now it's being edited or maybe pulled from the schedule.
------------------------
Executive producer Marc Platt told The Washington Post that he worked "very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously of concern.


Executive Producer Marc Platt acknowledged that "there is dramatic license taken" in the docudrama to "render the program effective and accessible for viewers."

Platt also said one scene singled out for criticism by Democrats -- depicting CIA operatives and Afghan fighters coming close to capturing Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, only for then-national security advisor Samuel Berger to refuse authorization of the mission -- was a "conflation of events."

Berger said in a letter to Iger earlier this week that "no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it."

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 9/8/06 at 12:09am

Edited: For privacy Updated On: 9/8/06 at 12:09 AM

[jimnysf]

Posted: 9/8/06 at 12:13am

Who are you? His lover?

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 9/8/06 at 12:15am

Well now I have lost pretty much all respect for you and your opinion. The fact that you have resulted to childish immature posts is really degrading of yourself and your opinion.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/8/06 at 12:15am

Marc was used by the screenwriter. He was stupid and he was naive and he is probably feeling very very ashamed and humiliated right now.

Here is a letter I posted on the thread on the Off Topic Board from Bill Clinton's lawyer that lists the lies of the film, as seen in the press screener, which was sent to conservatives across the country and screened in DC a few days ago.

==

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; and

3) 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 – or lack of response – 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. Lindsey

Chief Executive Officer

William J. Clinton Foundation

Douglas J. Band

Counselor to President Clinton

Office of William Jefferson Clinton

Cc: Ms. Madeleine K. Albright

Mr. Samuel R. Berger

Mr. Richard A. Clarke

Mr. Stephen McPherson

Mr. George J. Mitchell

Mr. John D. Podesta

Mr. David Westin

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States

Updated On: 9/8/06 at 12:15 AM

[jimnysf]

Posted: 9/8/06 at 12:17am

You seem to have intimate knowledge of the man's thoughts and actions so I don't find it an immature or an unfair question.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 9/8/06 at 12:19am

Those are two totally seperate things. Knowing somebody and having sexual intercourse with them.

Paljoey- I see what you are saying, but then again that letter isn't to Marc it is to BOB. So why are you accusing Marc?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/8/06 at 12:30am

The letter is to Bob Iger, head of ABC. It answers the questions you asked about lies.

ABC (not Platt) put up the money and it will be Iger's decision (along with the board of directors, who are treating this as a major public-relations disaster) to air, cancel, postpone, re-edit or relegate the broadcast to one of their cable networks the way CBS did with the Reagan miniseries.

I feel bad for Marc. He's a showbiz wunderkind who stepped far out of his depth and allowed himself to be manipulated by the political agenda of right-wing propagandist screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh.

Now, I'm afraid, Marc looks like a fool and worse--if ABC loses a huge amount of money and prestige, Marc's reputation will be poisoned in Hollywood.

Updated On: 9/8/06 at 12:30 AM

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 9/8/06 at 12:38am

I agree with you, and I do feel bad for Marc for getting this negative press.

I think more people will watch now esspecially because it has become so controversial.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 9/8/06 at 12:39am

If you seek power riding on the tiger's back, you will eventually end up in the tiger's belly.

You are right, Mark Platt is no dummy. He is, from what I understand, a very astute and committed man who firmly believes in many causes.

But he has somehow gotten himself caught up in a sordid and sad affair here. This mini-series WAS finished, belive me. It was in the can. They sent out screeners and people saw for themselves what people in the industry had been whispering for months now, that a distorted version of the story was being told and that that version quite skillfully and artfully shifted the blame for the mistakes leading up to 9/11 from the Republicans to the Democratic administration that preceeded them.

Remember that Bush had been in power for 9 months before the attacks of 9/11 and not once had they done anything about "homeland security." They had actually dismantled many of the safeguards put in place by the former administration.

And now this film comes out that smears and slanders and outright LIES about the Clinton Administration.

Actors who were performing the roles saw what was happening. Grips, soundmen, lighting guys. Everyone knew that the story was being twisted. Apparently only Mr. Platt and the executives at ABC were unaware of what was going on.

WHO THE HELL READ THE SCRIPT BEFORE IT WAS SHOT???

I'm afraid that before I take my neices again to "Wicked", before I buy the Grimmerie for them for Christmas, I want some explainations.

Bill Clinton and his gang may have made some mistakes, but they have a few smatterings of the blood of the 9/11 victims on their hands. The Bush boys hands are soaked with that blood and nobody should try to deflect the blame.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/8/06 at 12:42am

I agree with you, and I do feel bad for Marc for getting this negative press.

You twist my meaning, Neddy. I feel bad not that Marc got a little bad press--that's a superficial analysis of this situation--I feel bad that Marc acted stupidly and hubristically.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 9/8/06 at 12:45am

I was making two different points.

1) I agree with your points about Marc's reputation

2) I feel bad for Marc


Allofmylife- I am sure ABC and Marc new what was going on. And I am sure their is a reason they didn't stop it. The people at ABC aren't stupid and Marc isn't at all. Nobody really knows what went on (it very well could have been in the contract), but they were not blind to the fact that some of the film was fiction.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 9/8/06 at 12:55am

Updated On: 9/8/06 at 12:55 AM