'Path to 9/11' on BBC2

[TRUTH]

The Path to 9/11

Sun 10 Sep, 8:00 pm - 10:40 pm 160mins

Part One

Two-part drama based on the findings of the 9/11 commission into the events leading up to the attack on the World Trade Center.

On the 26th February 1993 a truck bomb exploded in the car park of the South Tower of the World Trade Center. The FBI, CIA and other US enforcement agencies began a hunt for the perpetrators which spanned continents and concluded in the identification of Osama Bin Laden as the main figure behind this and other attacks on US targets throughout the world. A plan is drafted to capture Bin Laden and bring him to justice. The consequences of its failure would be realised years later in an event that would shake the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listings/programmes.shtml?day=sunday&servi ce_id=4224&filename=20060910/20060910_2000_4224_59539_160

[TRUTH]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/programmes/?id=path_nine

[Mark Gobell]

In the context of the upcoming November midterm elections the propaganda machine is in full swing. The Path to 9/11 makes the claim that, er, it was all, erm, Clinton's fault.

Now where did I put my medication . . .

Controversy Over 9/11 Film Hits Press -- Here Is Sneak Preview

By E&P Staff

Published: September 05, 2006 12:20 AM ET updatted 2:30 AM ET

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_c ontent_id=1003087654

NEW YORK Just bubbling up from the blogs into the mainstream press – a New York Time article appears today -- is debate over the “The Path to 911” TV movie to be aired on ABC this coming Sept. 10 and 11. Liberal bloggers have said that it reportedly pins much of the blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on President Clinton, often citing as their sources conservatives who made this very point after attending screenings.

Meanwhile, at least two real life figures portrayed in the movie, Richard Clarke and Sandy Berger, have raised factual objections, and it appears that the script has mistaken the Washington Post and the Washington Times at one moment. ABC, and an adviser to the series – former Gov. Thomas Kean, co-chair of the 9/11 Commission — have said it is balanced and objective, and a docu-drama, not literal truth.

But few critics have actually seen the film. E&P obtained an advance review copy today, and we summarize the film below. It’s possible that some changes may have been, or will be, made in this cut.

The nearly four-and-a-half-hour film, based on a script by Cyrus Nowrasteh and directed by David Cunningham, stars Harvey Keitel. It is ambitious and striking in execution, often relying on handheld cameras, tight close-ups and creative visuals.

Most of the first half, to be aired Sunday, explores the terrorist threat starting with the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center, and there is little question that President Clinton is dealt with severely, almost mockingly, with the Lewinsky scandal closely tied to his failure to cripple al-Qaeda. It ends with a long segment on the day of the attacks and top officials' response -- though we only see President Bush in his speech to the nation, not in the Florida classroom with "The Pet Goat."

The attention on Clinton’s culpability arrives about halfway through Part I, following the successful prosecution of several men involved in the 1993 WTC bombing. Keitel, an FBI security expert and clearly a tough-guy hero in this story, mentions Osama bin Laden (or “the tall one”) for the first time. Richard Clarke, the White House terrorism expert and another sage in this story (he was an adviser to the film) agrees "we’re at war.”

After ABC airs an interview with bin Laden— the CIA didn’t know about it – O’Neill gets the okay to “snatch” bin Laden if he can, with a legal okay from the Justice Dept.

U.S. operatives hook up with Massoud, the anti-Taliban leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and he takes them to a village where bin Laden is staying. A 15-man attack team is formed. Meanwhile, back at CIA headquarters in Langley, the nervous Nellies – i.e. Sandy Berger, the Clinton national security adviser, and (off and on) CIA director George Tenet – raise questions, such as how to get money for this program, how covert should it be, aren’t women and children in the village at risk? Besides, Massoud is a drug dealer. A decision is put off.

Clarke, who is a sympathetic figure in Part I, explains to one of the planners afterward that “they are worried about political fallout.” The planner angrily declares, “they are looking to cover their asses,” as usual.

