I wonder how many that are raving like maniacs in the press has even previewed it before going off at the mouth.

Shouldn’t outrage be AFTER a movie is viewed and then people can say, “Hey, that is inaccurate!” or “That was complete BS”?

I think there are alot of people like this out there. They go on and on about how hateful, or how this is a consiracy, or it was inaccurate, or slanderous…then you ask if if they watched the movie or if they read the book, and they say…”well, no, but I HEARD from others it is…”

Whats interesting is, I heard, and only have one link so far that discusses this, that Clinton was the one who failed not Albright and Berger….

A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series “The Path to 9/11″ came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script.

In an interview with WND, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson’s book “Dereliction of Duty” as a source for the drama.

Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of “The Path to 9/11″ to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor.

Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it’s “100 percent factually correct,” he said.

“I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur,” Patterson declared.

As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson was one of five men entrusted with carrying the “nuclear football,” which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons.

Reached by phone at his home in Southern California, Nowrasteh affirmed to WND he consulted with Patterson and gave him a preview of the drama.

During the interview this morning, Nowrasteh took a moment to watch as President Clinton’s image turned up on his nearby TV screen to criticize the movie. The director did not want to respond directly to Clinton’s comments, but offered a general response to critics.

“Everybody’s got to calm down and watch the movie,” Nowrasteh told WND. “This is not an indictment of one president or another. The villains are the terrorists. This is a clarion bell for people to wake up and take notice.”

Patterson pointed out the Bush administration also is depicted in an unfavorable light in the months before 9/11.

An ABC executive who requested anonymity told the Washington Post the network has made “adjustments and refinements” to the drama that are “intended to make clearer that it was general indecisiveness” by federal officials that left the U.S. vulnerable to attack, and “not any one individual.”

Yesterday, the New York Post reported Clinton wrote to ABC officials, complaining the “content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely.” Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, according to the Washington Post, has described a scene, in which she is depicted, as “false and defamatory.”

The Senate Democratic Leadership sent a letter to Robert Iger – president and CEO of ABC’s corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co. – urging him to cancel the “grossly inaccurate” drama.

The Democratic National Committee today said it delivered a petition with nearly 200,000 signatures to ABC’s Washington office calling on the network to drop its “right-wing factually inaccurate mocudrama.”

Democrats have been particularly critical of a scene that depicts Berger refusing to authorize a mission to capture bin Laden after CIA operatives and Afghan fighters had the al-Qaida leader in their sights.

Nowrasteh acknowledges this is a “conflation of events,” but Berger, in a letter to Iger, said “no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it.”

Patterson contended, however, the scene is similar to a plan the administration had with the CIA and the Afghan Northern Alliance to snatch bin Laden from a camp in Afghanistan.

The scene in “The Path to 9/11,” as Patterson recalled from the preview version, unfolds with CIA operatives at the camp on the phone with Berger, who is expressing concern that an attack could result in innocent bystanders being killed. An agent says he sees swing sets and children’s toys in the area. The scene ends with Berger hanging up the phone.

Patterson says his recollection is that Clinton was involved directly in several similar incidents in which Berger was pressing the president for a decision.

“Berger was very agitated, he couldn’t get a decision from the president,” Patterson said.

Patterson noted he wasn’t sure what Berger wanted to do – whether the national security adviser wanted the answer to be yes or no – but the frustration, at the very least, was based on the president making himself unavailable to make a decision.

In “Dereliction of Duty,” published by Regnery in 2003, Patterson recounts an event in the situation room of the White House in which Berger was told by a military watch officer, “Sir, we’ve located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike.”

Clinton, according to Patterson, did not return phone calls from Berger for more than an hour then said he wanted more time to study the situation.

Patterson writes: “We ’studied’ the issues until it was too late-the window of opportunity closed.”

In another “missed opportunity,” Patterson writes, Clinton was watching a golf tournament when Berger placed an urgent call to the president. Clinton became irritated when Patterson approached him with the message. After the third attempt, Clinton coolly responded he would call Berger on his way back to the White House. By then, however, according to Patterson, the opportunity was lost.

As WND reported, Berger was the focus of a Justice Department investigation for removing highly classified terrorism documents before the Sept. 11 Commission hearings that generated the report used for the television program.

FBI agents searched Berger’s home and office after he voluntarily returned some documents to the National Archives.

