What's this all about?
ABC/Disney plans to memorialize the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with a fictional docudrama called "The Path to 9/11". Written by an avowed right-wing activist, this work of fiction directly contradicts the accepted record of the 9/11 Commission Report. President Clinton and former administration officials were denied an advance copy; Rush Limbaugh and obscure right-wing bloggers saw it last week. ABC plans to distribute this docudrama to 100,000 educators across the country. We've set up this site to encourage ABC to change its strategy. READ MORE.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Frequently Asked Questions

1) What is this controversy about?

On September 10 and 11, ABC Television is planning to run a historically inaccurate film called 'The Path to 9/11' depicting the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks. The film was written by a conservative activist who has called Michael Moore an 'out of control Socialist weasel', and who has an avowed conservative agenda.

2) How is this film inaccurate?

'The Path to 9/11' largely places the blame for failing to prevent the attacks on the Clinton administration while whitewashing the failures of the Bush administration.

One key scene involves Clinton National Security advisor Sandy Berger refusing to order the CIA to take out bin Laden, a frequently cited right-wing fabrication that has been discredited, most recently by Richard Clarke.

We would document other inaccuracies, but preview copies of the film have not been sent to left-wing bloggers. As copies trickle out, we will put a blogroll up on the side of this side linking to inaccuracies that have been uncovered.

3) Why is this significant?

Aside from the tragic dishonesty surrounding 9/11 inherent in the film, there is a massive marketing push to turn this film into an established version of what happened. The film is being marketed as 'an objective telling of the events of 9/11, and promos for the film are claiming that it is largely based on the 9/11 Commission report. Republican Tom Kean Sr has been a prominent and public advisor to the project, but no Democratic members of the 9/11 Commission have been represented.

While marketed aggressively through advance copies among right-wing bloggers, radio hosts, and pundits, no left-wing bloggers have been given access to the film until this week, and left-wing bloggers were nearly prevented from attending a press conference with Tom Kean Sr advocating on behalf of the film.

Finally, ABC is planning to distribute this film free through iTunes and ABC.com, with a letter from Tom Kean Sr. to 100,000 educators encouraging the use of this film for educational purposes.

4) What are you looking for?

We are looking for ABC to take the following steps.

- ABC needs to remove outright fabrications in the film, or refuse to air it. We will try to catalogue link to those debunking errors in the film. So far, Thinkprogress is the most comprehensive site.

- Prior to airing the film, ABC should explicitly call this a work of fiction, and say that this does not represent the findings of the 9/11 Commission. ABC should stop using any and all promotional material linking the film to the 9/11 Commission findings.

- ABC should publicly list the marketing operators responsible for hiding this film from left-wing opinion leaders.

- ABC should not send 100,000 letters to educators, or should send follow-up letters warning educators about the inaccuracies in the film.

5) Why would ABC do this?

Honestly, we're not sure. Disney/ABC is either unaware of the political ramifications of airing this fabrication, or is willfully and maliciously producing and distributing false propaganda. We hope that Robert Iger, President of Disney, considers his reputation and that of Disney and ABC before allowing this to be aired.

6) Why would Tom Kean lend his reputation to such a film?

We assume it's because Tom Kean Sr's son, whose name is also Tom Kean, is running for Senate in New Jersey, largely based on his father's reputation. Tom Kean Jr. has for instance droppd the 'Jr' from his campaign's website. We're not entirely sure why Tom Kean Sr. decided to throw away his reputation on such a sordid propaganda piece, but that's our best guess.

7) Who are you?

We are a group of activists that are trying to provide one place for content about the controversy over the film 'Path to 9/11'. You can contact us at openlettertoabc@gmail.com.


Anonymous Cujo359 said...

Part One of this program was shown on the BBC yesterday. A Google search, which I can't embed in these comments, confirms that the remainder will be shown on Sept. 11.

Check out Blue Jersey for a taste of Tom Kean, Sr.'s ethics. Seems he has a hard time figuring out what "conflict of interest" means. (h/t to Taylor Marsh).

3:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it was shown on the BBC yesterday, it should start to appear on the P2P nets today.

Be on the lookout.

3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This shows it hasn't aired yet on BBC -- please provide a link that shows it aired on BBC


3:30 AM  
Blogger godzhillary said...

When you losers are finished forming your diaphragms into a circle to protect your precious Bubba C, you will let me know, yes?

11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When you losers are finished forming your diaphragms into a circle to protect your precious Bubba C, you will let me know, yes?"

Sure, should we address the notification to the guy in white who serves you the extra serving of paste that night if you were good, or to your Mommy?

7:42 PM  
Blogger godzhillary said...

Both. But I demand pictures of the diaphragm circle.

Bill Clinton was and is a failure. He failed to deal with Al Qaeda. Richard Clarke was paid $ millions to fight terrorism. Nothing more. Richard Clarke is a failure.

5:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ann, is that you?

9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's my question. If the BBC airs this uncut, with the libel/defamation rules so much more plaintiff friendly here in the UK, aren't the Clinton/Berger/Albright folks and others going to have a field day in British courts?

9:46 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home