« Selective Outrage | Main | Boston Globe finds another terrorist to whitewash »

Will ABC Broadcast "The Path to 9/11" or Will it Succumb to Democratic Pressure?

The pressure is really on ABC. Bill Clinton is boiling mad about the docudrama "The Path to 9/11" because it doesn't make him look very good, and he's demanding that the network pull the movie unless changes are made:

September 7, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.


Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

"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 four-page letter said.

The movie is set to air on Sunday and Monday nights. Monday is the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

Based on the 9/11 commission's report, the miniseries is also being provided to high schools as a teaching aid - although ABC admits key scenes are dramatizations.

The letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton's office, accuses the ABC drama of "bias" and a "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."

Clinton, whose aides first learned from a TV trailer about a week ago that the miniseries would slam his administration, was "surprised" and "incredulous" when told about the film's slant, sources said.

Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger also dashed off letters to Iger, accusing the network of lying in the miniseries and demanding changes.

ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan last night defended the miniseries as a "dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews."

"Many of the people who have expressed opinions about the film have yet to see it in its entirety or in its final broadcast form," he said. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast before forming their own opinion."

From what I understand, the movie portrays both the Clinton and the Bush Administrations as dropping the ball leading up to 9/11. Yet we don't hear anyone from the Bush Administration complaining, and they have the most to lose with midterm elections coming up. Instead, we hear yelps and howls of "it's not fair" coming from former Clinton administration officials.

So will ABC collapse under the weight of pressure from Bill Clinton and his cronies and make the changes they demand, or will the network demonstrate some backbone and show the movie as is?

Update: LGF points to the Democrats website which is pressuring ABC to censor the movie, even though they have not seen it yet.

If you would like to counter the Democrats' efforts to censor this movie, contact the network here.

Update II: Daniel Freedman at It Shines for All, the NY Sun blog, makes a great point:

Just imagine the "free speech" protests from the left if it was Republicans trying to force a studio to make changes.

Exactly. Free speech. It's just for Democrats.

Update III: I really like John Hawkins' line:

Having the Clinton Administration complain that they look bad in this mini-series is like a football team that lost a game 56-0 griping that the highlight reel on the news that night made them look bad.

Update IV: Brian at Iowa Voice has done a little research and found that the executive producer of "The Path to 9/11" has given money to a number of Democrats, including Bill Clinton. It's kind of hard to for Democrats to continue their "this is a conservative smear campaign" in light of this information. Hat tip: Sister Toldjah


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will ABC Broadcast "The Path to 9/11" or Will it Succumb to Democratic Pressure?:

» Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense linked with The 9/11 Commission Report and Those Pesky Facts

» The Random Yak linked with Busy Thursday Roundup

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Clinton officials rip 'Path to 9/11'

» Maggie's Farm linked with Thursday afternoon links: Guard dogs on duty

Comments (75)

They'll cave to the chronie... (Below threshold)
914:

They'll cave to the chronie's of course, after all, their on the same team.

I read the same thing, Kim.... (Below threshold)

I read the same thing, Kim. Sunday's episode highlights the Clintonistas screwups, but then Monday's points a finger at the Bushies. The fact that Bubba and his crew are going crazy about this is not something that makes a lot of sense to me. Drawing this much attention pretty much assures ABC won't kill the thing. They should have just shut up and taken their lumps.

"'The difference is, the st... (Below threshold)
the wolf:

"'The difference is, the stuff they show the Bush administration doing actually happened,' said Jay Carson, a spokesman for former President Clinton."

Oh, ok Jay. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Maybe It just needs to be f... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Maybe It just needs to be factually truthful. But the producer is, as I understand a good friend of Rush Limbaughs and the idea of a major network playing what could amount to a propaganda piece just prior to the elections should scare the hell out of any true American.

> Instead, we hear yelps an... (Below threshold)
trb:

> Instead, we hear yelps and howls of "it's not
> fair" coming from former Clinton administration
> officials.

I don't think they're yelling "it's not fair," I think they're yelling "It's not accurate," which are two wholly different complaints. If it's not accurate, they have every right and are, IMO, quite justified in complaining to the network, whether Bush's people complain or not.

If the spotlights on Bush are inaccurate, I would highlight those as well and complain just as loudly. I haven't read what they highlight during Bush's term, so I really can't comment on whether or not it's a case of accuracy.

--trb

But the producer is, as ... (Below threshold)
scsiwuzzy:

But the producer is, as I understand a good friend of Rush Limbaughs guilt by association, check.
and the idea of a major network playing what could amount to a propaganda piece just prior to the elections should scare the hell out of any true American.failure to sense irony, check.

If there's stuff that's sim... (Below threshold)

If there's stuff that's simply imagined as opposed to being based on fact or admitted actions, it needs to be fixed or pulled. To say otherwise is to be a hypocrite if you (not anyone in particular) opposed the Reagan tv movie. What's so incomprehensible about fact vs. fiction to network TV?

The Kos Kids are crying fro... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

The Kos Kids are crying from both sides of their mouths as usual: They're mad as heck that Bubba is shown to be soft on terror leading up to 9/11 by ABC while chanting the sound bite chorus that Bush is just trying to scare us. Terror is real or is it just Silly Puddy?

Now who's being the goose-s... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Now who's being the goose-stepping, repressive, freedom-of-speech killers.