Someone then says that for this administration terrorism is seen as "a law and order problem.” Right away comes a quick cut to Clinton making his famous statement about not having sexual relations with Lewinsky. Clarke tells O’Neill that Clinton won’t give the order to get bin Laden in this climate, with Republicans calling for his impeachment.

O’Neill says: “It’s pathetic.” Clinton, he suggests, wants bin Laden dead -- but not if he has to order it.

Back in Afghanistan, the operatives plan for the snatch or kill job anyway, hoping for approval once it’s clear they have their man. One night, they call Langley—they are ready to get him. “Do we have clearance?” they ask. Berger says he doesn’t have authority, he would have to check, can’t be sure, etc.

A CIA official tells him the president has approved snatches in the past. Berger wonders about the quality of the intelligence. The CIA says it’s never 100%. With that, Berger punts and asks Tenet if HE wants to give the order. Tenet asks: Why does the buck always stop with me, like with the Waco disaster?

At that point, the phone signal dies from Afghanistan – or Berger hangs up, it’s hard to tell -- and the operatives abroad pack up and leave. Massoud asks if they are “all cowards in Washington.” Again there is an immediate cut to Clinton, parsing his sexual terms in his taped testimony on the Lewinsky case – and then a clip of him hugging Monica. (The New York Times story today -- see below-- notes that Clarke disputes much of the prevous scenario.)

A little later in teh film, the U.S. embassy in Nairobi is attacked, with many deaths. A CIA agent in tears yells at Tenet, saying he should have ordered the killing of bin Laden when they had chance. O’Neill to Clarke: “Clinton has to do SOMETHING.”

It’s now August 1998. In the White House Situation Room, Tenet and Clarke say we need to move on the Taliban, who are protecting bin Laden. A new character, Secretary of State Madeline Albright, says that is too “major” an operaton, “the president is not willing to go that far.” They should focus solely on bin Laden.

Finally Clinton acts. Told that bin Laden is meeting in an isolated location in Afghanistan on Aug. 20, 1998, Clinton orders attacks there, as well as taking out a chemical arms factory in the Sudan. But the chemical warehouse turns out to be a pharmaceutical plant, and bin Laden escapes from the other attacks, only raising his stature among his followers. A reporter notes that Republicans and “pundits” are accusing Clinton of acting only to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal.

An angry Massoud says that the attacks failed because the U.S. told Pakistan about them in advance. Tenet asks Albright about this and she confirms it, saying regional factors had to be considered. Berger pipes up, saying covert operations usually don’t work or backfire -- look at the Bay of Pigs. Now Tenet is steamed and he goes on a rant.

Cut to O’Neill at a bar, praising Tenet for showing “cojones.”

Part I ends with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad meeting with bin Laden in 1999 to discuss “the plane operation.” Later Mohammad is told that bin Laden approves, but feels 10 planes are too many – they won’t be able to find that many reliable hijackers. He is also told that the target is important, for they need to maximize casualties…..

PART II

Part II picks up with O’Neill learning of the bombing of the USS Cole in Oct, 2000. Again Clinton's crew gets hammered in this narrative. Clarke is shown advocating massive attacks on al-Qaeda camps but Albright and others say there's not enough proof that bin Laden was behind it -- and Clinton has priorities more urgent than a "rogue attack" on some "caves."

Much of the story then shifts to the plans and movements by the hijackers. We also see Clarke warning Secretary of State Rice of a "spike" in terror warnings but she assures him that the president is "on it." Later she tells Clarke that his terrorism job is being "redefined" and he objects.

O'Neill, meanwhile, is thinking about quitting because "despite the red flags no one is taking terrorism seriously." But the script focuses on the CIA and FBI not sharing information, the FBI not acting on warnings about flight schools, and other slip-ups -- not any lack of interest in the White House.

Tenet complains that there are so many threats coming they are "overloaded", they need more analysts and translators, and more "actionable" tips. O'Neill quits and becomes head of security at -- the World Trade Center. Along the way we get subtle endorsements for the Patriot Act and airport profiling.

But what about the famous August 6, 2001 "PDB" that warned the president about bin Laden's determination to strike within the U.S.? We see Secretary Rice reading it in private and looking concerned, but we never see the president's reaction.

