Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

    I hope you guys don't mind - but I'm going to move this to the Controversial section. I'll leave a link here for awhile, but if the link disappears just go to Controversial to get back to it.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

      14and9 do you have any thoughts of your own? Or just copies of LONG dissertations by others. And I'm wondering if you realize that every single thing you've quoted has been from sources that all share a single political point of view. Everything you've quoted has come from liberal/left-wing sources. You do realize that Arianna Huffington is incredibly left wing don't you? And you do realize that for her to call someone a "far right" person could well mean that he's middle of the road - right?

      Why should I put any stock in anything you've said when all your information comes from the same point of view. You obviously never read anything that opposes your own political viewpoint. Maybe you should. It might do you well.

      I find it very insular when people don't read that which goes against their own point of view. And by quoting exclusively from liberal sources it would appear that you are one of those people. I just don't understand why people who like to always proclaim their open mindedness are actually so close-minded to anything that goes against what they happen to believe. You guys seem to accept everything you read from your liberal sources hook line and sinker. I don't see any questioning or skepticism or critical thinking on your part. I just see complete acceptance of anything and everything you read from your beloved liberal sources.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

        14and9 I find your suggestion laughable that ABC is a secret conservative network! That's really pretty funny.

        But on a more serious note, as a Christian, I find it very offensive that they are using these people's Christian faith to impugn them. Aren't Christians allowed to participate in the arts in this country? It's very offensive what Arianna said, and it shows an extreme hostility to Christians. It is comments like those that make people feel the Democratic party is the anti-Christian party. So if you ever find yourself wondering why Democrats are thought of as the anti-religious, anti-christian party, those comments are a very good example of why that is.

        These YWAM people said in that letter you linked to:

        "Our goal is to help filmmakers, actors, technicians, etc. realize their God given potential and purpose in perhaps the most influential sphere of modern culture - film and television."

        I'm just wondering if you think Christians should be allowed to work in film and television? Or if you think they should be excluded from positions of influence in this society? And if so, why? I'm also wondering if you don't realize that atheists and other non-Christians have a huge influence over Hollywood and they promote their beliefs through film and no one ever questions it. So why would these Christians get attacked by the left because they want to have some involvement in the cultural milieu?

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

          I thought there was some sort of "Christian" issue about 'bearing false witness'. so, no, if lying and fabrication are the tools of the 'christian' presence in hollywood, i couldn't be less interested.

          feeding the hungry? clothing the naked? slandering people? one of these things is not like the others.

          Mahatma Gandhi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

            14and9 do you have any thoughts of your own? Or just copies of LONG dissertations by others
            Ya know, Vbad, you have accused me of the same thing, the same words. I didn't like it and I told you so. Do you think its ok to say the say thing to someone else? You DO realize this is an insult...to insinuate someone of not having any thoughts of their own? Well, it is. So, please, stop it.

            And you do realize that for her to call someone a "far right" person could well mean that he's middle of the road - right?

            Wrong-this is an assumptions on your part.

            Why should I put any stock in anything you've said when all your information comes from the same point of view. You obviously never read anything that opposes your own political viewpoint. Maybe you should. It might do you well.

            Another tired accusation and assumption on your part. You DO realize the difference between your assumptions and the truth-right?

            And now you just go completely off into your usual rant, (which I really think reflects more on how YOU think then those you accuse) and back to the name-calling you have been asked to stop.


            I find it very insular when people don't read that which goes against their own point of view. And by quoting exclusively from liberal sources it would appear that you are one of those people. I just don't understand why people who like to always proclaim their open mindedness are actually so close-minded to anything that goes against what they happen to believe. You guys seem to accept everything you read from your liberal sources hook line and sinker. I don't see any questioning or skepticism or critical thinking on your part. I just see complete acceptance of anything and everything you read from your beloved liberal sources.
            It is not about just reading to gain your opinion about someone. Everything you read (math textbooks not included) will be biased in some way. It's about listening and watching the words that come out of their mouths and observing their actions. It is the ACTIONS that you observe and the concequences of those actions that you form your opinion from. Not the tv news or the newspapers or your parents.