Do you think that it is rig... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Do you think that it is right that the producer/writer of the “docudrama” is just making shit up regarding the 9/11 tragedy? ABC/Disney is promoting this piece of crap as a study tool for our children. They have a duty to portray the events accurately regardless of the administration.

muirgeo?... (Below threshold)

muirgeo?

Maybe It just needs to be factually truthful. But the producer is, as I understand a good friend of Rush Limbaughs and the idea of a major network playing what could amount to a propaganda piece just prior to the elections should scare the hell out of any true American.

Do you even realize, sentence by sentence, how spectacularly dumb that comment parses?

1)Factually truthful.
SEE:Rather "TANG report"; see also "Farenheit 911"

2)Limbuagh association.
SEE: as above, 'death by association.' As far as I've seen, Rush just admitted to meeting the guy and they happened to hit it off.

3)"Propaganda before an election."
SEE: Number One.

They're mad as heck that... (Below threshold)
Brian:

They're mad as heck that Bubba is shown to be soft on terror leading up to 9/11

While both administrations clearly did not do all they could, the truth is that Clinton did try to address the terror threat, but Republicans blocked him.

1)Factually truthful.<br... (Below threshold)
Brian:

1)Factually truthful.
SEE:Rather "TANG report"; see also "Farenheit 911"

So rather than counter inaccuracies with truth, you think it's appropriate to counter with more inaccuracies, just slanted the opposite way. Got it.

Bill Clinton is boiling ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Bill Clinton is boiling mad about the docudrama "The Path to 9/11" because it doesn't make him look very good
...
we hear yelps and howls of "it's not fair" coming from former Clinton administration officials

Regardless of whether you think the movie is inaccurate (although I've read of no one disputing that), Kim's statements above clearly are. The consistent call from critics has been "it's not accurate". You can respond to that if you want, or even insist that it is accurate, but it's cheap to lie about the very nature of the criticism.

There is a two part docudra... (Below threshold)
Monty:

There is a two part docudrama of the same name, starring Harvey Keitel, due to be broadcast on the BBC on Sunday and Monday. Is it the same thing?. If so, probably viewable extensively in the original form.

Do you even realize,... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:


Do you even realize, sentence by sentence, how spectacularly dumb that comment parses?
1)Factually truthful.
SEE:Rather "TANG report"; see also "Farenheit 911"

2)Limbuagh association.
SEE: as above, 'death by association.' As far as I've seen, Rush just admitted to meeting the guy and they happened to hit it off.

3)"Propaganda before an election."
SEE: Number One.

Posted by: [email protected]


[email protected],

1)
Did I say I agreed with Rather's report? Does Dan still have his job?

A independent movie and one made and broadcast on a Network channel are two different things

2) No only that Rush lies and the content of the program happened to have lies in it as well

3) Absolutely...not right coming from either side......just like Rovian push poll asking people if they would stil vote for John McCain if they knew he had an illigitamate black child...People behind this sort of slander should be in jail...Right?

So if critics are saying th... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

So if critics are saying the movie is "not accurate", does that also mean they also agree that the 9/11 Commission Report also contains many inaccuracies since the movie is based on the report? It would certainly suggest as much.

Brian,
No one blocked Richard Clarke and Clinton from launching cruise missles when they had OBL in the crosshairs after the embassy bombings. Perhaps Clarke was too worried about "wiley Osama" "boogeying to Baghdad".

Can anyone here tell me one... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Can anyone here tell me one action bush initiated to kill/find OBL prior to 9/11?

CBS yields on Reagan movie<... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

CBS yields on Reagan movie


By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

CBS will not broadcast a miniseries about the legacy of former President Ronald Reagan, conceding yesterday that the production "does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031105-122754-8502r.htm


So now Kim why should ABC air this????

Can anyone here tell me ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Can anyone here tell me one action bush initiated to kill/find OBL prior to 9/11?

Oh brother, here we go with the Aug. 6 memo again...

So now Kim why should AB... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

So now Kim why should ABC air this????

Because "The Path 9/11" is based on a non-partisan, historical document, not an unauthorized, poorly researched piece of Barbara Streistand-produced tripe.

Peter, this is not about th... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Peter, this is not about the PDB. I just want to know what steps Bush initiated to make us safe?

You can argue that Clinton was not aggressive enough in his hunt OBL, but you cannot deny that he had operations in place to capture or kill OBL right up to the end of his Presidency.

What did Bush do?

So if critics are saying... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So if critics are saying the movie is "not accurate", does that also mean they also agree that the 9/11 Commission Report also contains many inaccuracies since the movie is based on the report?

The argument is that the film is not based on the 9/11 Commission Report, or rather it changes a number of things in order to make the Clinton administration look worse.

See 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste and Bush II/Clinton counterterrorism official Roger Cressey on Scarborough detailing the inaccuracies, Editor and Publisher pointing out the filmmakers attack the Washington Post for reporting that we were listening to bin Laden's phones when it was actually the Washington Times, and the alleged inaccuracies go on and on. I haven't seen the film, so I don't know, but I have read the commission report and it will be interesting to compare the two. In any case don't you think the fact that ABC has given advance copies to a ton of right-wing bloggers but not a single left-wing blogger, and refused to even let Clinton look at it, makes it a little suspicious?

No one blocked Richard Clarke and Clinton from launching cruise missles when they had OBL in the crosshairs after the embassy bombings. Perhaps Clarke was too worried about "wiley Osama" "boogeying to Baghdad".

Do you actually believe Clarke was the one who got to make the call? Do you understand how our military works? Btw it was George "Slam Dunk" Tenet who made the call (Clinton authorized the strike, Tenet had operational authority). If you read the Commission report you would know that.

