The Ostroy Report is an aggressive voice for Democrats, the progressive agenda and serves as a watchdog of the Republican Party and President Trump.
Friday, September 08, 2006
9/11 Co-Chair and "Path to 9/11" Consultant Kean Confirms Ostroy Report Exclusive that Disney's Iger Received Call From Clinton
In a story in Friday's New York Times, former Governor of New Jersey and co-chair of the federal 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean, said he was surprised by the current outrage over ABC's plan to air the controversial "The Path to 9/11" docudrama Sunday and Monday, on which he served as a consultant, because former President Bill Clinton had spoken directly with Disney CEO & President Robert Iger about the film last week. This is a startling revelation, and it comes just a day after we exclusively reported that the two men had spoken and that Iger agreed to Clinton's edit requests.
In addition to speaking with Clinton himself, Iger has received a barrage of angry correspondence from several former Clinton officials including Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger and Bruce Lindsey, and as a result ABC has reportedly agreed to change at least three highly controversial scenes which the Clinton aides claimed were 100% falsely depicted.
And on another note, Scholastic, which had planned to widely distribute the film as an educational tool to teachers nationwide, said Thursday that it was removing materials about the film from its website, the Times reported, and that a new reference aide would be produced to help students understand the differences between a docudrama and a documentary.
Posted by The Ostroy Report at 7:53 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I will not be satisfied until ABC pulls the movie.
CBS did it for the Reagan movie that conservatives jumped all over.
Why would ABC tarnish their reputation for a movie full of lies?
because it is NOT full of lies. Clinton's delinquencies resulted in 9/11.
The Clinton haters will never get past their blinders and look at the historical record and the fact that the nation and the world was far better off when he was President and no amount of bile will change that!
Either 8:58 is lying or ignorant of the facts -- all of them. It was confirmed yesterday that the movie has major inaccuracies, These lies deny the facts of history which is treacherous to show in the schools as truth. If it's a "drama" that can change the facts, then change the names to fictional people. On all the news yestereday it was confirmed that the Sandy Berger portion is absolutely wrong.
The Clinton administration had NO INTEREST in confronting or fighting Islamic Terrorism. Clinton did not even bother to visit New York City or the WTC in 1993 to view the damage, talk to survivors and the families of those who lost their lives, or meet with NYC officials and first responders.
When the USS Cole was an attacked, what did Clinton do? The attack was on a U.S. Navy warship. Clinton was the Commander in Chief. What was his response? At best, lob a few cruise missiles. That's it. Nothing more
The 9/11 Commission details at least 4 different opportunities to capture or kill osama bin laden.
following the USS Cole attack, the United States (Clinton) "canceled an attempt to kidnap bin Laden out of concern that we might injure or kill him and be accused of using assassination as a policy tool,"
Clinton was more concerned with making OBL comfortable than killing him. Hours were spend making a custom ergonomic chair to hold bin laden. A major concern of the Clinton administration was finding a proper tape that will not hurt OBL's beard if he was captured.
When Clinton actually did order a lobbing of missiles into the desert, it was preceeded by alerting the Pakistani military to our plans and they tipped off bin Laden, and he escaped.
A third time, our plans to attack by missile were canceled, partially out of chagrin over having missed him before and partially because we had just bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade by mistake and were worried about being called trigger happy
The scenes the "aides claimed were 100% fictional": ARE one hundred percent fictional. There is a scene showing Bin Laden surrounded and an easy target for annihilation, but Sandy Berger stopped the shooting. This has been proved wrong by all the committees and agencies that investigated the claim. Calling something a "docudrama does not make it all right to lie and destroy another's reputation. The people slandered must sue and get justice if the movie is ever aired anywhere.
Funny Clinton should be criticized for not vising 9/11 (and upstaging Bush) when Bush has not attended one funeral, hasn't allowed the dead to be honored or even acknowledged as their caskets arrive here; and, he won't meet with mothers who disapprove of the war. He's certainly not "all heart. "
"CBS did it for the Reagan movie that conservatives jumped all over. Why would ABC tarnish their reputation for a movie full of lies?"
What is missed in this question is the fact that CBS pulled the Reagan movie because conservatives were threatening to boycott anyone who sponsored the thing. CBS couldn't sell time. This is an example of the free market at work. I know liberals don't understand the concept of free markets, or freedom in general, but this is what happened.
In the case of ABC, they have been directly requested (or ordered or perhaps even threatrened) to change or withdraw the 9/11 movie by extremely high ranking current and former governement officials. This is called censorship, and it is how totalitarian governments all over the world control the information their citizens receive from the outside world.
Liberals pretend to be against censorship, but as we see in this very case, they are completely comfortable with censorship, when it serves their needs. In fact, almost every time you hear a liberal complaining about censorship, what they are in fact talking about is not censorship at all, but rather they are complaing about the fact there is not a commercially viable outlet for mass-distribution of their ideas. Which is again a function of the free market, which is probably why liberals get so confused about what is actually going on.
Having said that, are Americans really such a simple people that we truly need to be concerned that a made-for-TV movie is going to be the defining source of information for a series of events that every American of voting age actually LIVED through? I guess the Clintons and the people who want the movie pulled feel that way. I'll reserve my decision until November.
wasnt it bushco that brought the buildings down in a controlled demolition? buildings dont "fall"
down @ freefall speed unless there is an implosion pulling them. The jet fuel does not burn @ a high enouph tempature to melt steel...and even if by some act of god ,temporarily changing physics ,the steel was melted by the fuel the buildings could never fall @ that speed. Its staggering that americans are blind to this...we truly are lost.
Edger Earnst - You Are an Idiot!!
"buildings don't 'fall' down @ freefall speed unless there is an implosion pulling them"
Again, Edger Earnst - You Are an Idiot!!
Implosions don't 'pull' things out of the sky. Gravity pulls everything toward the earth at a rate of 9.81 meters per second squared. The cause of the falling object has no bearing on its rate of acceleration.
12:46"The jet fuel does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel." Make up a false explanation for this, too.
12:46PM - let me see, if I drop a tennis ball from six feet up it reaches the ground at the same time as a tennis ball smashed by a racket from six feet up? Wow. Why do we even play tennis? The blitzkreig into Poland took the same amount of time as the cold war? While I agree with the gravity bit, I'm not so sure about the idiot part.
The above analogies may be slightly skewed, but hey. 12:46 PM missed the subtle hint written in Edgar's post. Perhaps, as part of the neocon Project for the New American Century, Bush let 9/11 happen.
And by the way, it has been said that the jet fuel wouldn't burn hot enough to do the damage to the WTC that occurred.
Keep thinking everybody!
Hey I I've got no problem with some infomercial Drama as long as add a few references to Bush aka the Commander In Idiot, like:being warned '40+" times about a possible terrorist strike leading up to 911, have a scene with Rice reading him the NSA File "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE" a month before the attack while Bush was on another "5 WEEK VACAY" and Bush sitting in the class room with a copy of MY PET GOAT with his thumb up his ass after being told about the attacks. You add these "FACTUAL" scenes and you can even put a scene in with Bill giving Monica the CIGAR TREATMENT for all I care...just keep it real.
Hopefully, whoever plays Bush can put together a couple of coherent sentances unlike the Real moron we have as Pres.
So what do you Red State Inbred Conservative/GOP Storm Troopers say?
Well Joe Smoe, I do happen to live in a red state, however, I am not a registered Republican, and I am reasonably sure I am not inbred. My question to you is why must you make personal attacks against people whose opinions differ from yours? I actually know thw real answer, but I just wondered if you would respond.
Now, on to what substance there is in your post. I take from your disjointed rant that as long as ABC "keeps it real" the whole project would be great for you. Correct? Well just who is it you expect to be the arbiters of what is real and what is not real, in this fictional account of factual events. Perhaps Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would do a good job in that respect? The fact is, what you are saying is if a story presents a point a view you don't like, it must be changed or not told at all.
What are you scared of? If this movie is full of lies, it is only a fictional movie, not a binding historical document. In the free market of rational thought, the truth will come to be known by most of the people. If just for the sake of argument, you could be convinced that the majority of the movie did present factually accurate information, would you still insist on changes or withdrawl of the project?
You are the storm trooper Joe. You are the one who is now tring to stiffle the expression of another American. I am sure you will be looked up to in the highest regard at the next ACLU meeting.
Notice I attacked only your opinions Joe, not your inteligence, your ancestory, or anything else about you over which you havew no control. Its called civil discourse. Look into it.
Oh, and one more point about "keeping things real." I refer you to the second season of the Dave Chapelle Show, if you want to see how things can go terribly wrong when one is too insistent that things be kept "real."
Now, on to what substance there is in your post. I take from your disjointed rant that as long as ABC "keeps it real" the whole project would be great for you. Correct? Well just who is it you expect to be the arbiters of what is real and what is not real, in this fictional account of factual events. Perhaps Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would do a good job in that respect? The fact is, what you are saying is if a story presents a point a view you don't like, it must be changed or not told at all."