            When a politician does something that goes against what you think is patriot or conflicts with your political views, you have the right to openly discuss your concerns. That is called "democracy". When you accuse your accusers of being "unpatriot if you oppose them" and "giving comfort to the enemy i.e. a traitor", is that the way a democracy works? By stifling debate? The only thing missing from this scenario is the accusers to be hauled off and jailed or executed. To those that are blinded by their devotion to GW, will that be ok, too?

            Now that is just one example of many of the actions of this admistration. That long post of 14/9th listed a host of ACTIONS that took place. It showed all the many, many things that were their priorities, their political agenda. Look closely. Please note: All their budget cuts were programs for the poor. Fighting "Terrorism" wasn't even a part of their agenda. However, they did change the name of the "Estate Tax" (for extremely wealthy folks-like him and his buddies) to the "Death Tax" and insinuated it was a tax that affected everyone. I worked as a tax professional and I can attest, that is just not true. But, folks bought it and now, Paris Hilton and her trust fund friends, not to mention the president himself, will pay less taxes then ever.

            But I digress. My point being.....Judge by the actions, not by what you read or see edited on tv. Believe what you see and hear with your own eyes and ears, not an interpretation.
            Maybe you should. It might do you well.
            The reason so many people dislike GWB is a reflection of his ACTIONS. Not because of the liberal media.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

              [NOTE FROM ADMIN: tarmill accidentally posted her message twice and wanted to use the latter one which is below this post. This post from 14and9 is in response to tarmill's post #39 below].

              feel free to live in a fantasy world.

              feel free to feel everything is an "offense" to you and your beliefs.

              the producers and writers of 'p29/11' lied. can you support that?

              if so, than that's the kind of christian you are. one who supports lying.

              please don't put words in my mouth with the very lame "what you're basically saying" construct.

              i said what i said and you need it to be something else in order for it to be a personal attack on you.

              sorry.

              it didn't go down that way.

              but, as i said, feel free to live that way.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

                Originally posted by 14and9
                I thought there was some sort of "Christian" issue about 'bearing false witness'. so, no, if lying and fabrication are the tools of the 'christian' presence in hollywood, i couldn't be less interested.

                feeding the hungry? clothing the naked? slandering people? one of these things is not like the others.

                Mahatma Gandhi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
                Wow - I have to say I'm stunned by your response. I don't know if you realize how offensive what you said is to me as a Christian. We in this country seem far more sensitive in picking up on anti-Semitic remarks so maybe it would help if you just replaced the word "christian" in what you said above with the word "Jew" or even "Muslim". I think if you do that you'll see how offensively what you said comes across to Christians. Americans are very careful to never say anything that may be considered a slur against Jews or Muslims. But they seem to be far less considerate of Christians. Slurs against Christians roll right off the tongue for some reason.

                You're basically saying that Christians are liars and slanderers - which I find highly offensive. It's quite a slur I must say. Can you imagine ever saying "Jews are liars"? Or, "Muslims are liars"?

                There are plenty of people who were involved in both of these administrations who have said what was portrayed in this movie was basically accurate. The movie is based on the 9/11 Commission report. All the major points in the movie can be found in the 9/11 report. The 9/11 Commission report did report on failures in the Clinton administration as it did in the Bush administration. Failures in BOTH administrations were portrayed in this movie.

                So I am really offended that you would say that "lying and fabrication are the tools of the 'christian' presence in hollywood" when all the major points raised in this movie have been reported by the 9/11 Commission as well as numerous other sources.

                Yet those who seem to be most offended by this film, those on the Left claim, it's all a lie. Then you have brought up and used the fact that someone involved in it was a Christian. You brought that up. I don't see the relevance of that whatsoever. I don't see how the religious faith of any of the people who were involved in this movie has any relevance to the movie. The movie didn't touch on religion at all.

                So, I feel you brought that up as a slur - a way to somehow impugn the motives of the people involved in the movie. In case you're not aware there were MANY people involved in this film - from ALL backgrounds. There were certainly many liberals and many atheists and many Jews. I just don't see the relevance of any of that. The conversation should concern the content of the movie - not the religious faith of anyone involved in it.

                Listen, I'm not trying to jump on you although I realize it might sound like I am.

                But I think it would be very helpful if maybe this conversation could help you and others (because you are certainly not the first nor the only person in Chelsea who is insensitive to Chritians), become a little more sensitive to the Christian community in America. I know it's hard sometimes to see our own prejudices, and I think it helps sometimes to replace the name of the group we have prejudices against with the names of groups we've learned not to be prejudice towards.