In any case the Clinton administration made a number of mistakes in counterterrorism, and the 9/11 Commission Report certainly had its criticisms for them, but it seems the filmmakers didn't think the truth was enough, they had to make shit up.

If it's non-factual and ABC... (Below threshold)
suh:

If it's non-factual and ABC is teaming with schools to use it to educate, then that is plain wrong. Righties and Lefties should be able to agree with that. In North Korea there are several museums that display how they dismantled the Yankee invasion and declared unquestionable victory. Now all the kids there believe it.

Brian,Okay, let's sa... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

Brian,
Okay, let's say Bubba was tough on terror (like his stain was tough on Monica's dress) and the Senate was at fault. That's a different debate. ABC says he's soft on terror in its latest spew but let's not forget Bush's puppet masters are trying to scare us. My point was that the Kos Kids are hypocrites. Stop twisting my point.

Awe shucks, it nice to see Bubba control free speech even though he's outta office! Censorship hard a work.

This isn't a free speech is... (Below threshold)
Robert:

This isn't a free speech issue.

If it was, Rather would still be reading the news on CBS.

Peter your post above is an... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Peter your post above is an out right lie.......

and regarding the post 2 up;

Can anyone here tell me one action bush initiated to kill/find OBL prior to 9/11?

Oh brother, here we go with the Aug. 6 memo again...

Posted by: Peter F.

Yeah there's that memo but I was thinking more of the Hart-Rudman Commission Report Bush deciced to ignore.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/

Commission warned Bush
But White House passed on recommendations by a bipartisan, Defense department-ordered commission on domestic terrorism.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jake Tapper

.... two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with something between frustration and regret about how White House officials failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year.
.
.
.
Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.

The Hart-Rudman Commission had specifically recommended that the issue of terrorism was such a threat it needed far more than FEMA's attention.

Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress seemed to be taking the commission's suggestions seriously, according to Hart and Rudman. "Frankly, the White House shut it down," Hart says. "The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this effort.' And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day."

"We predicted it," Hart says of Tuesday's horrific events. "We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote (from the commission's Phase One Report) from the fall of 1999."
.
.
.
The bipartisan 14-member panel was put together in 1998 by then-President Bill Clinton and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., to make sweeping strategic recommendations on how the United States could ensure its security in the 21st century.
.
.
.
But in May, Bush announced his plan almost as if the Hart-Rudman Commission never existed, as if it hadn't spent millions of dollars, "consulting with experts, visiting 25 countries worldwide, really deliberating long and hard," as Hart describes it. Bush said in a statement that "numerous federal departments and agencies have programs to deal with the consequences of a potential use of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon in the United States. But to maximize their effectiveness, these efforts need to be seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive." That, according to the president, should be done through FEMA, headed by Allbaugh, formerly Bush's gubernatorial chief of staff.

Bush also directed Cheney -- a man with a full plate, including supervision of the administration's energy plans and its dealings with Congress -- to supervise the development of a national counter-terrorism plan. Bush announced that Cheney and Allbaugh would review the issues and have recommendations for him by Oct. 1. The commission's report was seemingly put on the shelf.

muirgeo,You forgot... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

muirgeo,

You forgot the time line: Bubba had eight years, Bush II had months while settling into office. I suppose the red tape as it relates to time doesn't apply to this current Administration?

It doesn't matter if they a... (Below threshold)
bob:

It doesn't matter if they air this or not.

The Clinton haters will continue to hate Clinton.
The Clinton supporters will continue to support Clinton.
The Bush haters will continue to hate Bush.
The Bush supporters will continue to support Bush.

At this point, no minds are going to be changed by some "docu-drama" on ABC.

Just imagine the "free s... (Below threshold)

Just imagine the "free speech" protests from the left if it was Republicans trying to force a studio to make changes.

Oh, Republicans would never do that. Well, okay they haven't done it recently.

but it seems the filmmakers didn't think the truth was enough, they had to make shit up.

Hence the term, 'docudrama.' Its TELEVISION, not friggin rocket surgery.

The ONLY 9/11 documentary worth a shit was the one shot by the two brothers hanging out with FDNY. The clap trap hooey being spun all around this 'docudrama' is great press and free pr for ABC. Iger is laughing his ass right now.

If it wasn't for the Scholastic Inc. tie-in and the advance screenings, this whole episode wouldn't even hit the radar.

-GFO

@ bobAt this po... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

@ bob

At this point, no minds are going to be changed by some "docu-drama" on ABC.

I suppose Leni Riefenstahl and Michael Moore had little influence on public opinion with their films too. You couldn't be more wrong.

Not verified yet, but appar... (Below threshold)

Not verified yet, but apparently ABC will run this disclaimer throughout the broadcast:

"The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report and other published materials, and from personal interviews. The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression."

Iger loves you ALL. And Mickey says, "Hi!"

-GFO

“You forgot the time line: ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

“You forgot the time line: Bubba had eight years, Bush II had months..” Red Fog

I think you are the one does not know the time line!

The embassies were bombed on 8/7/98. On 8/20/98 Clinton signed an executive order that place economic sanctions on terrorist supporting nations, and approved the launch of cruise missile attacks on al Qeada camps.

In less than two weeks Clinton took action. In 11-months, Bush did nothing!

