As far as i know, this hasn't been brought up here...

ABC's "docudrama' which is going to be shown on the 10th and 11th of this month has been catching a lot of flack lately, at least on the blogs I'm familiar with. Suposedly advance copies have been sent to right wing bloggers and pundits, while not even President Clinton can get a copy. Also, from what I hear, this 'docudrama' places the blame for 9/11 squarely on the shoulders of Clinton.

Numerous people have said that a lot of the scenes in the movie are blatantly false, and have been fabricated completley or changed in order to pass the buck.

CRESSY: Joe [Scarborugh], it’s amazing, based on what I’ve seen so far is how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed instructing Ahmed Rassam to carry out the millenium attacks. Then they got the big stuff wrong, this fantasy about how we had a CIA officer and the Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Massoud looking at Bin Laden and they breathlessly call the White House to say we need to take him out and the White House said no. I mean it’s sheer fantasy. So, if they want to critique the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, based on fact, I think that’s fine. But what ABC has done here is something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.

(from http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/bush-official-blasts-abc/ )

What are the thoughts on this? This isn't an episode of 24, and from my understanding it is presented as a documentary, which to me seems as if they are trying to present bogus information as facts.




jow

Typical lazy media antics that support the Right's lies.

Dang liberal media.

On something that hasn't been seen by anyone. That's productive.

As far as i know, this hasn't been brought up here...

ABC's "docudrama' which is going to be shown on the 10th and 11th of this month has been catching a lot of flack lately, at least on the blogs I'm familiar with. Suposedly advance copies have been sent to right wing bloggers and pundits, while not even President Clinton can get a copy. Also, from what I hear, this 'docudrama' places the blame for 9/11 squarely on the shoulders of Clinton.

Numerous people have said that a lot of the scenes in the movie are blatantly false, and have been fabricated completley or changed in order to pass the buck.



(from http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/06/bush-official-blasts-abc/ )

What are the thoughts on this? This isn't an episode of 24, and from my understanding it is presented as a documentary, which to me seems as if they are trying to present bogus information as facts.




jow

Here's an opinion from one of the "right-wing" bloggers that received an advanced copy. I think your fears are misplaced.


http://patterico.com/2006/08/31/5068/the-war-over-the-path-to-911/




KFI host John Ziegler is claiming he has sources telling him that Clinton Administation officials “at the highest levels” are now lobbying Disney officials to pull (or at least edit) “The Path To 9/11″ from ABC before it airs on 9/10 & 9/11.

[The lobbying reportedly includes efforts directed at former Democratic Senator George Mitchell, whom I believe is still Chairman of the Disney company, if I’m not mistaken.]

I have no independent verification of the above claim, but the Internet war over this film is now picking up steam.

The ironic part is, the critics of this movie who haven’t seen it yet are going to have egg on their face. This film in no way “blames the entire event on Clinton” as some falsely claim. “The Path to 9/11″ absolutely slams Bush in a number of ways:


1. It depicts Condi Rice ignoring Richard Clarke’s advice about Al-Queda and undercutting his authority within the White House.

2. It depicts the August 6th “Presidential Daily Briefing” wherein Rice is explicitly warned before 9/11 that Bin Laden intends to hijack American airplanes.

3. It makes Richard Clarke look like a tragic hero (even though everyone knows that he later went on to become one of Bush’s biggest critics).

4. It contains an epliogue that cites 9/11 Commission members giving the current government a failing grade in implementing their recommendations.

Few people have seen the whole film. Even the select group in Washington only got to see the first half of the film (which obviously doesn’t deal with the Bush administration, based on how the timeline worked). As a result, there is a lot of misinformation going on about what “The Path To 9/11″ is really about.

With all of that said — what this film also does is set the record straight on a number of events that the Clinton administration has previously tried to whitewash or ignore. That is the real reason why the left is going nuts over this. It wants to blame everything on Bush. Thus in its twisted logic, it cannot stand to see any criticism of Clinton whatsoever. (See my C-SPAN analogy in my previous post for more on this argument.)

Furthermore, they will go nuts when confronted with the truth that the Patriot Act was necessary in order to get various government agencies to share vital information with each other. They will go nuts when the depiction of historical events end up making the case for airport profiling. In other words, this film will force them to specifically articulate what tools they wish to employ in order to keep this country safe. That seems to make them uncomfortable for some reason.

...

See? I was right. Liberal media.

Thinkprogress has several articles on it:

http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Path+to+911

Here is a bit from one of them:

ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”

I've read the stuff from Think Progress. I guess I was looking for more opinions on it.



joe

I've read the stuff from Think Progress. I guess I was looking for more opinions on it.



joe

My opinion...if you want the truth at least in the relativist sense where objectivity is at least in the field of play read Ghost Wars.

T.V. does drama...if it feels a story needs spiffing up...it has never shown itself to have a historian's soul for accuracy.

It's not about what I want. And it's not about what I read or what I believe. It's about presenting false ideas (whatever side of the board they may fall on) in the form of documentary on national telivision in a nation where the majority of people trust network news and teleivsion for most of their information.



joe

It's not about what I want. And it's not about what I read or what I believe. It's about presenting false ideas (whatever side of the board they may fall on) in the form of documentary on national telivision in a nation where the majority of people trust network news and teleivsion for most of their information.



joe

The thinkers, readers and researchers are in a hard (although) organized retreat. For the time being there is little to be done except to ensure that real history "professionalized" history is rigidly done and critically looked at with a skeptics eye...so that perhaps when rationalism, attempts at objectivism or pragmatism makes a return...those that follow will have something to draw from other than what was on T.V. for consumption by those non critical masses of plebes that want to see drama unfold while they TIVO through the commercials.

//lovin' me some isms...

We can't all live in the ivory tower, TMB. Actions today have reactions today. Sure, they may be studied more thouroughly 60 years from now, and they might make more sense, and we might be able to pass off people as plebs and philistines, but to accept such a passive role in interpretation, function, reactions, outcomes, etc. of importiant cultural outlets here and now, to me, as a person who has been studying culture, is absurd.




joe

I've read the stuff from Think Progress. I guess I was looking for more opinions on it.
joe

Its a right wing hack job done by right wing hacks, sent to right wing bloggers to generate right wing buzz so that right wing women will tune in because the right wing men will be watching monday night football. As I will be.

How's that?

Its a right wing hack job done by right wing hacks, sent to right wing bloggers to generate right wing buzz so that right wing women will tune in because the right wing men will be watching monday night football. As I will be.

How's that?


Was that supposed to sound as patronizing as I took it?




joe

Was that supposed to sound as patronizing as I took it?


Nope. Just opinion, since that is what you were looking for.

Patronizing would be more like "if you can't see that it is (what I wrote) then you should ask the person who helps you get dressed in the morning to explain it to you in very small words." :)

See, I threw a smiley in there to show you I was kidding.

Seriously, no patronizing intended.

It's not about what I want. And it's not about what I read or what I believe. It's about presenting false ideas (whatever side of the board they may fall on) in the form of documentary on national telivision in a nation where the majority of people trust network news and teleivsion for most of their information.



joe

It's an excellent point Joe. Regardless of which way the falsehoods land, left/right, it begs the question: What would motivate Disney/ABC to broadcast a docu-drama that contains falsehoods when the mid-terms are just eight short weeks away? It also tests the question of the so-called "Liberal Media" myth.

Is this the new paradigm created when Michael Moore released Fahrenheight 911? So, every election we'll see some sort of movie/docudrama? Funny thing, no one has proven any of Michael Moore's "facts" in F/911 to be false, yet we already know this Disney sponsored docudrama contains false info. :eek:

Nope. Just opinion, since that is what you were looking for.

Patronizing would be more like "if you can't see that it is (what I wrote) then you should ask the person who helps you get dressed in the morning to explain it to you in very small words." :)

See, I threw a smiley in there to show you I was kidding.

Seriously, no patronizing intended.


Gotcha. Thought I'd ask before taking offense.

I figure my mood right now is skewing my perception of most things. Sorry about that :)






joe

We can't all live in the ivory tower, TMB. Actions today have reactions today. Sure, they may be studied more thouroughly 60 years from now, and they might make more sense, and we might be able to pass off people as plebs and philistines, but to accept such a passive role in interpretation, function, reactions, outcomes, etc. of importiant cultural outlets here and now, to me, as a person who has been studying culture, is absurd.




joe

Of course not...the tower won't fit all of us!!!!

I am not resigned (well not all that resigned), but clearly irrationalism, absolutism and anti-intellectualism have some serious guns right now. Things run in cycles, and often during times of crisis. Human nature looks for two things in crisis, security and diversions. The authoritarian part of the right wing is offering security (with a price) and the media outlets are offering diversions to keep their mind off their troubles.

Absurd or no...the fact that you study culture and I study history is thought of by many as the superfluous pursuit of an intellectual towards the didactic...and that is not very popular at the moment. We may be popular again...thermadorian reactions are a part of the process and as the pendulum shifts right it most inevitably shifts back again.

You are right. However, it's nice to be an idealist, but you'll find yourself chasing windmills more than you will fighting actual battles.

It's not about what I want. And it's not about what I read or what I believe. It's about presenting false ideas (whatever side of the board they may fall on) in the form of documentary on national telivision in a nation where the majority of people trust network news and teleivsion for most of their information.



joe

Here's some commentary that I agree with. Even if "Path" is marketed as a docudrama, I think the subject is too important to over-dramatize, although I guess what constitutes "over" lies in the eye of the beholder.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/65316903-0da4-4c2e-8bbe-09e4db570437

I know this may not be a popular sentiment around here, but I’m uncomfortable with the upcoming miniseries, “The Path to 9/11.” Let me explain why.


In the conservative portion of the blogosphere, the film has occasioned much joyous ballyhoo. At last, we seem to be collectively exclaiming, someone with an appropriately large soapbox is telling the true story of Bill Clinton’s neglect regarding terrorism.


For me, this has been a long standing obsession. I think my third blog-post ever relayed the story of a big Democratic donor who’s a friend of mine who got the opportunity to slumber in the Lincoln bedroom one night during the Clinton administration. At one point during the evening’s chit-chat, she asked the POTUS, “Mr. President, what keeps you up at night?” Clinton got that huckster’s faux-solemn look in his eyes that we all know too well and answered with one word: “Bio-terrorism.”


When my friend told me this story back in the 90’s, I nearly had to be physically restrained. I rudely barked, “If he’s so concerned about terrorism, why doesn’t he do anything about it except bomb an aspirin factory in the Sudan when he feels the Lewinsky noose tightening?”


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.


YOU MIGHT NOTE THAT the defense of the scene offers a rationale that Dan Rather would probably be comfortable with – fake but accurate. I’m uncomfortable embracing such a rationale, and I suspect most other bloggers who have rushed to tout the film will feel the same way once they think it through.


I’m especially uncomfortable with this controversy since it’s so unnecessary. The record of the Clinton administration on terrorism is an embarrassment and a disgrace. All serious studies of the matter have reached the same conclusion.


How utterly pathetic was the Clinton administration? As a piece of anecdotal evidence, here’s a novel approach that the Commander-in-Chief bounced off his Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hugh Shelton: “You know, it would scare the **** out of Al Qaeda if suddenly a bunch of black ninjas rappelled out of helicopters into their camp.” Clinton acknowledged making this remark in his testimony before the 9/11 Commission; oddly (and perhaps admirably), Shelton couldn’t recall his President making such a complete ass of himself.


To be fair, it’s not exactly like Bush spent the 1990’s being a Churchill-esque figure warning America about the gathering storm. And when he took office, his administration’s attitude towards terrorism was strikingly blasé (with the noteworthy exception of Donald Rumsfeld).


“The Path to 9/11” may well be a great film. It’s a compelling narrative, and all preliminary indications are that it’s told quite skillfully. But whether it works as a piece of art and whether it withstands scrutiny as a historical document are two entirely distinct matters.

And I would argue that it is far weaker for any ahistorical embellishments that the filmmakers decided to include.

It's an excellent point Joe. Regardless of which way the falsehoods land, left/right, it begs the question: What would motivate Disney/ABC to broadcast a docu-drama that contains falsehoods when the mid-terms are just eight short weeks away? It also tests the question of the so-called "Liberal Media" myth.

That is a good question. Why don't you email Disney CEO George Mitchell (former Dem. Senator) and ask him?



Funny thing, no one has proven any of Michael Moore's "facts" in F/911 to be false,

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

What are the thoughts on this? This isn't an episode of 24, and from my understanding it is presented as a documentary, which to me seems as if they are trying to present bogus information as facts.




jow

Well, it might be tough to prove that the docudrama is false, as Sandy Burgler destroyed the evidence.

Now that I think of it, I'm really looking forward to the sequel. The next episode chronicles the Clinton/Albright team giving NK nukes and sharing sensitive defense secrets with the Chinese.

Gotcha. Thought I'd ask before taking offense.

No problems. I appreciate you asking for clarification instead of going off, which is all too common on this board.

I do find it interesting that when cons got all up in an outrage about a reagan movie being biased, it got pulled but when libs get outraged at a 9-11 movie being biased it goes on full force.

and he said the events portrayed in the ABC miniseries are 180 degrees from the truth.
I guess that's a nice way of saying "Bold faced lie"

and he said the events portrayed in the ABC miniseries are 180 degrees from the truth.
I guess that's a nice way of saying "Bold faced lie"

You mean this Richard Clarke

Lies, damn lies, Albright and Clarke

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37805

Democrats count on Republicans not confronting Richard Clarke lies

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/ireland/040328

How the Bush-hating media abetted Richard Clarke’s lies and attempts at character assassination

http://www.brookesnews.com/042903ecclewilkinson.html

Perhaps Clarke's comments about Path to 9-11 will do more to confirm it's veracity than anything else.

You mean this Richard Clarke


Do you get all your information from the wingnut media?

Do you get all your information from the wingnut media?

the one who is ON RECORD as aying 'better watch out for OBL' the one who is described as 'running around with his hair on fire' prior to 9-11.

oh and the only MAN with enough NADS to apologize to the families of 9-11. The only guy who said 'we're sorry, we failed you" while the rest of the Con machine was doing the 'Lies and Heckuva Job Brownies' in the 9-11 commission

why don't you contact any of the 9-11 widows, survivors, etc...groups and say "Richard Clarke is a hack"

anyhow, hows that enlistment coming along?

Be all that you can be J, you know you wanna

Now that I think of it, I'm really looking forward to the sequel. The next episode chronicles the Clinton/Albright team giving NK nukes and sharing sensitive defense secrets with the Chinese.
I assume that another scene will show Bush and AQ Khan snorting lines of coke off Condi's chest during a diplomatic visit to Pakistan.

This episode in his glorious tenure is depicted in Dereliction Of Duty (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261405/ref=nosim/theconservativeb). It was discussed at length here.

I love the way the libs work themselves up in a lather about something that has yet to air. I also love the fact that if this were solely negative about Bush, it would be considered for an Emmy as a documentary. Now it's a 'docudrama' because it has negative stuff about Clinton.

I can picture Bubba putting his fist through walls because he can't use his influence to stop the broadcast. Anyone seen Hillarity lately? I'm sure she's weel out of reach!

I assume that another scene will show Bush and AQ Khan snorting lines of coke off Condi's chest during a diplomatic visit to Pakistan.

I don't know why, but the image of that rather excited me... :D

I love the way the libs work themselves up in a lather about something that has yet to air.

Probably the same way the right lambasted F9/11 and then never actually saw the movie.

At least we waited until it was released. Bubba has his Hanes in a bunch. The incident with Berger is given in detail in the book. It's nothing new as they would have everyone believe. Read the book. I'll lend it to you. :D

At least we waited until it was released.

Did you wait until the CBS movie on Reagan was released? If we go back to the archives, will the record show you failing to be critical of that one before it came out?

My criticism was because of the timing. They could have waited until the man was in the ground for a while.

"What would motivate Disney/ABC to broadcast a docu-drama that contains falsehoods when the mid-terms are just eight short weeks away?"
.
.
The answer is simple........ratings and money, money and ratings. Most network idea men would sell their own sisters and mothers into a brothel for ratings and money.
Truth has little to do with ratings and money.
I saw something today that sais that ABC is changing the credits from "based on" to "based partially on".

My criticism was because of the timing. They could have waited until the man was in the ground for a while.

when they are releasing a 30 million dollar, already being called by their own expert (Clarke is ABC's Counter terrorism guy) grossly innacurate, propoganda piece, disguised as a docu-drama but being hinted as a documentary right before an election?

No bias inb this flick. The director producer is a Limbaugh associate and friend, the pre-release is only going to right wing outlets. F-ing pathetic. You know they were able to complain about the Reagan piece because they had a pre-screening. Clinton and Co. were not allowed such on this.

oh and it can't be money and ratings. from what I heard it will be aired commercial free. So 30 million $'s spent with no economic upside. hmmmm, I'd really like to see the list of 'producers.'

April 18, 1935...letter extract from Historian Louis Gottschalk to the Head of Metro Goldwyn-Mayer studios about the film The Scalet Pimpernel,

"if the cinema art is going to draw its subjects so generously from history, it owes it to its patrons and its own higher ideals to achieve a greater accuracy. No picture of a historical nature ought to be offered to the public until a reputable historian has had a chance to criticeze and revise it."

Looks like this sort of thing has been going on for quite some time.

April 18, 1935...letter extract from Historian Louis Gottschalk to the Head of Metro Goldwyn-Mayer studios about the film The Scalet Pimpernel,

"if the cinema art is going to draw its subjects so generously from history, it owes it to its patrons and its own higher ideals to achieve a greater accuracy. No picture of a historical nature ought to be offered to the public until a reputable historian has had a chance to criticeze and revise it."

Looks like this sort of thing has been going on for quite some time.

and all your ivory tower requests for 'accuracy' and such nonsense.

the latest spin is that the scene where Berger slams the phone on the CIA when they had OBL trapped (in itself a falsehood) was just 'actor improvisation'

Man I love NeoCons and their accountability

I also love how they try to paint Disney as some Libby Media Group. Doesn't seem so long ago I remember them fighting tooth and nail against gay folks at the Theme Park.

I assume that another scene will show Bush and AQ Khan snorting lines of coke off Condi's chest during a diplomatic visit to Pakistan.

Now that's an image...

My criticism was because of the timing.
Of course. Fortunately there's nothing questionable about showing a controversial 9-11 related movie on 9-11, just before an important election.

Is this the new paradigm created when Michael Moore released Fahrenheight 911? So, every election we'll see some sort of movie/docudrama? Funny thing, no one has proven any of Michael Moore's "facts" in F/911 to be false, yet we already know this Disney sponsored docudrama contains false info. :eek:

funny you should mention that. Disney was the company(parent company of Miramax) that refused to release Moore's F/911.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/news/fortune500/disney_moore/index.htm

with executives issuing quotes like these:
The Times reported that Disney executives denied that allegation. One executive told the paper it did not want to be seen taking sides in the election and risk alienating customers of different political views.

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," said the executive, who was not identified by the paper.

I'll wait to read the book!

Seems the right wing bloggers and others of their ilk have worked up an equally big lather, or shall I say froth.