                So, I wonder if you might think about this and ask if you could ever imagine yourself saying something like this:

                I thought there was some sort of "Jewish" issue about 'bearing false witness'. so, no, if lying and fabrication are the tools of the 'jewish' presence in hollywood, i couldn't be less interested.

                Mahatma Gandhi: "I like your Abraham, I do not like your Jews. Your Jews are so unlike your Abraham."

                Or could you imagine ever saying something like this:

                I thought there was some sort of "Muslim" issue about 'bearing false witness'. so, no, if lying and fabrication are the tools of the 'muslim' presence in hollywood, i couldn't be less interested.

                Mahatma Gandhi: "I like your Muhammad, I do not like your Muslims. Your Muslims are so unlike your Muhammad."

                What an intolerant thing for Gandhi to say. What an intolerant thing to repeat.

                No response is necessary. I'd really just like for you and others to give this some thought and consideration, and perhaps reconsider how you feel about and what you say about Christians.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

                  Yo? Tar,

                  I?ve been real good about avoiding you & your distorted pretzel logic for a while & as I also wish to avoid discussions about religion, but I cannot let this hang out in plain sight without comment.

                  Nice try on the tolerance angle, but I knew you when you were calling all Muslims killers, so I couldn't resist.

                  For any others reading, my comments are in red.

                  Originally posted by tarmill
                  Wow - I have to say I'm stunned by your response. I don't know if you realize how offensive what you said is to me as a Christian. We in this country seem far more sensitive in picking up on anti-Semitic remarks so maybe it would help if you just replaced the word "christian" in what you said above with the word "Jew" or even "Muslim". (Huh? ?We in this country??? How condescending. What have Jews or Muslims to do with what has been said so far? Oh, I get it. It?s some sort of ?straw man? thing. That?s either very bold or pretty lame. Let?s see what?s next.) I think if you do that you'll see how offensively what you said comes across to Christians. (Who are you anyway? Now you want to speak for more Christians than the one that you are? Are you a Schizophrenic? How many Christians do you represent?) Americans are very careful to never say anything that may be considered a slur against Jews or Muslims. (Very clever. This is not only blatantly condescending, but totally untrue. Or are you perhaps suffering from delusions as well. If you had said ?polite Americans?.?, I could cut you slack, but you?d probably hang yourself regardless.) But they seem to be far less considerate of Christians. Slurs against Christians roll right off the tongue for some reason. (What tongue? Whose tongue? Tar, you are definitely trying too hard with this one.)

                  You're basically saying that Christians are liars and slanderers - which I find highly offensive. (What are you talking about? Where are the words that led you to think that anything like that was said? Read it again. Your not even close.) It's quite a slur I must say. Can you imagine ever saying "Jews are liars"? Or, "Muslims are liars"? (Ah yes. The old Jewish straw man again & now he has a faithful companion Muslim straw man. A word of caution here Tar, you know how hard core Islamic Fundamentalists feel about images of living things. You could be inviting your very own jihad.)

                  There are plenty of people who were involved in both of these administrations who have said what was portrayed in this movie was basically accurate. (Care to name one or two?) The movie is based on the 9/11 Commission report. (Care to cite that exact quote from the creators of the film? Don?t waste your time, they?re not that stupid. They say that it is based in part... & that "some" parts are based..., etc.) All the major points in the movie can be found in the 9/11 report. (Who told you that? Please name the three major points of the program & I?ll be happy to straighten you out.) The 9/11 Commission report did report on failures in the Clinton administration as it did in the Bush administration. Failures in BOTH administrations were portrayed in this movie. (I think that is the first thing you said that is true. Congratulations.)

                  So I am really offended that you would say that "lying and fabrication are the tools of the 'christian' presence in hollywood" ( I thought everybody knows that Hollywood was run by people with Jewish last names) when all the major points raised in this movie have been reported by the 9/11 Commission as well as numerous other sources. (Where or who might those ?numerous other sources? be? Let me guess?)

                  Yet those who seem to be most offended by this film, those on the Left claim, it's all a lie. ( You know, I read & listen to a lot of ?Lefties? & 14 has been kind enough, & motivated enough, to share a heap of reading & I don?t think I saw anyone say ?it?s all a lie?. You wouldn?t make that up would you?) Then you have brought up and used the fact that someone involved in it was a Christian. You brought that up. I don't see the relevance of that whatsoever. I don't see how the religious faith of any of the people who were involved in this movie has any relevance to the movie. The movie didn't touch on religion at all. ( No comment. Too religiousey for me.)