This is final proof that th... (Below threshold)
jp:

This is final proof that the Left in this country are a bunch of Totalitarian thugs that would rule with an Iron Fist IF they had the power.....thank God for our Founding Fathers and their brilliant system of govt.

DU and other lying leftist ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

DU and other lying leftist websites have asked for their bloggers to saturate the web with their point of view. Wizbang can be seen as an example of this tactic. An answer to those who would listen. Not the BS of the left. Clintons response to attack after attack by Bin Ladin and al Qaeda was to lob a few very expensive missles into foreign territory. All of these attacks on US interests and the US inself were acts of war. Facts are facts, Clinton did next to nothing. His little head was doing the thinking not the big one. Bill Clinton is a proven liar. Who gives a shit what he has to say. Does make you wonder what Sandy Berger stole and destroyed from the National Archives though. Sudan offered Bin Ladin on a silver platter. Clinton didn't take them up on it. Fact, thats it and thats all. There is always a price to pay for inaction in a war. We had eight years of inaction during the Clinton misadministration. We paid the price on 9/11. They started paying the price after that.

Peter your post above is... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Peter your post above is an out right lie.......

It would be nice if you could back up your sweeping generalization with some kind of actual proof of how I'm allegedly lying.

Secondly, WTF does that report—while certainly important n showing government ineptitude at large—have to do with pre-9/11 which your f-ing question in the first place!? I tell you. Nothing. Stick to the subject...

BarneyG2000:

...he had operations in place to capture or kill OBL right up to the end of his Presidency.

OK, again. They have him in the crosshairs, why not take the shot? (And believe me, Tenet is just as much to blame as Clarke is...) And he had even more reasons to launch an attack after the USS Cole was attacked in October 2000, but he did dick as you will no doubt recall.

In direct answer to your question, nothing. But that does ZIP to prove any sort of lame ass point you're attempting to make. Yes, OBL and AQ were not the priorities they should've been by BOTH parties, but predominantly by the Clinton Admininstation, a president I voted for twice. Did Bush f-up and not listen to Clarke? Yes.

And here's the big difference: 8 years, 4 separate and major attacks (WTC Bombing 1, Khobar Towers, African Embassy bombings and the USS Cole) to deal with OBL and AQ versus 8 months and no attacks. There's no comparison, and not some vaguely worded memo a month before the attacks will make that comparison go away, try as you might.

In the end, for all the goddamn blaming you liberals do about blaming Bush, it's about goddamn time you took some responsibilty for 9/11 and admit that you too f-ed up , too. Until you do, until YOU quit politisizing national secureity issues, you can forget about earning the respect and the votes of the folks in the middle of the country, the fence-sitters which you so desparately ignore.

@ BarneyG2000,Okay... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

@ BarneyG2000,

Okay, Bubba lofted some cruise missles and set up some sanctions for the U.N. to corrupt like Oil for Food .... soon after the attacks you sighted.

Bush II entered into a ground war that swept through the center of the Islamic world and set up camp to influence that goofy idea of democracy in the face of a brutal dictatorship assisting Islamic terror .... soon after 9/11 attacks.

I was in Nairobi when the Embassy blew, buddy. Don't tell me about your time lines. More importantly, consider whether Bubba's actions were effective against the threat of terror and you may start to understand.

BarneyG2000: Prior to 9-11 ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

BarneyG2000: Prior to 9-11 there was so many Clinton initiated laws to protect the terrorist, anyone remember the Gorlick wall?, that is was impossible for President Bush to go after even the terrorists in the U.S., much less Osama. It takes a lot longer than 8 months (actuall the left tries to stretch the time he was in office, it was less than 8 months) to change the laws to allow for the 'protection' of America. Planning for 9-11 is know to have started immediately after their success in attacking the WTC in 1993. This is facts provided by Osama on TV and viewed by the world. The democrats would like to forget what their friend Osama said after 9-11 but it is too well documented.
This isn't the first instance where the democrats have attempted to block free speach, remember the documentary by the swift boat vets. It was 100% true but the democrats succeeded in blocking most of it anyway.
Freedon of speach only applies when the democrats are lying like dogs, ref: MM the big fat ugly white guy. To the rest of the people in America their rant is shut up, we'll tell the story the way we (democrats/socialist/communist one and the same) want to tell the story.

mantis:You know as... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

mantis:

You know as well as I do that Clarke, especially Clarke, and Clinton could've easily overruled Tenet (a Clinton appointee) and taken action if they had chosen to do so.

In any case don't you think the fact that ABC has given advance copies to a ton of right-wing bloggers but not a single left-wing blogger, and refused to even let Clinton look at it, makes it a little suspicious?

Back that up, please.

Gee, Clinton, Albright and "Five-Fingered Discount" Berger don't want to be shown in a bad light? Heaven forbid...

Personally, I'd like Clinton to explain in his own form of doublespeak exactly how it is that the Lewinsky Scandal didn't divert his attention away from OBL. That would be a hoot....define "divert".

And if you haven't seen the movie, then how do you know for certain that they (producers) are making "shit up". You don't.

Red, Scrap and Peter, your ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Red, Scrap and Peter, your points are echoed by my favorite blog, blogsforbush.com. They point to this article from the Washington Post as proof that Clinton was too busy getting hummers to act against OBL.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62725-2001Dec18

Here are some of the money quotes:
“Finally, Tenet called back. The camp was not bin Laden's, he said. It was a falconing expedition of a wealthy sheik from the United Arab Emirates -- and bin Laden had never been part of it.”

“..the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden..”