However, on Sept. 4, 2001, Rice tells officials that thanks to the warnings in the PDB, the president is convinced al-Qaeda is a "real threat...the president is tired of swatting flies." She seems to advocate taking some strong action and Clarke agrees, but Tenet argues against it. So in this telling, it appears, throughout Part II, that President Bush is in the vigilant/aggressive camp, perhaps thwarted by Clinton holdover Tenet.

Finally we see how this plays out tragically on Sept. 11, 2001. Much attention is given to the decision to shoot down United flight 93, but the movie's time frame now badly needs fixing given the recent revelations about what officials knew about that flight and when. The president, in any case, seems firmly in control, appearing on TV to promise help and security for all, and declaring, "terrorism against our nation will not stand."

***

The New York Times story today notes ABC’s claims of objectivity but points out that “some critics — including Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar — questioned a scene that depicted several American military officers on the ground in Afghanistan. …In a posting on ThinkProgress.org, and in a phone interview, Mr. Clarke said no military personnel or C.I.A. agents were ever in position to capture Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan, nor did the leader of the Northern Alliance get that near to his camp.

“’It didn’t happen,’ Mr. Clarke said. ‘There were no troops in Afghanistan about to snatch bin Laden. There were no C.I.A. personnel about to snatch bin Laden. It’s utterly invented.’

“Mr. Clarke, an on-air consultant to ABC News, said he was particularly shocked by a scene in which it seemed Clinton officials simply hung up the phone on an agent awaiting orders in the field. ‘It’s 180 degrees from what happened,’ he said. ‘So, yeah, I think you would have to describe that as deeply flawed.’

“ABC responded Tuesday with a statement saying that the miniseries was ‘a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews.’”

Gov. Kean said the scene in Afghanistan and the attempt to get bin Laden “is a composite.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)

The New York Times article, not censored to UK readers is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06path.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slog in

[foliagecop]

So the programme won't be the "literal truth". But it sure as hell will be billed that way. Reality becomes a selection of "composite" scenes. But there probably won't be a disclaimer at the beginning to clarify that.

Sheeple believe in images. That's why they back away from subtitled movies. They want to be shown. And this docu-drama will show them all right. Show them they were right to believe what they've been told all along: that they have to stay scared, or the terrorists will win.

It must be so comforting walking around with Dubya yelling 'Boo!' in your ear 24/7.

[Mark Gobell]

Clinton Administration Officials Assail ABC's 'The Path to 9/11'

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 7, 2006; Page A09

Top officials of the Clinton administration have launched a preemptive strike against an ABC-TV "docudrama," slated to air Sunday and Monday, that they say includes made-up scenes depicting them as undermining attempts to kill Osama bin Laden.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006 090601819.html

[foliagecop]

I take back what I said in my previous post about them not issuing a disclaimer upfront. The article assures us that they will (although it remains to be seen).

Of course, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference, as millions of listeners who tuned in late to Welles' 'War Of the Worlds' on radio in the 1930s will tell you. If they were still alive, that is.

[Mark Gobell]

Following complaints, ABC tweaks its 9/11 mini-series

By Scott Collins
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published September 7, 2006


HOLLYWOOD -- ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is becoming a political cause celebre.

In recent days the network has made changes to the mini-series, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. A left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the mini-series, while conservative blogs have mounted a vigorous defense.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0609070170sep07,1,3 096246.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

I wonder if the UK version will contain the cuts ?

[HERA]

Lets make sure we allgo through the whole procedure

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

[Mark Gobell]

The ABC Corporation has decided to air a two-night docudrama, entitled "The Path to 911." For the uninformed, ABC is owned by Disney, who also refused to run Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 because it was critical of Bush, costing their stockholders over 200 million dollars.