I just have a problem with the content like you Fox News types did with that Reagan piece that you all whined about to no end. All the stuff I ask for is true. Let me guess when the piece about that CLUSTER i.e. the Iraq war comes out I guess you won't want to have Bush repeating all those LIES AND FABRICATIONS to justify it ...right???
“What are you scared of? If this movie is full of lies, it is only a fictional movie, not a binding historical document. In the free market of rational thought, the truth will come to be known by most of the people. “
Like about Iraq ..Right?? I believe that Bush and Rove have proven what Geobbels knew ie’ 'REPEAT A LIE ENOUGH AND IT BECOMES TRUTH" that is why so many of the weak minded red state inbreds still believe that Iraq was in bed with Al-Queda. ..right???
"If just for the sake of argument, you could be convinced that the majority of the movie did present factually accurate information, would you still insist on changes or withdrawl of the project?"
Yeah, I would go with that ,but we both know in a Bush world where Lies are Truth and Intelligent Design is science ...that ain't gonna happen.
"You are the storm trooper Joe. You are the one who is now tring to stiffle the expression of another American."
Oh yeah, who would that be??? Once again you have been duped, this is a Corporation that is feeding the mindless masses more swill. You know the same guys that OWN your Prez.
"I am sure you will be looked up to in the highest regard at the next ACLU meeting."
Same for you at the next Aryan Nations Rally with the rest of the Toothless crew.
.” Its called civil discourse. Look into it.”
The stuff I post is based on FACTS you should take your pompous attitude and look into that or are you like Bush and the rest of the GOP when the facts don’t fit lie or make it up? But then again all Bush and the rest of the GOP have have claimed was right has been wrong to this point ..so why bother.
Wake up and get to your recruiter to fight Bush's BU*****T war cause he's tired of waiting for Bush's Daughters to sober up and fight Daddy's War or do you have an excuse like all the rest…typical?
Smoes right-" Why the hell aren't you and the rest of all the Red State Flagwavers that troll here in IRAQ??? Someone has to Fight DER SHRUBBEN FUHRER'S MESS and it shouldn't be those that never supported this CHUMP. Why not those that vote republican. Hey, if they get their asses shot off that will mean less bad genes in the pool.
Report to your local Recruiter P()SSY!
Steve-- thirty nine percent of Americans think Hussein had something to do with 9/ll, even now after Bush admitted Hussein did not. Isn't that enough ignorance for you, or are you one of the 39%? Of course the truth matters when dicpicting our history. And let me tell you it matters to those who suffered a loss in the tragedy. I'm not interested in that event being another docuflick like the ones on Marilyn Monroe. Susan Smith and the other media "celebrities." This deserves reference for 9/11; reference for those who died; reverence for those who suffered the loss of loved ones; reverence for the soldiers fighting the war that came out of 9/11; reverence for our country and dear God, what about reverence for the TRUTH for a change.
One of the funniest web toys I've ever seen is called the Pornolizer; you can go to http://www.pornolize.com/ and play with it yourself.
Here's what Disney has done. They took the best effort of many very good people to find out what happened in the nine-eleven terrorist attack, how it came to be that 19 men from the middle east hijacked 4 planes and turned them into bombs one beautiful day; that good-faith effort produced a document called The 9/11 Commission Report. Disney Entertainment took that account, put it through their in-house pornolizer, and what popped out the other end was The Path to 9/11. It inserted layers of fantasy and embroidery and poetic license between and over and around facts, so that a viewer, even one acquainted with the facts and warned about the fantasy might be profoundly misled in watching it. It shocks me that anyone would approve of such an effort, and in fact, I've been mightily impressed with the parade of non-Democrats and non-liberals who are up in arms about this thing.
If Disney wants to release this to theaters or sell it on DVD, that's fine with me; there is definitely a market for Clinton bashing and I can understand that Disney might imagine it could be profitable to pander to it. That is quite different from airing the production on a free broadcast network in prime time.
Ever heard of a bell curve? At least 25% of Americans would statistically be stupid enough to think that Bush and the GOP are the embodiment of the truth. Another 25% might think that Bush is a truthful God with some reservation. Only 39% believe Saddam's involvement even though Bush said he was not.
There's hope for America yet!
By the way, ABC's inaccurate "docudrama" has nothing to do with the fact that Bush Co FAILED to act upon the intelligence given to them before 9/11. Anyone who views it and believes that it was all Clinton's fault has braincells worthy of the lowest 25% of that bell curve. In other words, they're barely functional above vegetables!
Isn't it funny how some right-wingers are proffering catcalls at the fury of we who are against this piece of fictitious crap airing, when just a few short weeks ago they were all puffed up over busting a photographer for Photoshopping a little smoke into the Beiruit sky?