“The Clinton .. ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan ...”

“Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden's organization..”

There is plenty more, so again, please name one action Bush initiated to kill or capture OBL?

"a top lawyer in Clinton's ... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

"a top lawyer in Clinton's office, accuses the ABC drama of "bias" and a "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."


HA HA HA! I just love it when lawyers cry.

The Democrat Party of Perpetual Fraud is accusing ABC of the very thing they do every day of the week.

Scrapie, do even know what ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Scrapie, do even know what the Gorlick wall is? Did you even bother to read the memo, or how it clarified the sharing of intelligence between foreign and domestic agencies?

If not, than shut up.

Of course ABC will cave. In... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

Of course ABC will cave. In fact the process has already begun, according to a 9/8 ABC statement. But, a great many people have seen the production, including folks like Rush. Making changes now because Clinton is screaming about an evil ABC propensity to actually tell the truth will backfire on ABC bigtime.

I usually try not to be mea... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

I usually try not to be mean here, but Barney, you're an idiot.

Trying to compare the actions of an acting President and one who was then governor of Texas and not authorized in any way shape or form to issue an attack against an enemy, is just feckless and plain stupid with a capital S.

So the Executive Producer i... (Below threshold)
JP:

So the Executive Producer is a big Democrat and gave money to Bill Clinton and several other Dems...the PRDOUCER!!!

libs are lemmings for Totalitarian thugs.

You know as well as I do... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You know as well as I do that Clarke, especially Clarke, and Clinton could've easily overruled Tenet (a Clinton appointee) and taken action if they had chosen to do so.

Well, Clinton could have, I guess, but he gave the authority to Tenet who thought it was a bad move. Clarke certainly could not have and you know it, or maybe you don't in which case you are woefully unprepared to discuss this. Why you believe that the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism could overrule the CIA Director in a CIA operation which he had operational authority over is beyond me.

Back that up, please.

Clinton, Albright, Berger all denied copies

As far as bloggers seeing it, Rush, Justin Levine at Patterico's blog, Hugh Hewitt (who claims hundreds have seen it), and others claim they have. I have not seen anyone on the left saying they've screened it, only lots of them complaining that ABC refuses to let them.

And if you haven't seen the movie, then how do you know for certain that they (producers) are making "shit up". You don't.

Interesting reading comprehension you have. Where did I say I was certain they made shit up? Oh wait, I said the opposite, but from what people are saying it seems like they made shit up. Apparently they have already admitted it is not a documentary and certain things were changed in the name of "dramatization", and ABC has been backing away from the claim that it is based entirely on the Commission report. I imagine you'll keep claiming that though, even without seeing it yourself.

Peter, what did bush do whi... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Peter, what did bush do while he was Prez? Is that clear enough for you?

Barney:Sigh. Then ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Barney:

Sigh. Then what was this for? Pipelines, I suppose...

Peter, thanks for pointing ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Peter, thanks for pointing out that bush can only react and cannot proactively protect us even when he is presented with evidence of grave and growing treats from know propagators of terror.

Why you believe that the... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Why you believe that the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism could overrule the CIA Director in a CIA operation which he had operational authority over is beyond me.

My apologies, that sentence was poorly structured. Obviously only Clinton could overrule Tenet, my mistake as I am fully aware of the proper decision makers and chain of command. But Tenet would never make the final call, Clinton would.

However, my point is that Clarke, if he felt as strongly about the OBL/AQ threat when he was Clinton's advisor as he said he was during his tenure under Bush, then by God he could have and should have persuaded Clinton that Tenet's view was wrong and to overrule him. Clarke either failed in doing so, never tried to or Clinton ignored Clarke and went with Tenet. Maybe Clarke sucks at the art of persuasion, maybe he was too chicken, maybe he didn't bring enough evidence to convince either man to attack. Who knows. The ONLY thing he was right about in the end was that "your government failed you". But he forgot to include himself in that statement.

Clinton, Albright, Berger all denied copies

So explain the following, according to the article you cited:

Clinton spokesman Jay Carson emailed us a statement questioning the film's depiction of Clinton's record and suggesting that it wasn't a "serious treatment" of the facts.

That's in the first paragraph. So one can safely assume that, well, hey, they DID see the movie. But later on...

Carson also confirmed for the record that the source who spoke to blogger Duncan Black earlier today was correct: Clinton's office, Carson told us, requested a copy of the tape, but it was denied. Carson also confirmed that Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger sent letters requesting copies, but they were denied, too.

1.) With no offense to our hosts, this blogger isn't exactly a credible and verifiable source.

2.) If they were "denied" a copy, then how can they comment on what they've been denied.

3.) So who gave them a copy? The Film Fairy? Was it on YouTube? How did they their hands on a copy? No explanation is given...

As for my reading comprehension...

I haven't seen the film...(later on)...but it seems the filmmakers didn't think the truth was enough, they had to make shit up."

Nice dodge with "seems"; however, it doesn't get you out of the preconception hole in which you've already buried yourself; meaning that something that might potentially not sit quite right with you or jibe with your take on events will seem like someone made that "shit up".

BTW: It's a "movie" where creative drama and license are often used to progress the story along as to not bore the audience to tears; not a crapumentary like "Fahrenheit 9/11" where the facts were skewed, distorted, misrepresented and lied about at will and presented as a factual documentary.

barnyg2000:Hey when ... (Below threshold)
moseby:

barnyg2000:
Hey when Bush does go after terror mongers like hussein in iraq you lefty cu*ts are all over him. Barney...you stink!!

So there is going to be a d... (Below threshold)
Rance:

So there is going to be a disclaimer that this is not a documentary, i.e. not news, but rather a dramatization, i.e. and entertainment show that contains "fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression."

Doesn't bother anybody that Disney/ABC is turning a national tragedy into a "Movie of the Week" on the eve of the anniversary?

Barney:Jesus H. Ch... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Barney:

Jesus H. Christmas, then what has all badgering and caterwauling over a preemptive war with Iraq????

Note to self: Do not engage in debates where the other person obviously has no friggin' point. It only frustrates you and gets your blood pressure up...

Doesn't bother anybody t... (Below threshold)

Doesn't bother anybody that Disney/ABC is turning a national tragedy into a "Movie of the Week" on the eve of the anniversary?

Posted by: Rance at September 7, 2006 04:11 PM

As long as it makes Clinton look bad, of course not.

-GFO

That's in the first para... (Below threshold)
mantis:

That's in the first paragraph. So one can safely assume that, well, hey, they DID see the movie. But later on...

Many people have seen the movie and several scenes have been described, especially concerning the attempts on bin Laden. They needn't have received a copy to assess whether those the scenes as described are an accurate portrayal of events.

Nice dodge with "seems"; however, it doesn't get you out of the preconception hole in which you've already buried yourself; meaning that something that might potentially not sit quite right with you or jibe with your take on events will seem like someone made that "shit up".

Not my take on events, the 9/11 Commission's. And the scenes as described don't jibe with their report. Like I said, I haven't seen the film, and those descriptions may be inaccurate. If they are, then the filmmakers made shit up.

BTW: It's a "movie" where creative drama and license are often used to progress the story along as to not bore the audience to tears; not a crapumentary like "Fahrenheit 9/11" where the facts were skewed, distorted, misrepresented and lied about at will and presented as a factual documentary.

I'm not the one coming in here claiming that the film is based on the 9/11 Commission Report, and if there are inaccuracies in the film then there are inaccuracies in the report. It apparently didn't dawn on you until later that the two might differ, though you chalk it up to "creative" reasons. From what I've heard, the filmmakers had to heighten the drama by having Sandy Berger hang up on CIA operatives on the ground ready to kill bin Laden. Was this for creative reasons, or a partisan move? I can guess what you believe.

From what I've heard, th... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

From what I've heard, the filmmakers had to heighten the drama by having Sandy Berger hang up on CIA operatives on the ground ready to kill bin Laden. Was this for creative reasons, or a partisan move? I can guess what you believe.

Again, it's a movie. If we don't know for certain HOW he hangs up the phone—maybe it's glumly or hangs his head or cries or happily shouts "woo-hoo"!—and we're just taking someone else's word for it then we really can't pass judgement on it.

If the disclaimer appears as they say it will appear—"based in part on..."—then any creative liscense or depiction of actual events may be dramatized. It would be up to the critics to disprove any disputed event.

"On Native Soul" took no such liberties as it was a documentary based on the 9/11 Report.

<a href="http://www.nytimes... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Hmmm.

Mr. Berger’s character is also seen abruptly hanging up during a conversation with a C.I.A. officer at a critical moment of a military operation. In an interview yesterday with KRLA-AM in Los Angeles, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the mini-series’ screenwriter and one of its producers, said that moment had been improvised.

“Sandy Berger did not slam down the phone,” Mr. Nowrasteh said. “That is not in the report. That was not scripted. But you know when you’re making a movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place. It’s the job of the filmmaker to say, ‘You know, maybe we can use that.’ ”

Can we pass judgement now? Oh wait:

The producers and writers of the movie have said the script was based not only on the commission report but also on two books — “The Cell,” by the former ABC newsman John Miller and Michael Stone, and “The Relentless Pursuit,” by Samuel M. Katz — as well as personal interviews. They also say the script was vetted by lawyers, terrorism experts and former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, the commission’s chairman, who is credited as a senior consultant to the mini-series.

So it's based on three sources plus "personal interviews" (with who?), and the screenplay was vetted. However, anything they wanted to improvise or change in the script during filming was not, presumably.

Strangely, a lot has changed about the description of this film in the past few days. It used to be based entirely on the 9/11 commission report, but now, not so much. The question here is why did ABC and the filmmakers purport to be making a strictly factual, entirely based on the commission report, documentary at first? And following that, why do so many on the right think it ridiculous for people, including those who are inaccurately portrayed, to object?

If the disclaimer appears as they say it will appear—"based in part on..."—then any creative liscense or depiction of actual events may be dramatized. It would be up to the critics to disprove any disputed event.

Indeed, but the disclaimer was apparently added due to the protests about the accuracy of the film, which ABC and the filmmakers had claimed was solid. I also see that Scholastic, Inc. has decided not to distribute the materials created for schools, but rather a new lesson emphasizing media literacy and critical thinking, something many commenters here lack.

So, let me get this straigh... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

So, let me get this straight: With the added and appropriate disclaimers in place, and with one, apparently scene "toned down", that anti-war leftists, Democrats, Clinton supporters and those suffering from BDS, are now happy that these changes have taken place? Or are they still PO'ed because they're finally—in some small way—being outed and held accountable for a moment in history for which they played a great, yet largely unpublisized role in?

My opinion: The chickens are coming home to roost.

So, let me get this stra... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So, let me get this straight: With the added and appropriate disclaimers in place, and with one, apparently scene "toned down", that anti-war leftists, Democrats, Clinton supporters and those suffering from BDS, are now happy that these changes have taken place?

I have no idea what all those people think, since I don't count myself in any of those categories. It does seem as though ABC has taken some of the criticism seriously, and is no longer claiming to be airing a documentary based entirely on the Commission Report. That seems pretty fair to me.

To tell you the truth I don't know why I've wasted so much time on this; I haven't watched the networks in years.

"Doesn't bother anybody tha... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"Doesn't bother anybody that Disney/ABC is turning a national tragedy into a "Movie of the Week" on the eve of the anniversary?

Posted by: Rance at September 7, 2006 04:11 PM

As long as it makes Clinton look bad, of course not.

-GFO

Posted by: GuyFromOhio at September 7, 2006 04:21 PM "

I guess Rance and GFO protested 'Fahrenheit911', too?

Oh, well. At least 'F911' wasn't censored by the Bush admin. I wonder why the Clinton admin thinks they should be allowed to censor 'The path to 9/11'. Don't the Dems believe in Free Speech?

Don't the Dems believe in F... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Don't the Dems believe in Free Speech?

Posted by: Les Nessman


Don't you believe in truth??

.....frustrates you and ge... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

.....frustrates you and gets your blood pressure up...

Posted by: Peter F

Sounds like somebody's doing a good job...exactly the way you should be frustrated and hypertensive (only mildly). I wouldn't want you put in danger simply over the stress of supporting an unsupportable position. Just a little uncomfortable is good though.

I wonder why the Clinton... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I wonder why the Clinton admin thinks they should be allowed to censor 'The path to 9/11'.

Well, the "Clinton admin" is no longer in power, so I don't think they believe they can censor anything. But why don't you look at the letter from Clinton's attorney to ABC requesting corrections and let us know where you find the censorship part? For that matter, tell us how sending a letter to a television network constitutes censorship.

Bush apologists only encour... (Below threshold)
grascarp:

Bush apologists only encourage this Administration to continue its unprecedented string of failures when they endorse the presentation of this 9/11 docudrama which is chock full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations of actual events. Denial of this President Bush's irresponsible attitude in dealing with Osama bin Laden before and after 9/11 and the fact that OBL is still free while 2,500 American service personnel have been lost in the Mess in Iraq is the act of cutting and running from the Truth. The Bush Administration ignored our country's safety before 9/11 and there is a hole in the ground in NYC to prove it. If Disney and ABC have an axe to grind with the Democratic Party, that is their business but they chose a sacrosanct subject to weave into a Right Wing fairytale to transfer blame away from those most responsible for letting the USA be attacked on 9/11.

Monty: There is... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Monty:

There is a two part docudrama of the same name, starring Harvey Keitel, due to be broadcast on the BBC on Sunday and Monday. Is it the same thing?. If so, probably viewable extensively in the original form.

Yes, Monty, it's the same film, and yes, will probably be viewable in the original form, and commercial-free (though, not BBC licence-free. ;))

Posted by: grascarp ... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:


Posted by: grascarp

"is chock full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations of actual events"


Have you seen it Stupid? NO! you haven't. You are a stupid ignorant cry baby. You are a liar just like your dirtbag Clinton failure. I laugh at your pathetic whining and attempts to continue pollishing that festering collection of fraudulent turds , aka the democrap party. You are a loser.

Kids, seriously, Kos is har... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Kids, seriously, Kos is hardly the Messiah and just because he tells his unwashed horde to go forth and spread ignorance does not mean they have to.

The embassies were bombed on 8/7/98. On 8/20/98 Clinton signed an executive order that place economic sanctions on terrorist supporting nations, and approved the launch of cruise missile attacks on al Qeada camps.

OBL was behind the killings in Somalia. 1994.

Behind the Khobar bombings in 1995 (which, mind you, Clinton had NO interest, whatsoever, in investigating).

So, it took him about 4 yrs to do anything.

Yeah, comparable timeline there.

So now Kim why should ABC air this????

Because it isn't a hatchet job.

We've SEEN "The Reagans" and, yes, it was a hatchet job.

You can argue that Clinton was not aggressive enough in his hunt OBL, but you cannot deny that he had operations in place to capture or kill OBL right up to the end of his Presidency.

Bush was in office for EIGHT MONTHS.

Clinton was in office for 6 YEARS before he did ANYTHING.

And what he did was laughable.

See 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste and Bush II/Clinton counterterrorism official Roger Cressey on Scarborough detailing the inaccuracies, Editor and Publisher pointing out the filmmakers attack the Washington Post for reporting that we were listening to bin Laden's phones when it was actually the Washington Times, and the alleged inaccuracies go on and on.

Hmm, 2 Clinton apologists and a guy who tries to change stories after he posted them to "correct" things are condemning this?

Yeah, that's an impressive lot.

If it wasn't for the Scholastic Inc. tie-in and the advance screenings, this whole episode wouldn't even hit the radar.

It's adorable that you believe that.

Scrapie, do even know what the Gorlick wall is? Did you even bother to read the memo, or how it clarified the sharing of intelligence between foreign and domestic agencies?

Having actually read it, it made the sharing near impossible.

Continue defending it, though.

Peter, thanks for pointing out that bush can only react and cannot proactively protect us even when he is presented with evidence of grave and growing treats from know propagators of terror.

He didn't wait 6 years after an attack to start anything, nor did he refuse to assist the FBI with investigating an attack killing Americans out of fear of gas prices going up.