                  So, I feel you brought that up as a slur ( You know you could be wrong about that. I know a feeling is a feeling, but whenever I ?feel? a slur coming on, I ask for a second opinion.) - a way to somehow impugn the motives of the people involved in the movie. In case you're not aware there were MANY people involved in this film - from ALL backgrounds. There were certainly many liberals and many atheists and many Jews. (See I told you. If it comes out of Hollywood, there are always some Jews involved.) I just don't see the relevance of any of that. The conversation should concern the content of the movie - not the religious faith of anyone involved in it.

                  Listen, I'm not trying to jump on you (Yes you are.) although I realize it might sound like I am. (Yes you do.)

                  But I think it would be very helpful if maybe this conversation could help you and others (because you are certainly not the first nor the only person in Chelsea who is insensitive to Chritians), become a little more sensitive to the Christian community in America. (That sounds pathetic, but have no fear I will be using that same passive aggressive stuff on you the next time I see you bashing some poor majority.) I know it's hard sometimes to see our own prejudices, (it?s not hard to see yours most of the time.) and I think it helps sometimes to replace the name of the group we have prejudices against with the names of groups we've learned not to be prejudice towards. (Please explain how that helps anything except creating more prejudices.)

                  So, I wonder if you might think about this and ask if you could ever imagine yourself saying something like this:

                  I thought there was some sort of "Jewish" issue about 'bearing false witness'. so, no, if lying and fabrication are the tools of the 'jewish' presence in hollywood, i couldn't be less interested.

                  Mahatma Gandhi: "I like your Abraham, I do not like your Jews. Your Jews are so unlike your Abraham."

                  Or could you imagine ever saying something like this:

                  I thought there was some sort of "Muslim" issue about 'bearing false witness'. so, no, if lying and fabrication are the tools of the 'muslim' presence in hollywood, i couldn't be less interested.

                  Mahatma Gandhi: "I like your Muhammad, I do not like your Muslims. Your Muslims are so unlike your Muhammad."

                  What an intolerant thing for Gandhi to say. (Oh my God. Are you serious? Do you really have a problem understanding what Gandhi said? I think your in way over your head here, Tar. I think you should stick to torts & taxes.) What an intolerant thing to repeat.

                  No response is necessary. I'd really just like for you and others to give this some thought and consideration, and perhaps reconsider how you feel about and what you say about Christians.
                  I do hope that you will send a copy of your "lessons in tolerence" to the Pope as it appears that he has put one or both of his red silk pumps in his mouth.

                  It's a good thing the Iranians can't make good uranium or we all might be meeting our respective makers sooner than planned.

                  As Always,
                  CD
                  Need computer assistance?
                  See my Classified/Computer maintenance listing or send me a private message.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

                    You see - you perfectly make tarmill's point. The pope quoted some ancient pope in some comments he made about Islam and THAT is unacceptable. But to slam tarmill's faith, or the faith of people who work in media - as long as they're Christians I see that that's perfectly fine with you guys.

                    Unbelievable.

                    If someone said they wish they could hire blacks, but unfortunatley there just aren't any qualified blacks to hire, what would you call that? Would you call it bigoted? Would you speak for more than one black on that issue? Or would you say the black who said he couldn't get hired because of his race was only speaking for himself? And that he was fantasizing that insults existed where they really didn't?

                    I remember a time when white people said just those kinds of things and they didn't hire blacks. After some time they became "sensitized" to how those types of comments were actually racist and bigoted.

                    I don't share all of tarmill's religious beliefs, but I can certainly see her point about how what you guys are saying here is just downright bigoted towards Christians. And how dare you tell her to stick to torts & taxes. Are you suggesting that she should not be free to express her religious opinions.

                    And what was that thing you said to her about inviting her own personal jihad? "You could be inviting your very own jihad." Was that some kind of threat? Or, were you possibly suggesting that she deserves to die for what she said? Or are you suggesting that ALL Muslims would kill someone who has said the things she's said. You're really outrageous CD. I know you're outrageous because you've motivated me to defend someone's religious beliefs and their right to express them!