What would everybody say if a
"docudrama - it's-only-entertainment" were going to appear on TV depicting Hitler as a good guy? There would be a huge cry from around the world. There are some historical events that simply cannot be tampered with for any reason.
"Implosions don't 'pull' things out of the sky. Gravity pulls everything toward the earth at a rate of 9.81 meters per second squared. The cause of the falling object has no bearing on its rate of acceleration.
yes that is the rate of free fall.
how in the hell is a building going to "free fall"? there is foundation and steal and floors...
did they all vaporize at the same instance and allow "freefall" speed? because if they didnt vaporize @ once and you believe in some kind of house of cards explanation it would take longer than freefall time.this is the problem.you are the idiot.
The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.
Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.
This proves controlled demolition.
If you believe conservatives should be fighting in Iraq because they support the war in Iraq, I'd like to ask you why you are not in Afghanistan?
why did WTC7 fall again?
what did Larry Silverstein mean when he said "pull it"
howcome that building fell in freefall?
the opposing forces of friction are negligable and can be ignored. You cannot compare the building falling to a lead ball in a vat of molasses because the fluid properties of air are not even close to the fluid properties of molasses.
you don't know that the bottom portion of the WTC buildings should have remained intact and broken the fall of the upper stories.
A building a rest has a static force. The intact portion of the WTC proved for 30 years that it can support the force of WTC mass at a velocity of zero. Once one floor collapsed, acceleration became roughly 9.81 m/s2 and velocity was non-zero. The first intact floor that was required to support the NEW force from the floors above failed to do so and collapsed to the floor below it. You can see this and hear this by watching the buildings fall.
There is NO evidence of a controlled demolition.
WTC7 fell from a controlled demolition 7+ hours AFTER the planes crashed into the WTC buildings. It was empty and damaged from WTC1&2 falling. WTC7 cannot be compared to WTC1&2 because they fell for different reasons. WTC1&2 did not come down from a controlled demolition.
"WTC7 fell from a controlled demolition 7+ hours AFTER the planes crashed into the WTC buildings. It was empty and damaged from WTC1&2 falling. WTC7 cannot be compared to WTC1&2 because they fell for different reasons. WTC1&2 did not come down from a controlled demolition"
who said this?
so it would freefall.your right.
The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case.
what about thermite?
what about thermate?
who is larry silverstein?
what is PNAC?
where is the plane at the pentagon?
why did norad stand down that day?
how were cell phone calls made @ 31,000 feet?
what did Norman Mineta have to say?
what went on in the stockmarket just prior?
what happened to the gold in the basment?
who is Randy Glass?
what is able danger?
what was in WTC7?
why doesnt the engin found match the plane?
what is operation northwoods?
why a Security change 2 weeks before terror attack?
a new owner of WTC 6 months before?
why are Highjackers showing up alive?
what corelation does Pakistani ISI funding have with 911?
what does the timeline look llke?
who is Sibel Edmonds?
why did two "other" airliners vanish?
what was wrong with Passenger manifests ?
how fast did the towers fall?
what are the statistics for steel buildings burning down?
have you read the 911 commision report?
what did William Rodriguez testify to?
how come the plane hit the exact spot in th epentagon where the navy was investigating billions of dollars lost?
what is the history of Mohammed Atta?
what did the tenants of wtc7 have to say?
what 9/11 masterminds have been charged?
Why were the only people in the government that were fired and legally gagged the intelligence and pentagon whistleblowers?"
who is Rupert Murdoch ?
what did boeing say?
who was in charge of the cleanup of 911?
why was the WTC rubble shipped to china and india?
why was ground zero closed to investigators?
why did Mayor Rudolph Giuliani bann photographs ?
what is Controlled Demolition Inc?
what is Weeks Marine Inc?
who are the Weidlinger Associates?
what is "press for truth"
who is steven jones?
how did bush "see"the first plane hit?
who is Rep. Cynthia McKinney
look into these questions.
I wondered at the time why Mohammad Atta left an up-to-date, detailed will in his US aparmtned describing how his body was to be buried. He was especially definite about no woman's hands touching his body. Didn't he know he would have no body to bury?
9/11 NEVER HAPPENED!! ITS A GOP CONSPIRACY!! DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING!!
look up thermite and thermate.
you may learn something.
vipor you are an uninformed peon
im surprised you can even type
you dont hallucinate from grass man.
wake up and die right.
viper has been sent in for disinformation mission
delusional - still believes Oswald acted alone and that Bush is innocent
GOP BS Detection HQ
Post a Comment