If Disney and ABC have an axe to grind with the Democratic Party, that is their business but they chose a sacrosanct subject to weave into a Right Wing fairytale to transfer blame away from those most responsible for letting the USA be attacked on 9/11.

You finished your post without one factual comment made. It was a daunting challenge, but congrats.
-=Mike

STFU, muriego. If you even ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

STFU, muriego. If you even knew half of what you think you know, I'd address your lame-witted points.

grascarp,<br /... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

grascarp,

Were the stolen and then destroyed documents regarding 911 by covicted criminal Sandy Berger chock full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations of actual events?

You must know the answer to this question. Like the 9/11 docudrama , you haven't seen those either.

"when they endorse the presentation of this 9/11 docudrama"

Who is endorsing what?

"its unprecedented string of failures"


The MAJORITY of Americans are laughing at the MINORITY DEMOCRAT PARTY OF FAILURES for spending the last 6 years calling everything this Administration has done , a failure. Only todays MINORITY party of liars and frauds who are too chicken shit to anger those who have killed Americans for years would think there is such a thing as a "PERFECT WAR".

The true FAILURES are the Democrats. THE FACT THAT THEY ARE IN THE MINORITY IN THE HOUSE , SENATE AND EXECUTIVE IS UNDENIABLE PROOF OF WHO THE "REAL" FAILURES ARE. Oh how I would love to hear you disprove these facts.

If it wasn't for the ... (Below threshold)

If it wasn't for the Scholastic Inc. tie-in and the advance screenings, this whole episode wouldn't even hit the radar.

It's adorable that you believe that.

Thanks. I even had my nails done, see?

But Scholastic has since done the right thing and pulled back it's materials for review. ABC can do what it wants, NO ONE has the power to cut, edit or modify this film except ABC. So can the 'free speech' and 'censorship' crap - no jack-booted centurions are kicking in doors and impounding film reels, as much as that may disappoint some of the readership.

The best documentary is STILL the one by the two brothers hanging with FDNY. Screw this docudrama crap, go rent that instead.

Iger has to be creaming his silkies over the pr this has generated, and I mean that in a good way.

-GFO

James C,Thanks for y... (Below threshold)
Monty:

James C,
Thanks for your response.
This is in the BBC2 schedule for Sept 10 and 11. They must have had the footage for a while, and in its original un-censored form. What's more, they must have paid ABC for it. I reckon it will go to air (satellite and terrestrial)as planned and be all over the internet in no time.

NO ONE has the power to ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

NO ONE has the power to cut, edit or modify this film except ABC. So can the 'free speech' and 'censorship' crap - no jack-booted centurions are kicking in doors and impounding film reels, as much as that may disappoint some of the readership.

The leadership in the Senate has threatened to yank their broadcast license.

So, yes, a jackbooted centurion has threatned them.
-=Mike

OK, just ran outa time to s... (Below threshold)

OK, just ran outa time to speed scan all the comments.

BarneyG2000: "The embassies were bombed on 8/7/98. On 8/20/98 Clinton signed an executive order that place economic sanctions on terrorist supporting nations, and approved the launch of cruise missile attacks on al Qeada camps."

Sure enough.

And the WTC was bombed on February 26, 1993... and the Clinton administration got busy with...

Ruby Ridge
Waco (and white-washing-watering them both)
Elian Gonzalez
Swapping missle technology to Red China
and the beat goes on...

And dodging and covering for a philandering president's perjury, painting it as "all about sex" while looking for areas to distract the electorate that wouldn't accomplish anything substantive.

Lotsa sizzle, no steak out of the Clinton years, especially as concerning terrorism... and it turns out most of the sizzle was just musical flatus.

So, Bubba doesn't like it when folks criticize him? I'm not surprised. Let's see the movie (well, those of y'all who watch network tv) and then assess it. I have learned to trust not one single solitary word from the Perjuror-in-Chief and his minions.

And I still want to see what Sandy Berger sneaked out in his underwear. (Don't want to touch it, mind you, but see it, yes.)

Bush has his own problems, chief of which is being smart enough to find smart advisors but stupid enough to listen to them to the exclusion of a broader input (echo chambers do no one any good). Cronyism is a step beyond loyalty to supporters. A step way, way down. Second, and most damning, among his issues is that he's a liar. Not about the things the faux liberals accuse him of, though. But about The Bush Doctrine (if he genuinely serious about that, Saudi Arabia would feature a radioactive glass parking lot where Mecca now is) and about his claim to wanting to protect our borders. His lie about "no amnesty" still damns him in my eyes.

But those are the only two biggies I can really hang on Bush. Clinton? Feh. I'd not let that dog on my property if he came with candy and roses begging for just a moment of my time. *heh* I might send him to the trailer park trash that just moved in and are ruining the neighborhood, though. He'd fit right in.

hey republicans, remember t... (Below threshold)
lawrence orbach:

hey republicans, remember the reagan movie on cbs? of course not as it was never shown due to all the pressure put on the network from the right. the use of 9-11 as a tool to absolve this administration so close to a national election is not only tragic, but textbook fascism.

Watched the Docodrama "Path... (Below threshold)
skippy:

Watched the Docodrama "Path to 9/11" last night.
Good film.(They need to stop the camera shake though)
What a change from the lies of Michael Moores films!
The events portrayed are pretty much as I remember
them happening. The Clinton administration was incompetent and flawed from the beginning.
Clinton himself was a creep.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy