Speaker 1: This next story. I'm sure you've seen this, heard about it.
Speaker 1: This is a kind of thing infuriates me. And I
Speaker 1: have to tell you when I watched the Path to
Speaker 1: nine eleven. By the way, we're going back to audio
Speaker 1: soundbites three and uh and four next ed I just
Speaker 1: when I saw all of the hesitation and all the
Speaker 1: rules and all the regulations that prevented us from taking
Speaker 1: out Bin Laden or other terrorists, my blood boiled. And
Speaker 1: now there's their stories in the New York Post today
Speaker 1: Taliban and there's a picture of it. Taliban terror leaders
Speaker 1: who had gathered for a funeral, and we're secretly being
Speaker 1: watched by an eye in the sky. American drone dodged
Speaker 1: assassination because US rules of engagement bar attacks in cemeteries.
Speaker 1: According to a shocking report, US intelligence officers in Afghanistan
Speaker 1: are still fuming about the recent lost opportunity for an
Speaker 1: easy kill of Taliban han shows packed in tight formation
Speaker 1: for the burial. NBC News had the pictures. It looks
Speaker 1: like there might be a hundred ninety of them there.
Speaker 1: The unmanned drone circling undetected high overhead, fed a continuous
Speaker 1: satellite feed of the target to officers in the ground.
Speaker 1: We were so excited they came rushing in with the picture,
Speaker 1: one U S Army officer told NBC. But that excitement
Speaker 1: quickly got to turn to gut wrenching frustration because the
Speaker 1: rules of engagement on the ground in Afghanistan blocked the
Speaker 1: US from mounting a missile or bomb strike in a cemetery.
Speaker 1: According to the report, Pentagon officials declined comment. Referred to
Speaker 1: New York Post to Central Command officers in Afghanistan, who
Speaker 1: didn't respond to request for comment or explanation by by
Speaker 1: press time. Now, the Taliban bombs other Muslim funerals. The
Speaker 1: Taliban hides behind women and children, as does al Qaeda
Speaker 1: and all of these other terrorists. This is a new
Speaker 1: kind of war, and we're gonna have to rethink these rules.
Speaker 1: I know why we do it, folks, I know why
Speaker 1: we do what we do it to, uh maintain the
Speaker 1: United States dignity and and and so forth. I understand
Speaker 1: that blowing up cemeteries and this sort of thing. But man,
Speaker 1: when these people are we just we spell out hiding
Speaker 1: places for him, uh in the in the process. Let
Speaker 1: me go back. There's a couple more soundbites here on
Speaker 1: the Path to nine eleven UM, we have an unreal
Speaker 1: analysis here from a professor at the University of Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: his name is Michael Dellicapini, and being interviewed by PBS
Speaker 1: Course Moment Jeffrey Brown, who says, there have been reports
Speaker 1: in recent days about ties between the filmmakers the past
Speaker 1: to nine eleven and conservative causes our organizations. I wan quickly,
Speaker 1: and it's not quite clear what that means exactly, or
Speaker 1: what those ties would mean. But because it's been so
Speaker 1: much disgusting, what ways would that matter to you? Perhaps?
Speaker 1: In what ways wouldn't it matter to you? I think
Speaker 1: it matters a lot. And the ties are both with
Speaker 1: the direct and with the screenwriter, and they have to
Speaker 1: do with involvements with organizations that have as part of
Speaker 1: their mission bringing more conservative views into mainstream media. What
Speaker 1: the audience needs to know and what needs to be
Speaker 1: upfront with people as they view it, if they're going
Speaker 1: to watch it critically and understand what's being said to them,
Speaker 1: is that that's the case. I would put on the
Speaker 1: network a very strong obligation to let its audience know
Speaker 1: that they are getting a film that comes from a
Speaker 1: point of view, even if there is an effort to
Speaker 1: make that point of view more subtle. Stop stop that,
Speaker 1: Mr Mr Deli Carpini, Would you also agree that we
Speaker 1: need such disclaimers in front of practically ninety percent of
Speaker 1: the movies that come out of Hollywood, from the big
Speaker 1: screen and for television. What is this to say that
Speaker 1: there is an agenda behind movies? Is new and only
Speaker 1: conservatives are doing it and the public needs to be
Speaker 1: warned about this. And by the way, what is so
Speaker 1: threatening and what is so dangerous about conservatives in Hollywood
Speaker 1: attempting to produce and write and distribute product. Well, I'll
Speaker 1: tell you what's so threatening about it, folks, The same
Speaker 1: way this program threatens them. They used to have a
Speaker 1: monopoly and they're worried, sick they're going to lose it.
Speaker 1: This movie, The Path to nine eleven, was an earth
Speaker 1: chattering But what is no crime in being sorry this
Speaker 1: there is? Conservatism is criminal. They're attempting to criminalize conservative ideology.
Speaker 1: Here's the rest of the bite. We got one more
Speaker 1: from this guy, just as we would expect a news
Speaker 1: show to tell us where their information is coming from.