The Height of Hubris for the Corporate Media and the GOP, Abusing the Collective Sadness and Pain of America

by Anthony Wade

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__060907_the_height_of_ hubris.htm

September 7, 2006

We are entering the stretch run for the most important mid-term elections in our lives. At stake America, is your very soul. At stake is the precious liberty that so many have fought and died for. At stake is our form of government. Currently, we are governed by a would-be-king. A man who brazenly admits to ignoring over 800 laws in this country. A man who thinks nothing of condoning torture, calling it a "necessary tool" in his never ending war on terror. Our would-be-king has consistently thumbed his nose at the American people. He has reinserted his destruction of the Social Security System, despite the protests of all of America. He has lied right to our faces about always using the FISA Court, until it was revealed that he actually was illegally wiretapping US citizens. What has he done since then? Has he recognized the error of his ways? No, he has gone after the whistleblowers who would dare question the almighty ruler of the "free" world. Why has our would-be-king been allowed to commit these and so many more egregious examples of totalitarianism? Because Congress has abdicated its duty to you, to him.

There has been no Congressional oversight and no checks and balances in this country for the past 5 years and it needs to stop this November. Make no mistake about it though, the ruling party will not go without a fight and that fight is expected to get real nasty, the closer we get to Election Day. We can expect new terror threats, bin Laden tapes, the capture of the number 2 guy in al Qaeda for the 7th time, and possibly even a new "attack". All will be designed to scare the public and get them to vote republican in the fall. Never mind that the GOP track record on terror has actually been abysmal. Never mind that terrorist attacks in which people have been killed or wounded have quadrupled since 2001. The GOP has not only drunk the George Bush Kool-Aid, they have received a transfusion of their blood with it. They have no singular accomplishments to run on. The economy is one housing bubble pop away from a deep, protracted recession. Foreclosures are the highest in history. Bankruptcy is harder to accomplish and millions less people are covered by health insurance. Millions more people are living in poverty and nearly all children are being left behind by a do-nothing Republican Party; or as I like to call them, The Rubber Stamp Gang. The first salvo in the GOP offensive is slated to be fired by the GOP media machine and it consists of the vilest form of revisionist history.

The ABC Corporation has decided to air a two-night docudrama, entitled "The Path to 911." For the uninformed, ABC is owned by Disney, who also refused to run Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 because it was critical of Bush, costing their stockholders over 200 million dollars. They claimed at the time that they did not want to appear partisan, even though at the same time, ABC was carrying Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on nearly all of their national radio stations. That hypocrisy aside, it is time to officially bury the right-wingnut fantasy talking point that the media has a liberal bias. This docudrama, officially confirms what we have all known for some time. The increased deregulation under George W. Bush has created a corporate media machine, wielded by the GOP when they wish to deceive the American people. This 911 docu-farce is the quintessential example of that.

For background of this piece of propaganda trash, we need to look no further than the author of the series. The writer of "The Path to 9/11" is an avowed conservative, Cyrus Nowrasteh. Last year, Mr. Nowrasteh spoke on a panel titled, "Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift." He has been quoted as describing Michael Moore as "an out of control socialist weasel," and conducted interviews with right-wing websites like FrontPageMag. Although he claims the Docu-lie-fest is an "objective" historical presentation, Nowrasteh also said it shows how Clinton had "frequent opportunities...in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks - but lacked the will to do so." He has referenced Clinton's "lack of response" to Al Qaeda "and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests." The purpose of The Path to 911 is to lay the blame for that sad day, at the feet of Bill Clinton, and to absolve George Bush. Never mind that Bush had nine months to listen to the warnings of the Clinton Administration, who kept trying to tell Bush that al Qaeda was the # threat to this country. Never mind that Bush ignored the security briefing entitled, "bin Laden determined to attack in the United States." Never mind that Bush was clearing brush for a month while al Qaeda drew up their plans. Never mind that Bush came into power with one goal on his mind, the removal of Sadaam Hussein and paid no attention to anything else. To hear Nowrasteh and ABC tell it, that is all understandable, because it was really all Bill Clinton's fault. Never mind that according to Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism in the period 1999-2001, "Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda" Never mind that Clinton tried to pass a 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the price tag for which stood at $1.097 billion, only to have the GOP whittle it down to next to nothing. Never mind that when Clinton tried to ban American companies from doing business with banks that laundered al Qaeda money, he was thwarted by the GOP, who referred to the measures as "totalitarian." Never mind that George Bush upon entering office immediately withdrew the US from a Clinton agreement where 20 nations had agreed to close tax havens used by al Qaeda. None of this matters in the world of fake news. Packaging what they want you to believe is all that matters, particularly two months out of an election.