Berger and his lawyer told reporters he knowingly removed handwritten notes he made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his clothing. They said he also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio.

Patterson said Berger’s response to the “The Path to 9/11″ is similar to his response to the accounts in “Dereliction of Duty,” insisting the incidents attributed to him “never occurred.”

Patterson said his book put him under intense pressure from Clinton officials – an aide even spoke of taking away his military retirement benefits – but when the title reached No. 1 on Amazon.com, “they shut up.”

There are others who can corroborate his accounts, Patterson insisted, but they are still in military service and therefore legally bound not to come forward and make statements.

Three of the four other military aides who rotated being at the president’s side were additional sources for his book, Patterson affirmed.

If ABC ends up pulling “The Path to 9/11,” it won’t be the first time Democrats have succeeded in pressuring a network not to air a politically charged film during a major election season.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, as WND reported, the Sinclair Broadcast Group canceled a planned showing of “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal.” The documentary featured former POWs who told how John Kerry’s 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was used as propaganda against them by their North Vietnamese captors, allegedly intensifying their persecution and prolonging the war and imprisonment.

Link

If this is true, and Patterson is correct, then it really is not a wonder that Clinton is screaming bloody murder and Democrats are visibly without any cover, trying to force ABC from showing this.

Not only is this a deadly blow to Clinton’s “Legacy” (and you know how much he wanted that), but it also shows that Democrats WHILE IN POWER, just how badly they were weak on protecting this country – even when confronted with opportunities to deal with the situation.

I think I am of similiar mind to many that have spoke about this, that it should be left to the PUBLIC to view and make that determination. This isn’t a doumentary, like Moore tried to portrait his as.

And even to take the devils advocate and say that even if it isn’t completely correct, who says it has to be? Who says United 93 was completely correct? or any of the other multitude of movies I am sure that will be made about this terrible event in the years to come?

Let the public decide.

Also, you don’t have to hit the post button but one time. Your message came up three times in the mod que.

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.”

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.

Captain’s Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, “The Path to 9/11″ is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.

I still believe that this is another event that will lead up to an “October Surprise”. These guys are simply clueless as to how this looks to the great undecided. Or to those who are waivering. I don’t understand how they don’t understand that they look like crazed facist with all this BS, or is it BDS.

Someone needs to tell them to shut up and let the thing stand on it’s own merits. Let the people decide, but as for me, the more they complain the more I plan to watch. Hell now I am going to tape the thing, so I can watch it until the Director’s Cut comes out. This coming from the guy that would spit, so to speak, whenever I saw a commercial for this thing, not trusting the network that it was playing on. – Lorica

Excellent observation. This is exactly why the liberals and socialists want to make everything “public” and start every argument trying to restrict a person’s rights and freedoms with “well, for the public good…” It’s a rationale used to justify destruction of individual rights and liberties in order to increase government power, which is exactly why fascists evolve out of socialists, control and “groupthink” are more important than individuality and such concepts as personal responsibility.

With less than two days to go before the movie actually airs, the Democrats are pulling out all the stops to get it yanked off the air. It’s no longer good enough that ABC correct the “mistakes” or anything, it has to be pulled completely.

Why…

What if this program was being transmitted entirely over the unregulated Internet rather than over the airwaves? Would the Democrats argue that public funding of the Internet predecessor network, ARPANET, trumped the First Amendment? If the servers took their electricity from a government-operated dam, would they now be talking about “the public electrical grid?”

- If the Disney Producers are smart they’ll keep everything the Dems are stupid enough to send them in writing, and then expose it all and fight for all those 1st amendment writes the Left has been beating us over the head with every day for 6+ years. This craziness needs to be exposed and expunged from our country. I’m beginning to view the Left as a menace to America, and our Republic as we know it.

- Bring it on Libturds….bring it on!!!!

- Bang

My only observation tonight is that the intensity and the idiocy surrounding the ABC movie is really gone to crazy extremes, with so many left wing politicians lining up to demand it be pulled – not edited or corrected, but pulled.
Since Clinton will l…

Another point is the I keep hearing about all these inaccuracies, but I never hear any examples. Perhaps they just don’t want to spoil the show for us.

Don’t you donkey’s see the problem with big government? It leads to facism, socialism and lack of freedom.

Well played Democrats!

I know Democrats are loathe to share the spotlight with anyone else, but to try and steal it away from the terrorist ….that takes cajones.