In A Word – Distortion – When threatened, some people resort to innuendo, lies, and verbal attacks
Gerald Eisman
September 08, 2006
Distortion: The act or an instance of distorting. The condition of being distorted. A statement that twists fact; a misrepresentation.
There is a definite difference between truth and facts. Facts change but truth is immutable. ABC-TV is about to drop a pre-mid-term election bombshell in the form of a 6 hour mini-series depicting a high official in the Clinton administration as tipping off Pakistan of an upcoming attempt to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Although ABC will say in a disclaimer that the series is a dramatization, nothing could be further from the truth.
On hearing the news, William (Bill) Clinton was said to have gone ballistic and warned ABC that its mini-series “The Path to 9/11” grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden. He also demanded the network pull the drama” if changes aren’t made.
Clinton said the movie, done in the form of a docu-drama, suggests he was too distracted by his involvement with Monica Lewinsky to care about bin Laden. It went on to propose that the Secretary of State or a top Central Intelligence Agent (CIA) pulled the plug on agents who were moments away from capping the master terrorist. That in spite of the 9/11 report that distinctly disputes such conjecture and gives proofs otherwise.
Clinton and several of his former aides laid out their objections in letters to Robert A Iger, chief executive of ABC’s corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co. In his letter, Clinton branded “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.”
The entire affair smacks of deceit and subterfuge camouflaged, by those in charge at ABC, in the robe of dramatization, but actually is an attempt at political assassination of the Democratic candidates for office. Like the “swiftboat affair” in the 2004 election where character assassination of Senator John Kerry was employed to hurt his presidential chances, this Disney approved project has the distinct odor of fecal waste. Much of the “facts” are mere fabrications geared at swiftboat style smear.
Take, for example, the writer of the screenplay, Cyrus Nowrasteh, an admitted conservative, who told frontpage magazine that the movie illustrates “the frequent opportunities the (Clinton) administration had in the 90’s to stop bin Laden but lacked the will to do so.”
Take ABC who said copies of the film were sent to media organizations and commentators without regard to their political affiliations and that all were invited to a screening in Washington. Were that the truth, how can ABC explain the fact that Clinton aides first learned of the “slam” on the administration approximately one week ago, after the screening in Washington? How can ABC explain the hiring of Thomas H Kean, Republican chairman of the 9/11 commission, but not one Democrat? It would be interesting to find out why Mr. Kean didn’t point out the deviations from truth written in the report of the very commission he headed. How will ABC explain their statement that they have portrayed the “essence” of truth based on the 9/11 report even though the report contradicts several key postulations?
Unfortunately, the biggest question will forever go unanswered; knowing the extreme polarization of the American public, coupled with the knowledge that their collective mind is so susceptible to propaganda and innuendo, how much damage can six hours of lies and misrepresentations do to otherwise decent people?
Marc Platt, executive producer of the film said this, “(the film) does contain composite and blended scenes and representative characters and dialogue, and we’ve worked very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they’re wrongly portrayed, that’s obviously of concern. We’ve portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view.”
Say what? Then explain, Mr. Platt, what a conservative (Nowrasteh) is doing writing the script and skewing the facts into a very political point of view while distorting the very report you are avowing you used as the basis of the story. Better yet, explain how a number of conservative commentators (not liberals as we’ve discovered) including Rush Limbaugh, who claims to be a friend of Nowrasteh, received copies of the film.
I would be interested in knowing why Limbaugh said on his radio program that the film “indicts the Clinton administration, Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger. It is just devastating to the Clinton administration. It talks about how we had chances to capture bin Laden in specific detail.” I’m certain it wasn’t because good ol’ Rush was guessing as to the content of the film.
Scenes in the “fair and balanced, based on fact” movie contradict the very report purported to be the “essence” of the flick. Representatives of the outraged Clinton wrote to Iger that “no such damaging or eventually deleterious events (as were depicted in several scenes) ever happened. The 9/11 report gives credence to the denial of the scenes, finding that the Clinton administration gave its “blessings” for a CIA play to capture bin Laden.
As an ultimate disrespect to this entire affair, Ian Bishop, reporter for the New York Post and a nameless headline hack (if indeed the Post employs anyone to fill the position of headline writer) has the effrontery to refer to the former president of the United States as “Bubba.” Have some members of the press stooped so low they now resort to dissing presidents?
Getting back to Platt, one last comment strikes me as strange for a non-political motive. “In an undertaking this gargantuan (the miniseries cost over $40 million),” he said, “it’s impossible to interview every single person available, and we didn’t believe we needed to. Maybe I’m naïve in thinking that just hiring Kean (Republican head of the 9/11 commission) would not prompt criticism of a political slant.”
No, Mr. Platt, That’s not naiveté, it’s ignorance or partisanship. Wise up and clean up your act. There is a difference between facts and truth and too many of your facts are lies.
There is a definite difference between truth and facts. Facts change but truth is immutable. ABC-TV is about to drop a pre-mid-term election bombshell in the form of a 6 hour mini-series depicting a high official in the Clinton administration as tipping off Pakistan of an upcoming attempt to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Although ABC will say in a disclaimer that the series is a dramatization, nothing could be further from the truth.
On hearing the news, William (Bill) Clinton was said to have gone ballistic and warned ABC that its mini-series “The Path to 9/11” grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden. He also demanded the network pull the drama” if changes aren’t made.
Clinton said the movie, done in the form of a docu-drama, suggests he was too distracted by his involvement with Monica Lewinsky to care about bin Laden. It went on to propose that the Secretary of State or a top Central Intelligence Agent (CIA) pulled the plug on agents who were moments away from capping the master terrorist. That in spite of the 9/11 report that distinctly disputes such conjecture and gives proofs otherwise.
Clinton and several of his former aides laid out their objections in letters to Robert A Iger, chief executive of ABC’s corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co. In his letter, Clinton branded “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.”
The entire affair smacks of deceit and subterfuge camouflaged, by those in charge at ABC, in the robe of dramatization, but actually is an attempt at political assassination of the Democratic candidates for office. Like the “swiftboat affair” in the 2004 election where character assassination of Senator John Kerry was employed to hurt his presidential chances, this Disney approved project has the distinct odor of fecal waste. Much of the “facts” are mere fabrications geared at swiftboat style smear.
Take, for example, the writer of the screenplay, Cyrus Nowrasteh, an admitted conservative, who told frontpage magazine that the movie illustrates “the frequent opportunities the (Clinton) administration had in the 90’s to stop bin Laden but lacked the will to do so.”
Take ABC who said copies of the film were sent to media organizations and commentators without regard to their political affiliations and that all were invited to a screening in Washington. Were that the truth, how can ABC explain the fact that Clinton aides first learned of the “slam” on the administration approximately one week ago, after the screening in Washington? How can ABC explain the hiring of Thomas H Kean, Republican chairman of the 9/11 commission, but not one Democrat? It would be interesting to find out why Mr. Kean didn’t point out the deviations from truth written in the report of the very commission he headed. How will ABC explain their statement that they have portrayed the “essence” of truth based on the 9/11 report even though the report contradicts several key postulations?
Unfortunately, the biggest question will forever go unanswered; knowing the extreme polarization of the American public, coupled with the knowledge that their collective mind is so susceptible to propaganda and innuendo, how much damage can six hours of lies and misrepresentations do to otherwise decent people?
Marc Platt, executive producer of the film said this, “(the film) does contain composite and blended scenes and representative characters and dialogue, and we’ve worked very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they’re wrongly portrayed, that’s obviously of concern. We’ve portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view.”
Say what? Then explain, Mr. Platt, what a conservative (Nowrasteh) is doing writing the script and skewing the facts into a very political point of view while distorting the very report you are avowing you used as the basis of the story. Better yet, explain how a number of conservative commentators (not liberals as we’ve discovered) including Rush Limbaugh, who claims to be a friend of Nowrasteh, received copies of the film.
I would be interested in knowing why Limbaugh said on his radio program that the film “indicts the Clinton administration, Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger. It is just devastating to the Clinton administration. It talks about how we had chances to capture bin Laden in specific detail.” I’m certain it wasn’t because good ol’ Rush was guessing as to the content of the film.
Scenes in the “fair and balanced, based on fact” movie contradict the very report purported to be the “essence” of the flick. Representatives of the outraged Clinton wrote to Iger that “no such damaging or eventually deleterious events (as were depicted in several scenes) ever happened. The 9/11 report gives credence to the denial of the scenes, finding that the Clinton administration gave its “blessings” for a CIA play to capture bin Laden.
As an ultimate disrespect to this entire affair, Ian Bishop, reporter for the New York Post and a nameless headline hack (if indeed the Post employs anyone to fill the position of headline writer) has the effrontery to refer to the former president of the United States as “Bubba.” Have some members of the press stooped so low they now resort to dissing presidents?
Getting back to Platt, one last comment strikes me as strange for a non-political motive. “In an undertaking this gargantuan (the miniseries cost over $40 million),” he said, “it’s impossible to interview every single person available, and we didn’t believe we needed to. Maybe I’m naïve in thinking that just hiring Kean (Republican head of the 9/11 commission) would not prompt criticism of a political slant.”
No, Mr. Platt, That’s not naiveté, it’s ignorance or partisanship. Wise up and clean up your act. There is a difference between facts and truth and too many of your facts are lies.
Print
Email
