The Supreme Irony of Life...: More on ABC's 9/11 Fabrication

First, and good to hear. Harvey Keitel one of the stars of this "docudrama", comes out and says change it:

Keitel: Yea, I had questions about events–material I was given in the Path to 9/11 that I did raise questions about. Yes, I had some conflicts there.

Q: How was that met?

Keitel: With discussion..ummm with argument. When I received the script it said ABC history project –I took it to be exactly what they presented to me. History–and that facts were correct. It turned out not all the facts were correct and ABC set about trying to heal that problem..In some instances it was too late because we had begun.

Q: Do you feel that anything should be changed in this film?

Keitel: Yes I do. This is a tough issue.–(sure)

You can compile certain things as long as the truth remains the truth. You can’t put things together, compress them and then distort the reality.

Q:…in the case of September 11th though, do you feel that it is an absolute responsibility that it be factually accurate even if it is a dramatization?

Keitel: Absolutely, you cannot cross the line from a conflation of events to a distortion of the event. No. Where we have distorted something we have made a mistake-and that should be corrected. It can be corrected. It can be corrected by the people getting involved in the story that they are going to see.

Go Harvey.

Next, Think Progress finds that former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell is the Chairman of the Board for Disney. I am sure that if you contacted his office, and explained why ABC's shameful partisan games with 9/11 need to be stopped, he would appreciate it.

As always, be polite. As the saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar"

And lastly (for now anyways), Atrios points us to an excellent review, of a gawd-awful New York Times review of ABC's lies, from Roger Ailes:

Consider this passage from Stanley's review of ABC's "Pathological Lies About 9/11":
"'The Path to 9/11' is not a documentary, or even a docu-drama; it is a fictionalized account of what took place.
But if it's a fictionalized account, it's not about "what took place." It's an account of what didn't take place.

Go read the rest.

It's not that Ailes reveals anything new, it's just that Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times writes such crap as to be worthy of noting everywhere.

Any one claiming to be a journalist, who can state with a straight face, that a fabrication of actual events is "fictionalized account of what took place" is a true winner. She could have saved some column space by calling the movie for what it is: A lie.

And of course, no mention of the Clinton Administration would be complete if there wasn't the obligatory reference to Monical Lewinsky, and Alessandra Stanley doesn't let us down: