ABC 9/11 mini-series gets Democrats upset -- by telling the truth
By NotSoBlueStater Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Since the release of Fahrenheit 9/11, multiple acts of Democrat grandstanding during the 9/11 hearings, and the political spinnings of the "9/11 Widows", I've always had the sense that most people think that our last, best chance to thwart 9/11 was for the Bush Administration to react forcefully to it's own August 6, 2001 PDB. This idea obviously works well for the Democrats, because it deflects attention from the Clinton Administration's almost complete inaction during the years prior.
That may change in a few days.
The Democrats are apparently outraged by the content of the ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11 -- scheduled to be aired as part of the fifth anniversary of 9/11. And for a simple reason: It may shatter the protective cocoon they've been living in -- in a way that right-wing bloggers never could -- by simply playing the story down the middle.
From a UPI story cited by Drudge:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 (UPI) -- An upcoming TV mini-series about the origins of the Sept. 11 plot is provoking angry complaints from Democrats about the portrayal of the Clinton administration's response to terrorism.
"The Path to 9/11," a five-hour dramatization laying out the history of the Sept. 11 plot from the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, will be aired over two nights on the anniversary of the attack next week by ABC Television.
First of all: Pass the popcorn. I want to see this. (No disrespect to any victims of the tragedy. I just enjoy well-done history.)
A statement from Samuel "Sandy" Berger, who was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton at the time, calls the scenes involving him "complete fabrications."
Fabric-ations. What fabric were those pants, Sandy?
But the team is forced to abort the mission when Berger hangs up on them in the middle of a conference call, after telling them he cannot give the go ahead for the action.
"I don't have that authority," he says.
"Are there any men in Washington," Masud asks Kirk afterwards in the film, "or are they all cowards?"
Heh-heh. Oh my... No time to take a poll, I guess.
But former GOP Governor Thomas Kean of New Jersey, the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a consultant to the production, defended the film, saying it showed "a colossal failure of government.
So, the man who has probably seen as much 9/11-related testimony as any person on the planet has no issues with the portrayal. It's just the guy who stole documents from the national archives to cover up such things who is upset.
Who to believe....
"I would say it's balanced," Kean said.
And I'd believe you. You are stand-up guy in my book , and always have been.
The film does paint a rather unflattering portrait of the incoming Bush administration -- showing how they demoted White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, and failed to act against al-Qaida even after their responsibility for the November 2000 attack on the USS Cole became clear.
"The difference is, the stuff they show the Bush administration doing actually happened," said Jay Carson, a spokesman for former President Clinton.
The problem for the Democrats is this: The media has been complicit with the Democrats by not over-analyzing the pre-9/11 failures of Clinton Administration. Therefore, a simple, fair-minded representation of the facts would tend to take viewers to a place they haven't been before: The poll-driven, indecisive, and often foriegn policy inept Clinton White House.
It's about time.
so you don't really care if it's true or not, you just like the message and that people kos are mad? Like I've been saying - if ABC were to show their point of view in a factually correct way, then great let's see it. However, when reading about the scene in question here - even I said "yeah right."
Let me draw a comparison - the recent court ruling of Pres Bush's warrantless wiretaps. There were a ton of people in law that said they agreed with the conclusion but the rationale was terribly flawed. Same thing with this movie - wouldn't you want it to be factually correct and historically accurate other than providing the same message with events that are totally fabricated?
I thought you guys were all down with "fake but accurate" considering the way the RatherGate was treated on the left.
The incident is dramatized (this is a movie which should have been a clue to begin with) but it is actually a very accurate compilation of several events recounted in Steven Coll's Ghost Wars.
Personally I'd rather have seen this scene from p189 of the 9/11 Commission Report
[Clinton remarked] to General Hugh Shelton,“You know, it would scare the $hit out of al-Qaeda if suddenly a bunch of black ninjas rappelled out of helicopters into the middle of their camp.
That level of abject stupidity really encapsulates the Clinton Administration's efforts much more than anything a screenwriter could come up with.
...the plural of ninja is 'ninja'. Bill, Bill, Bill: if you're going to fanboy, then fanboy.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
You know that they were always, always afraid to act aggressively. Even when they did (Kosovo), they polled first.
Part of this, of course, had to do with the times we were living through. America frankly had little interest in foriegn adventures in the 90s -- preferring to enjoy the post-Cold War "peace benefit".
I recommend War in a Time of Peace by David Halberstam to anyone and everyone who wants to understand not only Clinton's foriegn policy, but Bush I's impact as well. I just took it out of my library (I had read it before.) a few weeks ago, and the local copy arrived there Sept. 10, 2001. It's a fabulous book, published entirely without the lens of 9/11 to fog the discussion.
My opinion is that the Clinton Administration was just beginning to "get" how dangerous the world really was during the midpoint of the second term. I think they even had an impulse to act. But as Clinton explained in his biography, he was hamstrung by "Wag the Dog" accusations after the Lewinsky/impeachment stuff took hold.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
But as Clinton explained in his biography, he was hamstrung by "Wag the Dog" accusations after the Lewinsky/impeachment stuff took hold.
This couldn't possibly be true! After all, we were told repeatedly during the impeachment hearings that his non-sex with "that girl" was a personal thing and had NO BEARING on his conduct as president.
I guess maybe character (and lack thereof) DOES matter in the long run.
But you've hit upon something that's critically important.
I think Clinton's anecdote where he expalins the Wag the Dog problem was designed to show what damage Ken Starr had done to the nation. Since I think Starr was on a government-funded witch hunt, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to his point.
However, as president he should have realized that even though what happened to him may have been unfair, he had lost his ability to be Commander-in-Chief. He should have resigned the moment it occured to him that he was politically unable to commit soldiers to battle to defend the nation.
(I'll sit back while Democrat lurkers cough up their dinner. But I'll stand by the point.)
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
And just for fun, comparing the history of terrorism interdiction with a court ruling is just stupid. The "history" is just that, a compilation of peoples actions and reactions presented in a dramatic setting. The court ruling is an opinion that is supposed to rest on Constitutional Law and precident.
You can quibble about the history presented by providing evidence that the information presented is not factual or is slanted by leaving out other exculpatory facts. You can't get away with saying that "liking the outcome" is a reasonable comparison.
Learn to make a cogent argument and you might actually last three whole weeks here.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Which parts are fabrications? Which parts are not historically accurate?
will probably want to watch it before drawing any conclusions on that. Failing that, Rob can probably tell us now.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Conservatives hold themselves to, doesn't he make a good point, if this is exaggerated for dramatic effect and could cause the rest of the lesson from the film to be lost?
link
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/65316903-0da4-4c2e-8bbe-09e4db570437
excerpt
THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT “The Path to 9/11” centers on one scene where CIA operatives and Northern Alliance irregulars under the leadership of the awe-inspiring Ahmed Shah Massoud have the opportunity to kill bin Laden. They phone NSA chief Sandy Berger for authorization to make the hit. Berger refuses to make the decision and in the scene actually hangs up on the operatives.
I’ve done a lot of reading and research regarding 9/11, and I have to admit that this story is new to me. The closest parallel I can think of is Tenet’s, Berger’s and Clinton’s irresolute follow-through on the Predator program which had the very real likelihood of knocking off bin Laden assuming the administration was willing to risk the death of innocents. Given the fact that Clinton was willing to take such a risk when the Lewinsky scandal reached its most fevered pitch, the fact that he wasn’t as bold without the looming specter of political calamity is damning. What’s more, the Clinton administration’s lethargic and chronically dilatory efforts to deal with bin Laden are an irrefutable part of the historical record.
The preceding leaves us with two possible explanations regarding the controversial scene. One is that the filmmakers have unearthed a previously unknown jewel that they can fully document; that Berger really did slam down the phone on a field agent looking for guidance. If that’s the case, then this entire conversation is irrelevant and you should cease reading this essay.
The other explanation is that, being a docudrama, the filmmakers included a fabricated scene (which was a composite of many real factors) to dramatize the ineptitude and fecklessness that so characterized the Clinton administration. One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to do such a thing. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
So I think that rather than show a million nuanced bits, they went instead to capture the flavor of attitudes int eh administration.
From what I understand from my reading, the idea that the Clinton Administration wasn't able to be decisive captures a very important element of the story. I think most people don't understand this about the Clintonites.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
Did the Clinton administartion turn up their noses at chances to kill ar capture Bin Laden? It's a matter of historical record that they did. Were the conservations they held those that appeared in this movie? There is no way anyone knows or can know that. If that is to be the standard then no historical movie can be made.
You have to roll your eyes watching the cheerleaders for F/911 suddenly developing a fanatical concern for accuracy.
From what I have heard, this movie to be shown on ABC presents Republicans in a pretty good light. Great.
If ABC has made some minor tweaks to the movie that in your opinion, don't seem to affect it, fine.
But what I'm not comfortable with, is that there have been allegations that some of the *key* scenes in the movie are factually inaccurate (e.g., Sandy Berger having an opportunity to kill Bin Laden trapped in a house, and not only does Clinton refuse to act, but Sandy Berger hangs up on the field representative). Is this true, or did it really happen? I don't think composites are a bad thing, except when it's a key point in the story. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that ALL such created scenes put the Bush administration in a positive light, and the Clinton administration in a bad light. Surely there should be some of each?
I absolutely believe that constituencies should try to frame public events in a flattering light if at all possible, but I draw the line at lying. If it's true, I am not happy about what is taking place.
Also, it has been alleged that the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission was asked to review and advise on the movie, but that the Democratic co-chair of the 9/11 Commission was not only not asked, but not allowed. Surely this can't be right.
Richard Clarke comes out looking good, while Condi comes out looking not so good. Apparently, Clarke had more input than he is admitting, now that he's trying to cover himself with his Democratic Patrons. Remember, he is the terrorism advisor to ABC.
Remember, the ABC staff is made up of liberals who support Clinton. They are shocked.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
... concerning Lee Hamilton not being allowed to participate. I have always admired the way Hamilton and Kean have tried to put country above party in this process. I'd be disappointed to find out that this has changed.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
I was just listening to Hugh Hewitt's show. He says this movie is going to be shown in Canada, New Zealand, Austraila, and on the British Broadcast system so this will be seen AROUND the WORLD! Me thinks they have a bigger problem then they know! LOL Sucks to have reality reach up and slap you across the face! The Dems should have faced up to the reality along time ago.
FYI: I do not have a problem with the showing what errors the Bush II, Bush I, Reagan Admins made. We need to learn from this. Wasn't that one of the mantra's of the Jersey Girls?
Tonight Hugh had on the "The Path to 9/11" writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh. The audio to the program is here.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/49cc08a8-c0ab-4578-821f-fef056029b8f
Your Word is your Worth, your Worth is your Word
It makes me happy that the Clintonistas are so peeved about this. It is unfair, however, to place any blame on GWB because he was only in office for 8 months and had the gargantuan task of deconstructing all the legal walls that had been put in place by the Democrats.
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy (El Jodido) Capitan
too!
I don't blame GWB all that much maybe 5%. I am sure his Admin could have done some things different and faster before 911 that MIGHT have made a difference. Clinton bares the MAJOR blame, about 70 percent, he had a FULL 8 years and pissed it away. IMO, we as a nation have to look at the history of this warts and all no matter who dropped the ball and when and how much.
Bush I, Carter, Reagan and Congress all have their share in the blame too.
Your Word is your Worth, your Worth is your Word
To get to the point where his foriegn policy was starting to become coherent. The idea that the Bush team would be hitting on all cylinders in 8 months is silly.
This was on the list of reasons I thought it was important to re-elect Bush in '04 -- despite any personal anger I had over the execution of the Iraq War at that point.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
We have to put up with this crap from Hollywood all the time. I only wish it was being aired in late October so I could see some real wailing and gnashing of teeth. I can hear it now; "This is a politically motivated hatchet job just prior to the elections by our... uh...er..Hollywood base?
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire
The Democrats and John Kerry successfully ducked each and every Swift Boat charge by simply yelling "Lies! Lies! Scandalous lies!!" at the tops of their lungs. I thought at first this approach was a little odd -- until I realized that it was the only available response, as admitting that even half of the charges were true (John O'Neill stills says that none of the charges has as yet been refuted) would have been fatal to the Kerry campaign, which had foolishly made four months in Vietnam into the centerpiece of their argument that Kerry should be president.
Now we see Berger and Clinton screaming at the top of their lungs -- for the same sorts of reasons. If they were to focus on the subject at hand, it might lead to an honest appraisal of their indecisiveness. Instead, they scream "Lies! Lies!" and hope the media will follow suit.
The ultimate ironic outcome would be a national discussion of what exactly Berger stuffed into his pants during that National Archives visit. I'm not holding my breath.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
Accurate or inaccurate the continued attempts to shuffle the blame to the former president don't work. It happened on the shrubs watch, it happened after he was warned repeatedly, and oddly it happened on a day when the U.S. Military was performing an exercise of exactly what happened.
Coincidence??
If my daughter leaves a glass of milk on the edge of the table, it's still my fault if I knock it off.
if this show was equally critical of bush there would be no problem. He was in charge when we were attacked, pretty hard to blame clintin for everything. Clinton may have gotten the ball rolling but bush made no attempt to stop it from happening.
Thank you for prima facie evidence of the point in question. The public left the 9/11 investigation era with the vague impression that it was somewhat "shrub's" fault -- with some unfortunate near misses under Clinton. The Clinton legacy police are livid that this impression, which they are extremely grateful for, might be disturbed.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
The FIRST attack on the WTC happened in Feb. 1993.
The SECOND attack occurred in Sept 2001.
Osama went on American national TV (!) in the mid 90's to warn us about his plans.
Clinton was president for 95 months after the first WTC attack. Bush was president for 8.
The contested election of 2000 cost the Bush team over a month of the normal transition. (Thanks, Al)
In the spring of 2001 Bush had to deal with the extremely nasty episode of the Navy surveillance plane forced down by the Chinese. (Who were arguably still mad at the bombing of their embassy during the "mistake-free" Balkan war.
In my view, the lion's share for the actions & inactions leading to 9/11 have to be laid at the feet of the Clinton team and their world view.
this "docu-drama" could be shown along with something that is well-known to be a 100% factual documentary like Fahrenheit 9/11.
... that this docu-drama is a lot closer to the true narrative than F 9/11.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
Even if you bet that this mini-series was more accurate than F 9/11 you would be guaranteed a win.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Go to Michael Moore's website, there you will find all of the background and research material used in his film. He has nothing to hide.
ABC has already made changes due to the inaccuracies.
So, I'll take the fact based, research supported Fahrenheit 9/11 against the lie ridden, Clinton slamming fairy tale....and with that your house.
Intentionally stringing together snippets of fact-checked "truth" to create a false impression (which should be a disclaimer on the jacket of F 9/11), or creating a fictionalized narrative that shows the viewer what really happened?
The duplicitous nature of F 9/11 has been meticulously documented. Being duped by Michael Moore is a choice. You can choose not to if you ever decide to start thinking for yourself. I'm not holding my breath.
The Clintonistas real concern here is legacy management. The faux outarge over accuracy is a fig leaf.
I suggest you save yourself further aggravation by reading DailyKos instead. They put partisanship in front of reality over there -- just the way you like it.
(Did you see my post up the thread that quotes Clinton's autobiography? Worth a peek.)
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
The comment I refer to is actually here.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
http://levin.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTRiNzQ1NTBiNDY2ZTIzYTNlNzI0MDg5...
"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh
That's usually a good sign.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts