From the Chicago Tribune:
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.
[snip]
ABC toned down a scene that involved Clinton’s national security adviser, Samuel “Sandy” Berger, declining to give the order to kill bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified. “That sequence has been the focus of attention,” the source said.
The network also decided that the credits would say the film is based “in part” on the 9/11 panel report, rather than “based on” the report, as the producers originally intended.
More from the Ostroy Report:
The Ostroy Report has learned from a reliable source connected to ABC that an unnamed ABC executive said that former President Bill Clinton called Disney President and CEO Robert Iger this week to voice his anger and frustration over the network’s plan to air a six-hour movie, “The Path to 9/11,” on Sunday and Monday, and that Iger agreed to make certain changes requested by Clinton. According to this ABC source, the film is currently being edited. In seeking confirmation, our call to Iger’s office went straight into voicemail. We will update our story if and when we hear from a Disney official. Disney is the parent company of ABC.
ABC succumbs to the pressure and bows at the altar of Clinton.
Update: Dan Riehl links to another report confirming ABC made changes to the movie under pressure from Bill Clinton.
Hat tip: Allahpundit and Kirsten Powers
Shame on ABC if this really happens.
Hundreds of people saw the original screening and will be able to outline the changes. I wonder if anyone has the original DVD so the changes DEMANDED by Willie Clinton can be displayed on YouTube so the entire world will know.
… toned down
Excuse me, but I work in film all the time and I have no idea WTF “toned done” means. Is the scene completely gone? (That brings up a thought. Let’s quickly review: Berger steals potentually damning files just prior to his testimony before the 9/11 commission and now, apparently, this key scene of him calling off the attack is going to be “toned down”. I’m not one for conspiracies, but… somebody’s protecting somebody here.)
The fact that this movie (key word there) is not a blow-by-blow recount of the The Report should come as no surprise to no one. If it were a blow-by-blow account, it would appear on the History Channel or on Court TV as “On Native Soil” did. But ABC is airing a movie, not a documentary.
To put the disclaimer of “based in part” is fine. How about revising to “largely basead on…” I’d prefer that.
Ah, if only getting Micheal Moore to see “reason” had been this easy. I guess it goes to show “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know”
Hey! If sandy berger says he didn’t say all that stuff he didn’t, right? I mean…just because he got caught stealing top secret documents doesn’t mean he’s a liar as well as a thief…does it?
Why do you object to ABC correcting technical inaccuracies that are brought to their attention? Are you so vindictive that you would insist on airing scenes, even after they’re revealed to be inaccurate? The Right successfully lobbied CBS to kill the entire Reagan movie altogether, and you’re upset because the Left successfully lobbied ABC to improve the accuracy of a single scene?
I have no problem with the move… For starters it helps pull the rug out from under those that were using the scene as the primary foothold for trying to “spike” the whole film. Fine, the scene has been modified… now, let ‘er rip!!!
the only people claiming the scenes are inaccurate are those with something to lose by them. Michael Schuer wrote to Newsbusters about this scene, its pretty interesting and he’s hardly pro-bush.
they did not Kill the Reagan miniseries they moved it to Showtime….and in that case it was a complete fabrication of historical fact and done not long after the man died.
Killed the Reagan movie?
Wrongo…It was played exactly as it was filmed, by Viacom’s cable network.
The Left needed to keep Bubba’s false legacy alive, and this scene would’ve done damage.
Funny thing is, the Clintonistas’ use of pure political muscle to interfere with freedom of speech exposes them as pure hypocrites. ‘Fake but Accurate’ was fine and dandy by them when it came to Bush.
the only people claiming the scenes are inaccurate are those with something to lose by them.
Well of course. The ones who benefit from the inaccuracies apparently don’t have the integrity to stand up and admit it. However, there’s no debate that the scenes called inaccurate are based on public historical record that you or anyone else is free to review. So the fact that those harmed by the lies are the ones pointing it out doesn’t change the fact that they are lies.
it exposes them as Totalitarian in nature as history has showed Leftist to be over and over throughout history. This is explained in detail in the “Road to Serfdom” by FA Hayek
yes, its historical record that Clinton had 2 opportunties to get Bin Laden and didn’t do to political fallout and fear of collateral damage. How do you suppose you go about dramatizing this?