It is not just the writer that is suspect; the "facts" in this docu-sleaze are also fabricated. Remember the goal is to lay blame for that horrific day at the feet of the democrats and to absolve the republicans, two months before a crucial election. In a key scene from the docu-pile-of-horse-manure, we see a CIA field operative radioing the White House to tell National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, that they have "Osama bin Laden within sight." The heroic CIA agent begs for the go-ahead to take out public enemy number one only to have his line go dead, not-so-subtly indicating that Berger was too panicked to give the order to take bin Laden out and hung up on the agent. One problem with this scene America. It is all fake. None of it even remotely happened. Richard Clarke, former Counterterrorism Czar under three presidents (two of which were republican) has stated that, "this depiction is "utterly invented" and "180 degrees from what happened." Clarke went on to say that there were no military or CIA personnel on the ground in Afghanistan that ever saw bin Laden. In fact, the CIA Director at the time actually recommended not engaging a strike because the Intel was single sourced and there were no guarantees bin Laden would even be there. The 911 Commission Report, which Nowrasteh claims was his inspiration, actually concluded, "President Clinton had given the green light to every "operation that had been cleared by the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden." This can lead us to only one conclusion. The writer is lying. He has fabricated the entire scene in the docu-dung to give the impression that Clinton passed on a golden opportunity to take out public enemy number one. Since he is lying, thus so is ABC.

That is not the only inaccuracy. At one point in the film, a CIA character complains that "ever since the Washington Post disclosed that we intercepted his calls, [Osama bin Laden] stopped using phones altogether." The only problem with this is that the 911 Commission actually concluded it was the decidedly conservative Washington Times that published the bin Laden phone story, not the more moderate Washington Post. Subtle? Maybe, but it speaks to the overall tone of this docu-hitpiece. Even the minor framing and backdrop, had to be phrased to slam democrats and protect republicans.

You want to know how biased this docu-fabrication is going to be, look no further than how ABC has handled the promotion of it. Advanced copies of this film have been provided to Rush Limbaugh, as well as right wing bloggers Patterico and Hugh Hewitt. This of course is to start the drum beat going throughout the GOP corporate media machine about the film and to play up the lies, as fact. Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright have also requested an advance copy and have been denied by ABC. When the public outcry reached the doors of ABC, their tepid response was that the film was a dramatization, not a documentary and that they would run a disclaimer saying it was not a documentary. As if lying is ok, as long as it is not a documentary. Do you want to know how sick ABC is in their pursuit of lies and ideology over truth? They have sent letters to 100,000 high school teachers urging them to explain to their students how they can watch the film! Indoctrinating the youth of this country to a "dramatization" that is riddled with outright lies designed to blame the only administration that paid any attention to al Qaeda prior to 911 and excuse the one administration that is most at fault for doing nothing but clearing brush while America's enemies plotted against her, is beyond irresponsible and despicable.

Remember America, there are reasons why everything happens. There are reasons why ABC is releasing this docu-garbage two months before the most important mid-term elections of our lives. They are banking on the perceived gullibility of the American people. They cannot escape two truths however. One is that this piece of trash represents the worst results of media consolidation we can imagine. A world where lies are packaged and sold to you and when it is pointed out that it is lies, the company shrugs it's collective shoulders and says, "so what, it is a dramatization." The second undeniable fact is that even if people buy the lies, the GOP has made us less safe over the past five years. The statistics do not lie.

