So even though you have not seen the film – you know it is a propaganda film. So your “handlers” tell you to parrot a line and you do as you are told. Don’t you feel silly?

Disney paid for the film to be made, and when they saw it they decided not to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars more (at least) to distribute it. This was their right, according to the contract that Moore signed with them.

So by your definition, this is “attempting to silence” the film?

Well then, where were you? Why didn’t you spend $100,000s to distribute it yourself? Were you also atempting to silence it? There was nothing stopping you. If you don’t spend your own money promoting a point of view, are you trying to censor it? That’s completely inane. (It’s also what the Dixie Chicks seem to believe, but their inanity is well established.)

In fact, Moore shopped the film around and easily found other distributors as was also allowed by his contract with Disney.

Gaius, I think if you dig on the net, you can find one website.
Maybe two.

Actaully my republican US friends – yes, I got republican friends – was going loud that the movie should be abolished, and burnt.

Now that is at least two I know of. Plus mother in law of one guy said that Moore should be hanged for treason.
Now, that is three.

Don’t try to tell me, that republicans are angels, without sin and all.

“Hey, Roland, does it change your opinion when Bill Clinton is demand that the program either be changed or pulled off the air?

“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,”

Well, I see your point.
The man dares to be furious about a movie that gets aired on the biggest TV network in the US, that tells – according to him – lies about him.

I dunno. I will air a documentary that shows your fault in a terrible accident resulting in the death of a couple hundred people, cause you were busy with your secretary, and deny the opportunity to see the movie before I release it.

Would you complain?
No, I don’t think you would. Why would you?

(Of course as we all know it is only a hypothetical thing, you can quite safely say: No, I would not go that far. But as far as I know you through your page, you would be quite livid. Not that I really know you, just based on your blog, and that’s a quite limited thing)

But yes, I concede, Bill Clinton thinks that he should be portrayed fairly or none at all. It is horrible.

One more thing about this “but the Moore movie…” line.

In your link, just look at this line:
“and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves”

The Moore movie was not aired on a public TV network.
I think if ABC has aired that, the Republicans would have gone nuts, crying treason louder and all.

If you can’t see the difference between a limited medion – namely movie theaters – and a public, national broadcast – ABC TV Network -, then I don’t know.

And one final, last word:
I did agree with the republicans complaining about the Moore movie.
I do agree with the democrats complaining about the 9/11 movie.

I think everyone has the right to complain.

But actually, I would like to see it through.

The second tv show of Bush propagand.
I wait for the democrat ones

I hope they included the bit, where the Republican party voted against the Anti-Terrorist Measures the Clinton office brought up.

Let’s first put to rest the rumor that ABC has re-filmed a scene in the mini-series called Path to 9/11 whereby Monica Lewinsky, in the revised piece, is seen leaving a Subway eating a Spicy Italian with extra-mayo, some of…

Don’t you get the feeling that quite a few folks wish that the Clinton Administration attacked the terrorists with such vigor as he and others on the Left are attacking ABC for the upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11, which appears to portray the Cl….

Everyone!

1) Allow them their bloody freedom of speech and let the movie come out.
2) Then once it’s out, using your own freedom of speech, prove to everyone why piece of crap.

You all look like your respective american political stereotypes arguing over this sort of thing.

Well, no, I didn’t say Disney blocked it. I said they attempted, and almost succeeded in blocking it. See the difference? You and I clearly disagree about whether there were political motivations involved in that decision, and whether that constitutes an attempt to “silence” a movie.

Gaius said:
the other decries the existence [of a movie].”

I still don’t understand how you can claim that liberals “decry the existence” of this movie. All of us would like to see a more accurate portrayal of events leading up to 9/11. Failing that, we would like to see a more balanced “dramatization” of events. Failing that, we would like to see some serious airtime dedicated to a critique of the inaccuracies. Failing that, we would like to see the movie put off until after the midterm elections. Failing that, we would like to see this film put onto a cable network. Failing that, we would like to see this film not aired. You think that represents decrying the existence of a movie. I don’t, because there are five actions ABC could take before we would want it completely yanked.

If you see anyone unconditionally calling for the pulling of this movie, no matter what ABC does to fix it, then I would greatly appreciate a link.

Gaius said:
If you want accuracy the movie would have to show the reported four failures to get bin Laden on the part of the Clinton administration, right?

What four failures to get Bin Laden are you talking about? I’d appreciate a link backing up your claim.

Gaius said:
I do not appreciate extraneous points being thrown at me demanding I address them

I didn’t “demand” that you address “The Reagans,” I merely brought it up as context to the debate. I feel it’s relevant, and you obviously disagree.

But just because you don’t believe it’s relevant doesn’t mean that it can’t or shouldn’t be discussed. I speculate there are other readers here that might be interested, but maybe I’m wrong. Time will tell.

If you want accuracy the movie would have to show the reported four failures to get bin Laden on the part of the Clinton administration, right?

You keep bringing Reagan up – I have not done so. I do not appreciate extraneous points being thrown at me demanding I address them. I was not blogging then, have no opinion on it and damn sure am not going to research it just to make you happy? ‘K?

I dispute your claim that critics “only wanted the record straight” with Fahrenheit 9/11. Disney attempted to do more than that. You may call that a business decision, but on what justification was that based?

Disney attempted to block distribution of a documentary that was critical of an Administration they hoped would give them tax breaks. I suppose that’s a business decision in one sense, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a political decision in another. After all, politics drove the business justification in the first place. Perhaps that’s where we disagree. But I digress.

I dispute your original claim that liberals “decry the existence” of the “Path to 9/11.” Liberals are looking for this film to be fixed, OR pulled off the air. To me there’s a big difference between demanding a more accurate portrayal, and blocking the film from ever airing. I guess you think that’s hairsplitting, and I guess that’s where we disagree.

I take issue with the implication that conservatives only engage in fact-checking, while liberals want voices silenced. Conservative criticism of “The Reagans” proves that conservatives will engage in the same behavior. By the way, that was a docudrama for entertainment purposes as well. Accurately portraying Reagan is something to get worked up about, but not accurately portraying Clinton’s activities WRT Osama Bin Laden?

As I said before, if there were historical inaccuracies in “The Reagans,” that should have been fixed or pulled (which is what happened.) I don’t see any hypocrisy here. Both docudramas should value historical accuracy, and should work to fix problems.

You’ll note that I’ve concerned myself with claims you made in your original post, with the exception of conservative treatment of “The Reagans.” But I think conservatives’ behavior during the leadup to “The Reagans” provides a lot of context for this debate, which is why I brought it up. Maybe you disagree, but just because you didn’t mention it doesn’t make it “inane” or “tiresome.”

(Sigmund, my “voice” was, essentially, not on the Net when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, although I did see it. Regarding the inaccuracies of it, I’d appreciate a link. Was THAT what Anchoress was referring to?)

Apparently, ABC has knuckled under to pressure from veterans of the Clinton administration to edit a key scene in The Path To 9/11 involving Sandy Berger:ABC toned down a scene that involved ClintonÂ’s national security adviser, Samuel “Sandy” Berger…

“Further, it is ironic to note that those who now so ferociously committed to accuracy and integrity, make no such demands of the vile hate, bigotry and racism that is broadcast and published daily in the Arab world.

It is even more astonishing how readily these idiots- hypocrites, all- will accept the hate, bigotry, racist and every outrageous charge at face value.”