I don’t know about you guys, but I can’t wait for the next Dick Morris Column. I’ve heard him talk about this multiple times, the failure to get bin laden and multiple chances to do so
How long before one of the media copies hits You Tube? My guess is as soon as the film airs and the discrepancies are found, the original will surface, with the encryption finger prints removed.
From the 1993 bombing on, al Qaida was involved in killing Americans. All the while, the Monica played on. The 9/11 Omission knew all about it and decided to take a pass, obviously the Clinton censors on the 9/11 Omission panel censored it. This is probably what went into Sandy Burglar’s pants.
There is a tape of Clinton admitting in public he was offered bin Laden and turned it down. I am sure it will show up soon.
I would just appreciate it, if the Clinton people, and the Bush people for that matter, put thier holier than thou attitude aside, and tell us the truth and nothing but the truth about the events prior to 9/11, and quit worrying about how they are going to look. They keep being evassive about things they’ve done, while we have real American hero’s who are losing more than thier reputations for thier belief in our country. The politians have to stand up like these kids and do what’s right for us. Honor the 3000 Americans who died on 9/11 by helping us get to the bottom of this.
Bush should come out and say, it was’nt Clinton’s fault, or his people, it was the way the country looked at things then. Let’s learn how to stop this from happening rather then assigning blame.
There is a tape of Clinton admitting in public he was offered bin Laden and turned it down. I am sure it will show up soon.
—-
I’m waiting for that to listen to again as much as the Morris column on this mess
“its historical record that Clinton had 2 opportunties to get Bin Laden and didn’t do to political fallout and fear of collateral damage.” jp
Can you prove this?
Bush is portrayed badly in this film also, you don’t see them abusing their power and censoring this movie that is by all accounts the movie of record on the subject. this is very telling, just like they didn’t silence Fahrenhyte 9/11 while the left tried to silence the swift boat doc. on Sinclair.
Who are the real defenders of the 1st amendment?
here is an old column by Dick Morris about atleast 3 failed attempts to get OBL by Clinton…
——–
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15770
And we need to understand who is to blame for failing to get bin Laden — for America blew at least three opportunities during the 1990s, when he was there for all to see in Afghanistan. And the reasons why we failed don’t speak well of a potential Kerry administration.
Our first shot at bin Laden came in Feb. 13, 1998, when President Bill Clinton’s aides scuttled a CIA plot that had been eight months in the planning to kidnap Osama, using local Afghan tribesmen and to ferry him to the United States to stand trial. Why did they torpedo the mission? Because they worried that bin Laden might be killed!
To quote the 9/11 Commission report: They worried that “the purpose . . . of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation — and probably recriminations — in the event that bin Laden, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive.” The kidnapping was blocked because the Clinton people worried that it might be perceived as “an assassination.”
The second chance came when we actually did launch cruise missiles to kill bin Laden on Aug. 20, 1998. (Apparently, if he died in an air strike that would not be an assassination). Clinton ordered the hit, but instructed that the Pakistani Army Chief of Staff be briefed right before the missiles overflew his air space so he would not think them to be Indian and order retaliation. Word leaked from Pakistan to bin Laden, who escaped right before the missiles hit.
The final missed opportunity came in May, 1999 when the CIA reported that bin Laden would be in Kandahar, Afghanistan for five days. The 9/11 Commission reported: “If this intelligence was not ‘actionable,’ working-level officials said at the time and today, it was hard for them to imagine how any intelligence . . . could meet that standard.”
One senior official told the commission, “It was in our strike zone . . . a fat pitch . . . a home run.” But still Clinton’s folks — the same guys on whom Kerry would rely if elected — said no. Why? Because we had just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake and they were worried about being accused of being trigger happy. (Officials were also worried that Republicans would echo the charges they made — totally irresponsibly and inaccurately — about the August 1998 strike and say Clinton was “wagging the dog.”)
When one contemplates who would wage the more determined War on Terror, we must remember the tentative and hesitant way the Clinton people waged it — always bowing to global public opinion and political concerns rather than taking forthright and bold action.
Under Bush, bin Laden has been reduced to sending in impotent tapes and wild threats. Under Kerry, the same geniuses that let him escape three times will be back in charge running things.
So please tell me how you would dramatize those 3 chances to get the point accross?
its like the silent farter, “the dog that barks first is the guilty dog”
and the left is barking alot…..anyone else smell it? smells like tofu farts
Rush has seen it and may have it in the original.
It would be poetic justice if nobody watched the movie. ABC would be out millions of dollars and the public would have put across a message of: Don’t piss down my back and tell me its’ raining.
I hope Hillary and Bill lose a lot of their luster because of this hypocritical BS and that the liberals take in the shorts for trying to hide what everybody knows- Clinton is a putz.
Chuck
Hannity played the damning Clinton audio on his show today. Pretty damaging.
“Hooker” Dick “the John”? Use Morris as a source for anything? He’d sell his soul for a bag of peanuts.
The 1998 and 1999 plots were called off by Tenet and not Clinton. The CIA field officer gave the ’98 plot a 40% chance of success. Tenet said that the ’99 plot had a 50% chance of success. In both cases Tenet thought the sources of the intelligence was suspect.
Under Bush:
-He doesn’t think about OBL so much
-Disbanded the CIA unit tracking OBL
-Allows Pakistan to create an officially sanctioned safe haven for al Qeada and OBL
The changes were probably made on the advice of attorneys and insurance companies. Burglar probably said, “I didn’t say X. If you now include X in the script it will be construed as malice and I will sue for defamation, slander, etc.” He would have a pretty good suit, limited to did he or did he not say X. I would not be surprixed if he signed an agreement not to sue in exchange for the deletion.
But now there is a sanitized version, with even more free publicity to which he cannot object that will be broadcast on Sunday and Monday to even bigger audiences.
And there will be a bigger market for the Director’s Cut DVD with alternate insertions of censored materials.
More stupid PR by the Clintonistas.
Cum on people!! Bubba was TOO BUSY to be worried about US security and terrorism!! Rollin pudgy little interns in flour takes time.
but you guys would use Clinton the rapist as a source…
more proof from the 9/11 Commission report on why this is not an inaccurate scene
http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2006/09/07/the-cover-up-continues/
Accordng to the 9/11 Commission’s Report, Berger was involved in at least 4 occurences of “failing to support” such requests
You can listen to Clinton admitting that he was offered bin Laden and turned the offer down here.
I believe ‘the tape’ being referred to is this:
http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3
It helps when people link the actual clip instead of talking about it. Judge for yourself if it’s damaging. I don’t think it’s that horrible. I’ve heard him say worse….
Hannity played the damning Clinton audio on his show today. Pretty damaging.
Posted by: nikkolai
Yeah damaging but not true….ya idjit! “Oh I heard it on Sean Hannity so it must be true”….fricking tool. LOL
If it’s indeed true ABC succumbed to pressure, there’s no doubt it’ll be a minor scandal.
However, I think the Clintonistas are going to get their asses bit really hard with all the protesting.
1) Regardless of how ABC edits it in the final form, the important conclucsion will be that Clinton had since 1993 to try to do something about OBL. Yet, despite all the 20/20 hindsight wisdom about terrorism being Job #1, viewers will not be able to escape the fact that the entire first night will be spent on years of missed opportunities by the Clinton administration.
This will serve to counteract the prevailing urban myth that Bin Laden came out of nowhere because of Bush policies. There is no way the Clintonistas will be able to bury that, and people will start asking, “Gee, exactly why did we let Bin Laden get away so many times after the WTC in 1993?”
2) Regardless of how the movie is edited, it will serve to counter Big Urban Myth #2, i.e. Bush was behind 9/11. With the proper focus on OBL, it will remind people that OBL was the one behind the terror attacks, not because building collapses look “staged” to the likes of Charlie Sheen.
3) I hope it will cause brain cells to light up by making people realize that the current situation in Iraq will not improve by pulling out. After all, 9/11 didn’t happen out of thin air. Long before Iraq, long before Afghanistan, al-Qaeda was waging a sustained war against America: the ’93 WTC bombing, the bombing of two American embassies in Africa, the USS Cole bombing, the averted Mellenium terror plot also should give lie to the idea that if we leave terrorists alone, they will leave us alone.
It’s time people realized that their list of grievances our endless, and they will not be satisfied until the achievement of a global Caliphate. The perception that the war is going badly is because people – especially those on the left and Democrats in general – refuse to acknowledge that the whole Western civilization is at stake here. 9/11 was a wake-up call, but sadly, too many Americans have gone back to sleep and maybe the best result of this mini-series will be to remind people terrorism existed on a global scale before Bush.
Harry Reid is urging ABC to not air the show.
Are the Democrats now in favor of censorship?
It’s truly amazing that the two previous commenters to muirgeo supplied the audio of Clinton admitting to turning down the offer to get bin Laden but he still say’s it’s false. There it is, on audio. How does one explain that total lack of critical thinking?
Listen and learn something for a change;
http://premium.airamericaradio.com/clip.php?id=2642
More on Hannity and the Clinton admission.
First, the Media Matters take, including the 9/11 Commission’s investigation of the Sudan claim.
And then, Clinton’s response:
AMANPOUR: OK. Was Sudan asked to extradite [bin Laden]? Did you miss the opportunity to have him extradited?
CLINTON: And I miss … what I said there was wrong. What I said was in error. I went back now and did all this research for my book and I said that we were told we couldn’t hold him, implying that we had a chance to get him and didn’t. That’s not factually accurate.
Here’s what is factually accurate. In 1996 and before then, when we found out about bin Laden, we had first thought he was a financier of terrorism but not a ringleader. In the beginning. When he took up residence in Sudan after having been ejected from Saudi Arabia, it is true that at some point during that period, there was some discussion in the Justice Department casting a doubt on how long we could hold him … on the question of had he committed, or did we have evidence that he committed, an offense against the United States.
But that was never part of the question about whether we could get him. When he left, the idea that the Sudanese offered to hand him over to us is just absurd. The idea that they told us when he was leaving, and he was landing in the Gulf and we could get him at another airport, is absurd, and the idea that they tried to give him to us instead of giving him to Afghanistan is just not true. I have now gone back and reconstructed all the records, read all the documents, and that is just not true.
So, Hannity isn’t credible, but Air America is?
Muirgeo, credibility is a precious commodity. I’d say you’ve just run through yours like a drunken sailor, or a Republican congresscritter.
I thought the Hanity audio was of an out take from the ABC film. Was it not.
As for the offer from the Sudanese in 1995 Clinton tells why they didn’t take him at the time. We had no specifics linkng him to a specific crime.
Air America? Holy crap, not even liberals listen to it, it’s boring, whiney and dumb.
See? I think the proper response to all the mindless mewing from the left is to
1) Question their patriotism for favoring censorship
2) Ask again why the U.S. was attacked so often from 1993 to 2000 by al-Qaeda and Bin Laden and why the U.S. response was always so weak.
3) I think it would be fun to revisit the shenanigans of Sandy “Stuffed Pants” Berger, a story the MSM simply let die out of sheer embarrassment. We should all be writing about good ol’ Sandy “losing” super top secret classified documents and how that reflects on the Clinton administrations attitudes towards national security.
So, Hannity isn’t credible, but Air America is?
Posted by: Lurking Observe
Absolutly,
Thom Hartman on AirAmerica has all his facts straight. He regularly invites conservatives on his show and has cordial disscusions not Sean Hannity shouting matches seathing with hate.
But I watch Hannity as well as listen to AirAmerica…I listen to BOTH sides…do you?
Hannity is funny cause he so poorly conceals his hate for his guest……He’s now having horrible nightmares about President Pelosi and suggested some one should KILL to prevent this from happening….what NUT CAKE your biy is….I’d put Thom Hartman up against him any day.
Listen to your KOOKBALL get torn a new one from Thom Hartman. ROTFLMAO
http://premium.airamericaradio.com/clip.php?id=2639
Ah, muirgeo once again demonstrates that he can manage to be a fool, a coward, and a traitor, all in one fell swoop.
http://blogs.abc.com/thepathto911/
there is the blog of the filmakers about this, this movie was made by a bipartsian group…and its already been noted that the Executive Producer was a big Clinton supported and donated to him.
yet they attack without seeing it like lemmings.
If ABC (the Adore’s Bill Clinton Network) won’t air it UNCENSORED… I want to know where I can get it in full, a “Pirate Copy”, so the Punks at ABC get nothing!!! I’ll pay the money, but not to ABC!!!
from the 9/11 Commission Report, 4 documented examples of Berger turning down chances to get Bin Laden
n Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.
National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke sent Berger a memo suggesting a strike against al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan. According to the commission, however, in the “margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’“
erger was presented with a plan to attack bin Laden based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. “In the memo’s margin,” the commission said, “Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’”
The potential target was an al-Qaida terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. But the commission cites Berger’s handwritten notes on the meeting paper, which referred to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.” The Berger notes said, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”
Thanks to ABC I don’t have to dig out the book on my video/audio system and see how I locked out ABC/CNN so no one in my home would ever turn it on by accident. Lock out is a really good feature. I’ll just leave them locked out.
“Bush is portrayed badly in this film also, you don’t see them abusing their power and censoring this movie that is by all accounts the movie of record on the subject. this is very telling, just like they didn’t silence Fahrenhyte 9/11 while the left tried to silence the swift boat doc. on Sinclair.
Who are the real defenders of the 1st amendment?”
A hearty AMEN!!!!!!!
And not just this, but for 6 years Bush has been constantly attacked by the left and 95% of it has been lies (forged documents, the Plame affair etc). What we see is that Bush is an adult man and Bill Clinton is a little child.
The Reagan movie was complete fiction?
Must’ve said he was a good actor…and President.
Les Nessman – Awesome comment. I’d like to hear their answer to that – although I’m sure they’d tell us that it’s all LIES, unlike anything Michael Moore has ever released. Geez.
Sorry Robert, but the Reagan film was such a pile of crap every Chris Matthews said it was a pile of crap and a disgrace….and he plants himself fully in the anti_Bush, liberal Democrat crowd.
There are more facts and truths in the ABC film than in all of the Michael Moore films combined–yet you didn’t see the right scrambling to have Moore censored.
Just more examples that when the Right is attacked they either ignore it or counter it but when the Left is attacked they threaten, cover-up, censor and attempt to squash dissent. Let an African-American express a conservative thought and watch how quickly they will beat their slave for not agreeing to be called Toby.
Let a devout liberal like Lieberman disagree on one point and watch them eat their own.
You think Bush is a facist? I shudder at the thought of a Left Wing Liberal Police State where dissent is punished, speech codes (1984 anyone??) are enforced. The Left would make the facists of the past look like amateurs.
Here is the gist of it….if you believe terrorism is all the fault of Bush in his 8 months in office prior to 9/11 and Clinton was blameless for the previous 8 years of his office holding then you are either a liar or an idiot.
Mantis, you are willing to take a proven perjurer at his word. Yet you insist Bush lied, when it was Wilson who lied. Michael Moore’s fauxumentary was hailed by the left, with screams of free speech, yet when the All Bill Clinton network runs a film that is oked by the co-chair of the 9/11 commission, your side crys out for censureship. Is there any part of the term hypocrite that you do understand?
Disney, the same company that owns ABC, did try to squash Moore’s Farenheit 9/11 movie – they stopped their subsidiary Miramax from distributing it!
The only consultant from the 9/11 commission was the Republican Tom Kean – appointed by Bush to head the commission of course.
If you can’t see that this is a case of the fox guarding the hen house, y’all are blind.