Take the power back this November America. Return true Congressional oversight and checks and balances to our democracy. Send the message to our would-be-king that he does not have the right to torture people in your name, ignore over 800 laws and contribute to the lies that infest our society through Corporate Media. We can do better than a communist media structure in this country. Tell ABC in no uncertain terms that there is a price to pay for lying to the American people. It is time to boycott not only the advertisers, as Rob Kall has suggested, but ABC in general. Email them, fax them, and call them. Let them know that your American pride and overall sense of what is right is not for sale. The truth still matters in this country, even if ABC has forgotten it. Here is a link where you can add your name to the outraged in this country that feel playing politics with the memories of 911 is simply not tolerable:

http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc

Here is the link to the plea from Rob Kall to hit them where it hurts, their wallets:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_060906_boycott_advert isers_.htm


Awhile back the GOP whipped their base into a frenzy over another "dramatization", called The Reagans. They felt it inaccurately portrayed Ronald Reagan, their deified President. In this case, they are on the other side, defending a dramatization that deals with horrific events of 911, in a way that tramples the truth, denigrates the lives lost on that day, and cheapens our national discourse. They do so with a straight face America. It is what they stand for. They have no conscience about using the collective sadness and fear of a nation against themselves, using a Corporate media machine to feed you lies bundled up as "drama", in the hopes that you do not restore the democracy to this country in November. Show them that they are mistaken.



Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 39-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess. Anthony Wade?s Archive: http://www.opednews.com/archiveswadeanthony.htm Email Anthony: takebacktheus@gmail.com

[Reflecter]

Whats peoples opinions post part 1? They spent alot on doing that. It comes across more as a hollywood flick than a docu drama but I was pleased to see a 'fictionalised' disclaimer both before and afterwards. How long has that been in production and how long has it been public it was a project underway, does anyone know?

Regards

[suspecta]

I just saw Part 1. If you didn't know any of the background you'd see it as a gritty depiction of what happened, with Clinton was negligent and culpable. It's a spin operation, no doubt, full of lies throughout. The BBC are irresponsible showing it without showing a documentary stating a dissenting view of events. But 9-11 truth is only just beginning to hit the mainstream - perhaps a year from now things will be very different. Lets hope so, and that war with Iran with all its horrific implications hasn't kicked off by then.

Suspecta

[Mark Gobell]

Town link to controversial 9/11 film

By Emma Clark

http://www.stalbansobserver.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.930521.0. town_link_to_controversial_911_film.php

CONTROVERSY has erupted over a docu-drama about 9/11, broadcast by the BBC last week, linked to a fundamentalist evangelical organisation based in Harpenden.

The programme, which was radically edited before transmission, was directed by a member of Youth With A Mission, (YWAM) whose UK base is at Highfield Oval in Ambrose Lane.

David Cunningham, the director of the three-hour programme Path to 9/11, grew up within the organisation which according to its publications believes in demonic possession, spiritual healing and conservative sexual morality.

continued...
The programme was shown over two nights to mark the fifth anniversary of the attack on the twin towers on BBC 2, which was unaware of the religious links.

The US company which first bought the programme deleted sequences including an alleged plot to blame Bill Clinton for the triumph of Osama bin Laden, after complaints from the former president, before selling it on to the BBC.

Last month the director, whose father set up the organisation, discussed making the film at a conference, calling his speech Christ-like Witness in the Film Industry.

According to the Guardian, one of the group's publications states that David and his wife Judy were called to the Los Angeles communications industry to "create an independent film company whereby he could both influence the Hollywood film industry and produce major motion pictures that would carry a Biblical, values-based message".

Tamera Neely, YWAM site manager at Highfield Oval, said: "David was hired to direct the film, he wasn't involved in the writing of it.

"It's untrue to say we had anything to do with it, we are not a political organisation."

The BBC warned at the start of the programme that it was not a documentary and contained fictionalised scenes and has since stated that it does not vet film-makers on their political or religious beliefs.

[TonyGosling]

New bio reports [Hillary] Clinton told ABC to kill "Path to 9/11"

Carol Felsenthal is a Chicago-based journalist who first contacted me about three years ago, when she was working on a profile of Roger Ebert for Chicago magazine....
Felsenthal has a new book out this week May 6, Clinton in Exile: A President Out of the White House. I'm about halfway through, but I think that Felsenthal has set the bar high for subsequent biographers/apologists/attack dogs writing about the Clinton post-presidency.
http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/04/new-bubba-bio-s.html