**************************

Dear Mr. Iger,

I am, to put it politely, disturbed that Disney has decided to release a movie that distorts and in places outright fabricates what happened during the period leading up to the terrible attacks on the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/2001.

This movie is “Path to 9/11″, and I understand that this movie essentially puts the blame for the attacks onto former President Clinton and members of his administration.

I have read a letter on the internet by Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, where she says the movie “depicts scenes that never happened, events that never took place, decisions that were never made and conversations that never occurred; it asserts as fact things that are not fact.” Her letter is on the internet here http://websrvr80il.audiovideow…..6/albright letter.doc

I understand Roy Disney once said this:

“The Walt Disney Company is more than just a business. It is an authentic American icon — which is to say that over the years it has come to stand for something real and meaningful and worthwhile to millions of people of all ages and backgrounds around the world.”

So I believed too. Until now.

This movie is nothing more than political propaganda, and more worrisome it’s an attempt to rewrite history, with an eye for a politically-timed release date of just before mid-term elections.

I am angered that distortions of history are being promoted by Disney, for obviously political reasons. I am disturbed that this revisionist piece will shown in schools, to young people most vulnerable to deception.

Mr. Iger, why on earth is Disney doing this? Lying about 9/11 is not acceptable, and it is even more reprehensible when it appears to have been done for political reasons. Why is Disney so willing to lie about history? Excuse me, sir, but lying is not something that an authentic American icon does.

I have a two-year-old daughter, and I am determined that Disney will have no place in our household if this what Disney becomes — a political shill for the purposes of confusing and misleading people about their own history. I want my daughter to grow up with the truth, however unpleasant. I want her, at her vulnerable age, to be exposed to truthfulness, not subtle propaganda promoted as a true story.

Please refrain from releasing this movie. It will insidiously undermine both the facts necessary to have an effective democracy, and Disney’s reputation and special position that it stands for something real, meaningful and worthwhile.

Prof @ 90

Berger and Albright are public figures, and will likely have a difficult time even getting a libel suit to a jury. The relevant law stems from New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964):

Conclusion
The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan’s case collapsed.

So any judgment would turn on whether the court accepts the 9-11 Commission report at factual, and whether the producers “recklessly disregarded” its findings. Another option, in the case of Berger and Allbright, would be an argument that failure to even try to contact them to determine their roles would be reckless. The distribution of rough cuts to only rightwing talkers (and refusal to let the figures depicted see the same) would tend to bolster any claims of malice, IMHO, in that it goes toward proving motive and malice.

It’s a tough sell, but not out of the question at all, IMHO. Not a lawyer, just a juror . . . but that’s how I see it.

Actually I wonder why Democrats don’t do this more often.
John and Mo Dean won a lawsuit against St. Martin’s Press for Silent Coup under the Sullivan rule. JD describes the process in the preface to Conservatives Without Conscience. Bruce Lindsey’s letter resembles in tone what Dean wrote to Time and St. Martin’s Press pre-publication. The polite warnings and requests for specific corrections put the publisher on notice and thus help show recklessness later on.

Sullivan protects political criticism by requiring a court to separate reputational damaage from attacks on government agencies and policies. Sullivan was not even named in the civil rights ad he sued on. Here, names are named. And the damage is personal. The public figures have reputational interests as consultants, writers, and the like. In a way the Republicans have increased the impact by vilifying appeasers and the crime-fighting model.

One question I’m weighing: in dollar terms, does Disney gain more from Bush in mergers and internet and other telecom gains by going ahead than it risks on libel damages to potential plaintiffs? Jiminy Cricket is neither on the Disney board nor a paid consultant.

Hello there, fellow Arizona resident! So you’re in Maricopa County too?

I would take with a huge grain of salt the indications that Independents are the largest group of new voters among new voters. Why?

Here’s our story — we’ve been AZ residents for a good many years now. When we first arrived we registered to vote as Democrats. We voted as registered Democrats for a good many years.

Then we bought a house, and went to MVD to change our driver’s licences and fill out a new voter registration. We VERY CAREFULLY marked “Democratic Party” as our affiliation on the form.

Imagine our surprise when our registration cards arrived in the mail marked “PND” — “Party Not Designated.”

The Sec’y of State for AZ is a Republican, as is the Board of Elections Supervisor for Maricopa County.

They have LOTS of tricks up their sleeve. By misstating how many Democrats there are, they make it look like the Party is not growing here by leaps and bounds, which IMO it is indeed doing.

I love the letters they right write…long winded and stalinistic…rageful and hurtful.

Everything you’d expect from the blurry left.

Ted who? Bundy?

Why don’t they just pull the program and show Farenheit 9/11 in stead?

Sounds good to me, at least it is
real!!!

you can thumbs down or downrate all the ABC shows on your guide – these ratings are gathered minute by minute…

Just go into each program info screen and select thumbs down – mine allows three negative ratings.

It’s kinda fun. If they pull the 9/11 program I will release their channel ratings on my DVR by uprating them. For now they are hostage.

Apparently this does affect their anticipated ratings and revenue stream. Go to it!