New ABC Docudrama Blames Clinton For 9/11

[jgredline]

On September 10 and 11, ABC will air a “docudrama†called “The Path to 9/11.†It was written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, who describes himself as “more of a libertarian than a strict conservative,†and is giving interviews to hard-right sites like FrontPageMag to promote the film.

To read the article in context click here
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/abc-blame-clinton/

 

[Voyageur]

Its a documdrama, not a documentary.

Every President from Reagan on down to Bush is partly responsible for 9/11.

Reagan: His administration armed Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen in their war in Afghanistan in the 80s. These fighters, who became Al Qaeda, benefitted organizationally and militarily from Reagan and Rumsfeld's strategic support.

Bush Sr: He was Reagan's Vice President, and so he is partly to blame as well. Ramzi Yousef, a member of Al Qaeda, planned the February 23, 1993 WTC bombings, and we know that he was in the United States by September of 1992 when Bush Sr. was President. So, the plan for the attack was well in place by the time Clinton took office. They were building the bomb at least by December.

Clinton: Clinton shares blame for underestimating the will of Al Qaeda, and not pursuing them effectively overseas through covert operations after the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Africa. He did, however, launch Operation Infinite Reach following the bombings and arrested some Al Qaeda members after the 1993 WTC bombing.

Bush Jr: If he was aware of Al Qaeda's activities after he was sworn into office, he didn't do much about it; as, obviously, the 9/11 attacks happened under his watch. He did well to take the fight to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan (in pursuit of bin Laden), but erred by spending time and resources toppling Hussein's regime, thus allowing Al Qaeda to re-establish itself and launch a number of new attacks.

 

[MorgWolfsong]

Bush Jr: If he was aware of Al Qaeda's activities after he was sworn into office, he didn't do much about it; as, obviously, the 9/11 attacks happened under his watch. He did well to take the fight to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan (in pursuit of bin Laden), but erred by spending time and resources toppling Hussein's regime, thus allowing Al Qaeda to re-establish itself and launch a number of new attacks.

\


so your saying the freedom of the iraqi people was a wase of resourses? why dont you tell that one to some of the soldiers in iraq?

and yes he was aware but Al Queda has been around since the 80's i beleive so they are always up to something as for 9/11 it came as a shock to bush..

clinton had osama in his hands but let him go.. i think an african warlord had osama prisoner but clinton turned him down.. correct me if im wrong


EDIT" also regan was smart to arm them because had he directly engaged the soviets in afganistan then a nuclear war could have been started.. although none knew that osama would wind up attacking the power that armed him

 

[Dave...]

The fact is that the truth doesn't line up with Willy's distortions of the truth. Free speech Bubba, Free speech. Put it on the table and let the people decide. Maybe it will win for best movie? LOL

BUBBA GOES BALLISTIC ON ABC ABOUT ITS DAMNING 9/11 MOVIE

INSISTS NET PULL DRAMA

By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

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."

Executive producer Marc Platt told The Washington Post that he worked "very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously of concern. We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view."

The miniseries' creator and the 9/11 panel's former co-chairman, Tom Kean, who was a paid adviser on the film, said some scenes are made up and plan to include a statement at the show's beginning.

In the movie, FBI anti-terror agent John O'Neill, played by Harvey Keitel, and a composite CIA operative named Kirk grouse about bureaucratic red tape following a meeting with Berger and Albright.

"How do you win a law-and-orderly war?" Kirk asks.

"You don't," O'Neill snaps.

The movie then cuts immediately to a newsreel close-up of Clinton insisting he did "not have sex with that woman" - Monica Lewinsky.

Although the movie thrust Lewinsky into the mix as a White House distraction, the 9/11 commission's report found Clinton was "deeply concerned about bin Laden" and that he received daily reports "on bin Laden's reported location," Clinton's letter notes.

In another scene, CIA operatives working with Afghani anti-al Qaeda fighter Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance who was assassinated by bin Laden days before 9/11, gather on a hill near bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms - the terror thug easily in their grasp.

"It's perfect for us," says Kirk, a composite character played by Donnie Wahlberg. But the team aborts the mission when an actor portraying Berger tells them he can't authorize a strike.

"I don't have that authority," the Berger character says.

"Are there any men in Washington," Massoud asks Kirk later in the film, "or are they all cowards?"

The reps for an outraged Clinton wrote to Iger that "no such episode ever occurred - nor did anything like it."

The 9/11 commission report echoes his denial, and found that Clinton's Cabinet gave "its blessing" for a CIA plan to capture bin Laden and determined that ex-CIA Director George Tenet squashed the plan.

The third contested scene focuses on Albright, who is depicted alerting Pakistani officials in advance of a 1998 U.S. missile strike against bin Laden in Afghanistan - over the objections of the Pentagon. The movie claims the tip-off allowed bin Laden to escape.

But the 9/11 commission reported that it was a member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff - not Albright - who met with a senior Pakistani Army official prior to the strike to "assure him the missiles were not coming from India."

ian.bishop@nypost.com

 

[Dave...]

Same story, different source.

ABC's 'Path to 9/11': Bill Clinton's Inconvenient Truth
James Hirsen, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2006


"The Path to 9/11," a six-hour miniseries scheduled to air September 10 and 11 on ABC, has certain former members of the Clinton administration in a panic.

The docudrama is thoroughly sourced and exposes information that former members of the Clinton administration had previously tried to suppress: that there was a failure on the part of the administration to respond to terrorism, inaction that ended up being partly to blame for the tragic events that took place on 9/11.

"Path" is based on the 9/11 Commission Final Report and the 2003 book "The Cell: Inside the 9/11 Plot, and Why the FBI and CIA Failed to Stop It." New Jersey Governor and Commission Co-chairman Thomas H. Kean served as a consultant for the miniseries.

Continued: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...mo_code=2537-1

 

[Poke]

so your saying the freedom of the iraqi people was a wase of resourses? why dont you tell that one to some of the soldiers in iraq?

What freedom are you talking about? Iraq was one of the freest countries in the middle-east. Would you think having a nazi standing on every street corner freedom? Even in a slow week, over a 100 people die from fighting.

Not only is it a lie that the US brought freedom to the Iraqi people, Iraq's freedom is none of our government's business.

 

[Dave...]

What freedom are you talking about? Iraq was one of the freest countries in the middle-east. Would you think having a nazi standing on every street corner freedom? Even in a slow week, over a 100 people die from fighting.

Not only is it a lie that the US brought freedom to the Iraqi people, Iraq's freedom is none of our government's business.

:o :o LOL Amazing.

 

[Dave...]

The Disney execs met all through the weekend - unheard of in this business - debating what changes would be made and what concessions should be given. Here is what looks to be the conclusion:

- There will be a handful of tweaks made to a few scenes.
- They are minor, and nuance in most cases - a line lift here, a tweak to the edit there.
- There are 900 screeners out there. When this airs this weekend, there will be a number of people who will spend their free evenings looking for these changes and will be hard pressed to identify them. They are that minor.
- The average viewer would not be able to tell the difference between the two versions.
- The message of the Clinton Admin failures remains fully intact.

The scramble caused by this backlash was so all consuming that the execs spent their holiday weekend behind closed door meetings and revamped their ad campaign. But at the end of their mad scramble, they found only a handful of changes they could make and still be true to the events. The changes are done only to appease the Clinton team - to be able to say they made changes. But the blame on the Clinton team is in the DNA of the project and could not be eradicated without pulling the entire show. A $40 million investment on the part of ABC is enough to stem even Bill Clinton's influence.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/936...7-1854a0115108

Whether the changes are "minor" we will probably never know. Bubba censorship wins.

 

[Quath]

There is a scene where the CIA officials request an attack on Osama from Berger and Berger refuses. Since this did not happen, I am sure a lot of people would never realize that it was not true. And they would go around and say that the Clinton administration refused to attack Osama bin Laden when they had a chance.

So I think that ABC should try to avoid slanderous situations, even under the disguise of saying this is fiction.

 

[jgredline]

Kinda reminds me of farenhype 911



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/ap_ ... _officials :-D :-D

 

[Voyageur]

so your saying the freedom of the iraqi people was a wase of resourses? why dont you tell that one to some of the soldiers in iraq?

Morg. Morg. Did you selectively read my comments? Quit trying to reframe the debate to your liking.

I said... "He did well to take the fight to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan (in pursuit of bin Laden), but erred by spending time and resources toppling Hussein's regime, thus allowing Al Qaeda to re-establish itself and launch a number of new attacks."

In other words, it was a mistake--in this so-called War On Terrorism--to divert resources from the search for bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to the War in Iraq. It was counter-intuitive to our efforts against bin Laden. Do you follow my logic?

Besides, we weren't in Iraq to free the Iraqi people. We were there to find WMD's (which we haven't found, by the way).

So, yes, I would say that our presence in Iraq has been a waste of resources and lives, and I have stated this to three of my friends who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. They agreed.

Now, this doesn't mean that I'm not happy for the Iraqi people. I'm glad that they can now put their lives together after the toppling of Saddam's regime. But, it was counter-intuitive to our efforts with regard to bin Laden and Al Qaeda. And now the Iraqi people have to deal with terrorism (whereas they didn't before) and civil war without an end in sight.

and yes he was aware but Al Queda has been around since the 80's i beleive so they are always up to something as for 9/11 it came as a shock to bush..

This is exactly what I said in my initial post. As I said, Reagan militarily and strategically supported the Taliban and thus Al Qaeda in their war against the Soviet Union.

And if it came as a shock to Bush, how is Clinton to blame for al Qaeda's success on 9/11?

clinton had osama in his hands but let him go.. i think an african warlord had osama prisoner but clinton turned him down.. correct me if im wrong

The African that you are referencing was a Sudanese business partner of bin Laden's (unlikely to have offered him up willingly). I'd like to see the hard proof that he was offered up to Clinton and Clinton refused.

also regan was smart to arm them because had he directly engaged the soviets in afganistan then a nuclear war could have been started.. although none knew that osama would wind up attacking the power that armed him

OK... that is some twisted logic. He knew what the Taliban was and he aided them. He knew they were Muslim extremists. Reagan didn't have to engage the Soviets through the Taliban and bin Laden's crew, who would later become Al Qaeda. It was just another Cold War military exercise and it was stupid of him to support the Taliban. Consequently, Bin Laden benefitted from the US arms and military tactics.

As I said, all Presidents from Reagan on are partly to blame for what happened on 9/11. I don't excuse any of them.

I would even go so far back as to implicate every President from Roosevelt on, as many of these problems stem from the creation of an Israel state in what was a Palestinian state (with a Muslim majority).

 

[Voyageur]

Its a docudrama, which means it has been fictionalized. Enough said.

It would be one thing if it was based on testimony and interviews with Clinton and his administration.

 

[Dave...]

I heard tonight that it's not that hard on Clinton. It only shows that he did very little to prevent 911.

jgredline

Kinda reminds me of farenhype 911

Did you mean fahrenheit 911? Farenhype 911 discredits Moores fiction. Speaking of fictions...

Voyageur

Its a docudrama, which means it has been fictionalized. Enough said.

I've heard that the clips speak for themselves. If they are taken out of context, it won't be hard to prove. Were you this critical of fahrenheit 911 which is a deliberate smear campaign?

Aren't you angered that Clinton is on a campaign to take away our free speech?

I wonder what hollywood has to say about this "editing"?

 

[jgredline]

Dave
Michael moores movie was built on so many lies and yet people took it as fact.
When Farenhype came out I bought one and made so many copies and gave them away so people could see and know the truth. Now that there is a movie about clinton all off a sudden the liberals are crying foul. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Voyageur]

I heard tonight that it's not that hard on Clinton. It only shows that he did very little to prevent 911.

jgredline

Kinda reminds me of farenhype 911

Did you mean fahrenheit 911? Farenhype 911 discredits Moores fiction. Speaking of fictions...

Voyageur
[quote:d2724]Its a docudrama, which means it has been fictionalized. Enough said.

I've heard that the clips speak for themselves. If they are taken out of context, it won't be hard to prove. Were you this critical of fahrenheit 911 which is a deliberate smear campaign?

Aren't you angered that Clinton is on a campaign to take away our free speech?

I wonder what hollywood has to say about this "editing"?[/quote:d2724]

Well, by your logic, Bush (who was in office 7 months prior to 9/11) did very little to prevent 9/11. As I have said, its a continuum of bad foreign policy made by our Presidents, going back to Reagan at least, which has led us to this point. I don't excuse Clinton, but its not as if he did nothing. Surely the Republican-controlled House and Senate must have known about Al Qaeda and terrorist activities worldwide. Why didn't they say anything?

I took Farenheit 911 with a grain of salt. It wasn't a documentary; that's for sure. It was a film with a political slant. Does that surpise you? I think for myself, Dave. I am displeased with both Democrats and Republicans at this point in our nation's history. You're still trying unsuccessfully to lump me in with your definition of a liberal. I'm not bound by political definitions and constraints. My political philosophy is fluid: its able to adapt to current events as I see fit. Since our current administration has pursued such destructive foreign policy, most of my disdain is directed towards the President and his handlers. The fact that a conservative contingent supports the President's every decision has also made me suspicious of them, and so I have taken issue with their support of self-righteous war-mongering and willful neglect of diplomacy and multi-lateralism. But, I am equally upset at how willing this country was to give Bush a foreign policy blank-check to begin with; and that has a lot to do with level-headed Republicans and Democrats being spineless.

I think smart people will see what is ficticious in this ABC movie. Impressionable people will surely be swayed. I think that we should be beyond pointing a finger at one President in particular with what happened on 9/11. It involved a number of foreign policy mistakes by several presidents over the years. And besides, we cannot go back and change past events. Directing attention at past presidential policy is a meant to distract us from Bush's mistake in taking us to Iraq. Instead, we should be concentrating on finding Bin Laden and disrupting Al Qaeda's activities. We should be concentrating on how best to withdraw from Iraq so that the country doesn't descend further into chaos. We should be concentrating on what we can do to regain our moral standing in the world and change this image we have as a malevolent military and cultural force.

If ABC wants to run the movie in its current edited form, I don't see a problem with it, because I know that it is a documdrama and not based entirely on facts. I simply advise watching the film with a critical mind. Always be critical of everything you see involving politics.

I wonder what hollywood has to say about this "editing"?

Yeah, I wonder. Particularly when network television productions are produced in New York.

 

[moniker]

Its a docudrama, which means it has been fictionalized. Enough said.

It would be one thing if it was based on testimony and interviews with Clinton and his administration.

Yeah, the only problem is that they've been advertising it (before now) along the lines of 9-11: The True Story. Turns out that isn't the case and they have made up scenes in order to make a more interesting story. That isn't a problem, per se, but don't pull a bait and switch over your accuracy. Nobody reads retractions. Plus it's been 5 years; not too soon for a serious documentary, but I'd say it is too soon for a dramtization story spectacular, personally. The whole thing just doesn't sit well with me.

I'd say it's interesting that CBS is standing by this given that ABC buckled to all the pressure put on them for 'The Reagans,' yanking it from network broadcast.

 

[peace4all]

so your saying the freedom of the iraqi people was a wase of resourses? why dont you tell that one to some of the soldiers in iraq?

If the Iraqi people were free, we would let them run their military, we would let them make their choices.

Obviously, the Iraq's DON'T wan't us there. If they want a civil war, they want one. If they want to enforce laws that are islamic, let them, If they want to vote in someone we disagree with, LET THEM. That is democracy. The whole world watched in 2004 when democracy failed america, and Bush was elected. It hurt the entire world, yet, no one invaded us, and told us to change our democracy.

It took america several hundred years to get to where we are today, and now we are trying, in 2-3 years of military rule, to make other countries the same. for a country that took a hundred years to let blacks vote, and another 40 to let women vote, we shouldn't have a say in other peoples politics.

 

[Voyageur]

so your saying the freedom of the iraqi people was a wase of resourses? why dont you tell that one to some of the soldiers in iraq?

If the Iraqi people were free, we would let them run their military, we would let them make their choices.

Obviously, the Iraq's DON'T wan't us there. If they want a civil war, they want one. If they want to enforce laws that are islamic, let them, If they want to vote in someone we disagree with, LET THEM. That is democracy. The whole world watched in 2004 when democracy failed america, and Bush was elected. It hurt the entire world, yet, no one invaded us, and told us to change our democracy.

It took america several hundred years to get to where we are today, and now we are trying, in 2-3 years of military rule, to make other countries the same. for a country that took a hundred years to let blacks vote, and another 40 to let women vote, we shouldn't have a say in other peoples politics.

Well said. I'd like to add that whenever we choose to leave Iraq there will likely be civil war. The distrust between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds will likely lead to some form of civil strife after we leave, when all of them know we can no longer interfere.

 

[Dave...]

Well, by your logic, Bush (who was in office 7 months prior to 9/11) did very little to prevent 9/11.

Actually, I heard that Bush is critisized in the "docudrama" also. Does that make it better for you?

Aren't you angered that Clinton is on a campaign to take away our free speech?

 

[moniker]

Well, by your logic, Bush (who was in office 7 months prior to 9/11) did very little to prevent 9/11.

Actually, I heard that Bush is critisized in the "docudrama" also. Does that make it better for you?

Aren't you angered that Clinton is on a campaign to take away our free speech?

Why do people always forget that freedom of speech includes the ability to complain about other people speaking? I do have to ask, though. Was "The Reagans" getting pushed away from network broadcast to showtime constitute a removal of free speech? Is the FCC a governmental agency on a campaign to take away our free speech? Is that idiot heckler who won't shut up in a nightclub taking away our free speech?