On the 5 year anniversary of the tragedy of 9/11, the country reflects on both how we got there and where we go from here. And not just the country – the movie industry does as well and gets vastly different responses.
Part 1 of The Path To 9/11 aired last night – HEAVILY edited due to pressure from President Clinton and his administration. I can say with confidence that it was heavy editing as it was 20 minutes shorter than it's time slot. These weren't small changes.
The American television network, ABC, aired its controversial mini-series about the build-up to the September 11 attacks last night, but only after issuing three disclaimers that the drama was fictional and editing scenes that had attracted the wrath of Bill Clinton and members of his administration….
The version of the film given to reviewers emphasised that it was based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission report and suggested that the Clinton White House directly interfered with attempts to kill bin Laden, who later went on to direct the attacks.
Last week, the former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, the former National Security Adviser, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, and the head of the Clinton Foundation, Bruce Lindsey, wrote to Robert Iger, the chief of executive of Disney, which owns ABC, asking him to cancel the show. Harvey Keitel, one of the stars of the $40 million production, also said it should be re-edited.
Last night that pressure appeared to have had an effect: several controversial scenes had been edited and some had been removed altogether. A disclaimer reminded viewers three times that they were watching a fictionalised rather than a historical account of the years before the attacks.
Several commentators have already cried foul and hippocrocy, since the Clinton Administration had no problem with Micheal Moore's film Fahrenheit 911. Which most will agree took -uh- great creative license with the facts surrounding 9/11.
Meanwhile another docu-drama is focusing on the future resulting from the 9/11 attacks. The quite near future of 2007 in fact. October 2007, when President Bush is successfully assassinated in Chicago. Supporters are quick to point out that only recently a fictitious former president was assassinated in the hit show 24. Not exactly the same as displaying the depicting the assassination of a CURRENT SITTING PRESIDENT.
(CNSNews.com) – "Xenophobia, the hidden costs of war and the nature of civil liberties in a hyper-media age all come under the microscope" in a controversial movie depicting the fictional assassination of President Bush. [say what?]
So says Noah Cowan, director of the Toronto Film Festival, where the British-made movie will premier on Sept. 10….
Until now, the movie has been referred to by the Toronto Film Festival as simply "D.O.A.P.," but at a press conference in Britain Thursday, it was announced by the title "Death of a President"….
Range uses computer-generated imagery, archive footage and special effects in the film, which reportedly depicts a nation polarized by Bush administration foreign and domestic policies — and features anti-war demonstrations.
The movie is styled as a documentary made several years hence, looking back at the assassination of Bush by an unknown sniper at a Chicago hotel in October 2007 and subsequent events….
CBN News reporter Dale Hurd wrote in a commentary that "Death of a President" "should provide haters of Bush on the Left and in the Muslim world with 93 minutes of pure viewing pleasure."
On one movie website, a critic identified as Devin Faraci wrote that although he has not seen other movies directed by Range, "I will say that my interest is piqued. And not just because I hate Bush!"
All I can say is "wow". Wanting a candidate out of office or even impeached is all fine and dandy. That's want our democracy was built on: hating the other guy. Well at diverse factions coming together against a common foe. But truely wanting someone DEAD? Last time I checked it was still a felony to even threaten the President ("knowingly and willfully"). Why? Because regardless of your feelings for the current (or a former) President, THE President is THE face of the United States of America. A threat against him is a threat against the USA.
Besides you don't want a bullet to override "the will of the people" expressed at the ballot box. Such things would threaten the very foundation of Democracy, and replace it with the "will of the" petty dictator or army generals or whatever – things that still control a large number of countries world wide.