                    I honestly think you guys are noting more than religious bigots. You've made that VERY clear in your last post CD. And 14and9 has made it quite clear as well.

                    And I have to give credit to LTR - because she at least is honest when she says she doesn't have any religious beliefs and she doesn't put much stock in people who do. But she doesn't go around attacking tarmill for her beliefs and aiming slurs in her direction. Nor did she bring up the religion of the people involved in the making of this movie. Maybe she doesn't care for religion - but at least she doesn't express bigoted and hateful feelings towards religious people.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

                      Oh and CD can you cite exactly where tarmill ever called ALL Muslims killers? Because I'm not seeing that anywhere. So now you slander her with your lies. Very nice CD.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

                        Now that I've actually read everything you just wrote CD - I just want to say - your arguments are like those of a little child. You really sound pathetic. Only someone who completely surrounds himself with only like-minded people could possibly think such child-like arguments would actually get him somewhere. You clearly only wish to argue. You have never shown any desire whatsoever to actually try to understand any opposing point of view. You just like to bicker. You're not a healer CD - you're a divider.

                        Your bickering is something we can count on like the sun rising each morning that whatever tarmill or I say you will instantly disagree with it... apparently simply for the sake of being disagreeable. I can't see that your child-like bickering is even worth responding to anymore.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

                          I can't see that your child-like bickering is even worth responding to anymore
                          Is that a promise?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

                            Originally posted by vbad
                            I don't share all of tarmill's religious beliefs, but I can certainly see her point about how what you guys are saying here is just downright bigoted towards Christians. And how dare you tell her to stick to torts & taxes. Are you suggesting that she should not be free to express her religious opinions. (No. If you bother to read my entire post you will see that I attempted to point out her failing in expressing herself in a consistent or cohesive manner. I fully realize that in matters of faith, it is unreasonable to expect logical & linear reasoning. That's why it is called Faith. But I do take exception when anyone starts spouting about how what he or she personally believes is what everyone believes, even within their own faith. One thing I do understand about people & their faith & that is it is a personal matter & should only be discussed in a public forum with the utmost sensitivity & decorum & since I am incapable of either I avoid religious discussions.)

                            And what was that thing you said to her about inviting her own personal jihad? "You could be inviting your very own jihad." Was that some kind of threat? (Don't be ridiculous.) Or, were you possibly suggesting that she deserves to die for what she said? Or are you suggesting that ALL Muslims would kill someone who has said the things she's said. (Not my suggestion at all. See Tarmill, 5/5/06 Try reading about what the Taliban did in Afghanistan in early 2001 [See here] & [here] then go back & read my reference to the straw man.) You're really outrageous CD. (Thank you.) I know you're outrageous because you've motivated me to defend someone's religious beliefs and their right to express them!

                            I honestly think you guys are noting more than religious bigots. (Once again you have me completely wrong. I don't care if you practice any religion or not. I don't base my opinion on what God your pray to. All I ask is that you don't try to discuss it with me. I don't care. You can do whatever you want, just don't try to involve me. I want nothing to do with it because I have seen way more destructive behavior in the name of the Lord than I think he or she would allow if they existed. One last thing. I will be really pi$$ed off if my life is threatened or ended because of some religious fanatic.) You've made that VERY clear in your last post CD. And 14and9 has made it quite clear as well.

                            And I have to give credit to LTR - because she at least is honest when she says she doesn't have any religious beliefs and she doesn't put much stock in people who do. But she doesn't go around attacking tarmill for her beliefs and aiming slurs in her direction. Nor did she bring up the religion of the people involved in the making of this movie. Maybe she doesn't care for religion - but at least she doesn't express bigoted and hateful feelings towards religious people.

                            As far as my being called bigoted by you, I consider the source before taking offense. Sometime being 'insulted' can be a compliment. It's not that I am intolerant of opposing opinions, it's just that I am intolerant of those that don't recognize the difference between opinion & fact.

                            As for being hurtful? Sometime the truth hurts & I prefer to be truthful.

                            CD
                            Need computer assistance?
                            See my Classified/Computer maintenance listing or send me a private message.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

                              Vbad...

                              Thank you for the credit, believe it or not, I appreciate it.

                              And I have to give credit to LTR - because she at least is honest when she says she doesn't have any religious beliefs and she doesn't put much stock in people who do
                              Did I say that? I remember saying I was not Christian, however, I don't remember saying I don't have any religious beliefs.

                              Just for the record, I consider myself to be spiritual and in awe of the nature of our existence. I am a cross between my Jewish heritage (some teachings make sense to me and some don't) and the practical philosophy of Buddhism, which I appreciate the most for it's lack of religious dogma. I practice none of the rituals. I don't believe I must go to temple to communicate with "G-d". On these blogs somewhere, I have declared myself an agnostic meaning I do not and can not know the nature of G-d. That is only something I will know in "the next world".

                              I also don't remember saying I don't put much stock in anyone with religious beliefs. I did say someone's religious beliefs or lack thereof is irrelevent to me. I don't think it makes them any more or less moral, better or worse, good people or bad people.

                              The ONLY thing I take offense at in this regard, is when I am approached by a Christian who tries to lay their beliefs on me in an effort to convert me and "save my soul". I ALSO take offense when I've been approached by Orthodox or Hassidic Jews who want to make me more "Jewish".

                              My spiritual beliefs are MINE alone. There is no one name that describes my beliefs, it is my own personal "religion".

                              In that same vein, I will give others the freedom and respect to believe what they want, call themselves whatever they feel comfortable with. Just don't kill me or try to convert me.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: The Disney Mickey Mouse Monstrosity

                                Until very recently, Tom Kean Sr. was one of the most admired figures in American public life, having garnered praise for bipartisan fairness and dedication as co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission. As governor of New Jersey and later as president of Drew University, he enjoyed friendships and support across party lines, building his reputation as a gentleman and statesman who cared more for policy than politics. He seemed to have achieved great popularity for the best of reasons.

                                But now, in the aftermath of "The Path to 9/11" -- the heavily fictionalized and politically distorted docudrama that he served as a paid advisor for and publicly defended -- it is becoming sadly obvious that his integrity was overrated. For money and a moment of Hollywood glitz, he sold out what should have been the crowning achievement of a career in public service.

                                By signing up as an "executive producer" of the ABC miniseries -- for a fee he still refuses to disclose -- Kean rented his good name to a right-wing Hollywood cabal seeking to malign Bill Clinton and exonerate George W. Bush, with blatant disregard for the facts uncovered by the commission at taxpayer expense. He still has not explained why he never asked the producers to honor the bipartisan nature of the commission's work, which they might have accomplished by hiring a Democratic commissioner to vet their script. He has not explained why he approved a script and a movie that simply invented (and sometimes improvised) scenes to tar Clinton and to puff up Bush. Nor has he explained why he, as an educator, promoted this confection of historical fraud to high school teachers across the nation.

                                Thanks to his supposed probity, Kean became the leading witness for the purportedly benign intentions of the film's producers. Back in July, after ABC screened "The Path to 9/11" for members of the Television Critics Association, he fielded the critics' questions on a panel that included scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh, director David Cunningham and producer Marc Platt. According to the July 19 transcript of that session, he repeatedly made false and misleading comments to bolster the production's credibility.

                                Asked whether he was "totally happy with the miniseries" or whether there was "anything you'd still like to change about it," Kean replied: "Little changes here or there maybe, but, look, the spirit of this is absolutely correct. This is the story of how it happened." He went on to say that he and Nowrasteh had been "talking almost since day one," while Platt lauded him as "the guardian of accuracy ... [who made sure] we stayed accurate in our dramatic portrayal and that we communicated the true events and the essence of the report, the essence of the events as they occurred."

                                While Kean also claimed that he had corrected inaccuracies during filming, with the full cooperation of the producers, he took the opportunity during the panel discussion to reiterate the film's central falsehood. "I mean, we had chances during the Clinton administration to actually get [Osama] bin Laden!" Kean exclaimed. "I mean we had him in our sights, and we didn't pull the trigger. We didn't pull the trigger. The CIA had him a number of times and didn't pull the trigger."

                                http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/09/15/kean/

                                Nowhere does the 9/11 Commission report make that bald assertion -- and as the controversy over the film escalated, Kean backed away from his confident assertions of "accuracy." In a conference call with journalists the week that the movie aired, he admitted that portions of the script had been based on sources other than the commission's report -- which meant that he and the producers had misled the public and the press from the beginning.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X