Speaker 1: Is there a bias? Is this an opinion hold? Hold
Speaker 1: hold it. When do we get that? When do we
Speaker 1: ever get a new show telling us of their bias
Speaker 1: and where a certain story came from? What is this
Speaker 1: guy is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Here's
Speaker 1: the rest active presentation of things. And then the next
Speaker 1: bite is this, uh, actually different, different, It's not the
Speaker 1: same guy that that again was a University of Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: professor Michael Dela Carpini. On MSNBC yesterday, the anchor Babe
Speaker 1: Melissa ray Burger talking to Democrats strategiist Flavia Colgan. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's Flavia. I don't know, I've never heard it pronounced,
Speaker 1: ray Burger says, after you saw the Path to nine level,
Speaker 1: are you upset ABC didn't pull it all together or
Speaker 1: did the edited version make a difference? Oh, absolutely not one.
Speaker 1: I think it undercuts the credibility of a film when
Speaker 1: you have it being released to Rush Limball beforehand, forty
Speaker 1: million dollars funding it. We don't know where it's coming from.
Speaker 1: Sandy Burger and Clinton were well um within their rights
Speaker 1: certainly to appeal to Tom Kine the forty million dollars
Speaker 1: and we don't know where it came from. How about ABC.
Speaker 1: It's an ABC movie. Flavia Flavia Touchstone put it out.
Speaker 1: I do who have the DVDs? It's imitates him so much.
Speaker 1: They can't they can't get over this. They're beside themselves
Speaker 1: with the fact that I got the DVDs. But I
Speaker 1: wasn't the first Flavia Flavia. How many times have I
Speaker 1: got to say this? This movie was screening the National
Speaker 1: Press Club and half the audience was Democrats, including Richard
Speaker 1: ben ven East and some people from the nine eleven Commission.
Speaker 1: I was not first on the list. I had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with writing this thing. I didn't even talk
Speaker 1: to Cyrus nor Rasta in the process. All I knew
Speaker 1: was some years ago he was working on it. But frankly,
Speaker 1: when he told me about it, it went in one
Speaker 1: ear and out the other, because I figured this thing.
Speaker 1: Don't have a prayer, but go for it, Cyrus. I
Speaker 1: didn't even get all the details. I had no clue
Speaker 1: what this thing was gonna be before I. They think
Speaker 1: I wrote it. They think they told I guided Cyrus
Speaker 1: and what Cyrus and his people. This is an ABC project, folks,
Speaker 1: This is an ABC project. And I'll bet you before
Speaker 1: all this hubbub came up. This thing was so good.
Speaker 1: I will bet you ABC I thought it was one
Speaker 1: of the greatest things they'd ever produced internally, this University
Speaker 1: of Pennsylvania professor. For just a second, Michael Delhi Carpini
Speaker 1: PBS News or with Jim Alara being asked about the
Speaker 1: movie Path to nine eleven and uh, I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: listen the whole thing stand by ed for when I
Speaker 1: tell you to kill it. I think it matters a lot.
Speaker 1: And the ties are both with the director and with
Speaker 1: the screenwriter, and they have to do with involvements with
Speaker 1: organizations that have, as part of their mission bringing more
Speaker 1: conservative views into mainstream media. What the audience needs to
Speaker 1: know and what needs to be upfront with people as
Speaker 1: they view it. If they're going to watch it critically
Speaker 1: and understand what's being said to them, is that that's
Speaker 1: the case. I would put on the network a very
Speaker 1: strong obligation to let its audience know that they are
Speaker 1: getting a film that comes from a point of view.
Speaker 1: Stop the alright, are Mr Della Carpini. Let's say I
Speaker 1: were to take your suggestion to something useful and valuable.
Speaker 1: I would then say this to PBS and the News
Speaker 1: are with Jim Larra, and next time you have University
Speaker 1: of Pennsylvania professor Michael Della carpinion, Inform your viewers he
Speaker 1: has a point of view. Inform your viewers where he
Speaker 1: comes from. Inform your viewers whether he's a liberal criticizing
Speaker 1: what he thinks, he is a conspiratorial conservative movie. I mean,
Speaker 1: if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
Speaker 1: If conservatives in Holly would have to identify their work,
Speaker 1: we're conservatives, and this has a conservative slant that I
Speaker 1: think every liberal ought to be forced to do the
Speaker 1: same thing. People, you know that all these professors and
Speaker 1: all these elite is the smartest people in the world
Speaker 1: cut above, and they're not. They're so easily refutable that
Speaker 1: it's it's refutable for those of you in real inda
Speaker 1: that it's hardly worth the time. I want to go
Speaker 1: back and correct something folks. I said a moment ago
Speaker 1: that these libs think that I co wrote the Path
Speaker 1: to nine eleven because I'm a friend of the writer
Speaker 1: Cyrus No Resta, and they think and they aren't there
Speaker 1: trying to say that the released the Limball first Limball,
Speaker 1: and trying to imply Limball was in on it. Here's
Speaker 1: the bottom line. They know I had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with this. They know full well I had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with any aspect of this movie. This is just
Speaker 1: the way they do things, typical smear tactics. I'm bad, Cyrus,
Speaker 1: No rest is bad. That equals the movie is bad.
Speaker 1: They do it to people. They do it to people
Speaker 1: like me and Cheney and Bush and Rovan Rumsfeld. They
Speaker 1: do it to companies ex On, Walmart, Halliburton. They do
Speaker 1: it to objects, guns, cigarettes, and cvs, SUVs. All they
Speaker 1: do is smear things and smear people. They produce nothing.
Speaker 1: Liberals produce nothing, They accomplish nothing, They're responsible for nothing.
Speaker 1: So they seek and destroy because that's the only way
Speaker 1: they can deal with their opponents is to discredit them.