Clinton On Path To 9/11: Film Contradicts ‘The Factual Findings of the 9/11 Commission’
Clinton On Path To 9/11: Film Contradicts ‘The Factual Findings of the 9/11 Commission’
While attending an event in Little Rock yesterday, President Clinton offered an explanation about his views of ABC’s docudrama “The Path to 9/11.” Clinton said the film should not have “scenes which are directly contradicted by the factual findings of the 9/11 Commission.” He added that he wanted the film to just “tell the truth,” and not “pretend it’s something it’s not.” Watch it.
Full transcript below:
CNN: President Clinton has not seen the ABC docudrama. He, too, is concerned about its accuracy.
CLINTON: I think they ought to tell truth, particularly if they are going to claim it’s based on the 9/11 Commission report. They shouldn’t have scenes which are directly contradicted by the factual findings of the 9/11 Commission. That’s all. I just want people to tell the truth and you know, not to pretend it’s something it’s not.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I think the film should criticize Clinton where it’s warranted, and it should criticize Bush where warranted. Both administrations dropped the ball on terrorism in general, and many people have died as a result. But to “fictionalize” and make up certain scenarios is beyond the pale in this situation. Talk about politicizing 9/11 prior to the November elections.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:28 amWas Clinton campaigning against Kean’s son in Little Rock? Little Rock an New Jersey in the same day. Eeesh!
September 8th, 2006 at 10:29 amBill Clinton saying he just wants people to tell the truth is like Michael Moore saying he wants people to not eat themselves into obesity.
Did Clinton have a little smirk on his face when he said that?
And the “not to pretend it’s something it’s not” line is great too. You mean like oral sex not really being sex?
This is pretty funny.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:30 amGuess it’s a little hard for Clinton to have been “campaigning against” Tom Kean’s son in New Jersey yesterday when he was in Arkansas, as Kean is claiming for the reason about not talking to Clinton about Path to 9/11 in the story below.
These Republicans are such hypocrites…
September 8th, 2006 at 10:32 amBill Clinton saying he just wants people to tell the truth is like Michael Moore saying he just wants people to not be fat.
Is he serious or did he have that little smirk on his face when he said that?
The best line though is when he says he doesn’t want people to “pretend it’s something it’s not”. Oh, like pretending oral sex isn’t really sex or pretending is doesn’t mean is.
This is pretty funny!
September 8th, 2006 at 10:33 amSorry I left 2. The first one didn’t take, then it showed up. That’s alright though. 2 Conservative comments won’t really make a dent.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:37 am#6 – Not to worry. We fully understand that your “spin” of the news is not to be taken seriously.
By the way, there’s a few minutes “pause” between you pressing the posting button and the comment showing up. If you exercised a little patience, you wouldn’t be repearting yourself.
Then again, if you repeat a lie often enough, it’ll seem like the truth. Go ahead, repeat your head off.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:41 am1 question, who was in office on September 11, 2001?? End of story. They ignored the warnings, its on Bush’s hands, Thats it.
Check out this Bush Comic.
“Did You Know We Are At War???
See it here
September 8th, 2006 at 10:41 amNo, Storms, that wasn’t a smirk. If you need to see what a Smirk is, look at your favorite President, the Chimp.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:41 am2 Conservative comments won’t really make a dent.
Comment by Storms — September 8, 2006 @ 10:37 am
Nope, they usually don’t. But it’s ok, I understand you, a blowjob is much worse then whats currently happening in the world.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:42 amStorm, none of the reich winged lock step troll’s such as you’re self make a “dent” anywhere any more…..”Don’t go away mad, just go away”….You’re bunch is nothing more than a tiny grease spot on a huge table cloth…The countries waking up. Get a new gig, fool.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:44 amClinton: “I just want people to tell the truth and you know, not to pretend it’s something it’s not.” – - Clinton added, “You know, like that film Primary Colors”.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:45 amABC’s backpedalling, GOP Sens. rejecting Specter/Cheney gutting of FISA, Pentagon JAGs rejecting GITMO tribunals, Bolton’s toast, Poodle Blair being shown the door. Can you feel it? CANYOUFEELIT!!!!
September 8th, 2006 at 10:50 amThere’s a difference between lying about a personal sexual relationship which had limited consequences for anyone who was not a politician during the time, and unnecessarily lying about the events that lead to the tragic deaths of thousands of innocent people and changed the world…the fact that you and others can’t seem to tell the difference is a contributing factor to what is currently wrong with this country and part of the reason we’re in this mess in the first place…
September 8th, 2006 at 10:52 amThe he was campaigning against my son comment is not a problem. The thing says they asked Kean yesterday and he responded that Yesterday Clintons was… so two days ago Clinton was in Jersey and yesterday IN Arkansas.
My problem is that apparently Kean is willing to sacrifice truth for political reasons and that he had months and months as an advisor while Clinton was not campaigning against his son. This tells me a lot about the 911 commission and hopefully when we have an honest governemnt again, we can have an honset investigatiob. Kean was advertised as a non partisan republican, but we know that was a lie all along.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:52 amtrblmkr:
I’m feelin’ it, Baby!!
September 8th, 2006 at 10:54 amBadmoodman,
I forgot that movie!
Very clever comment.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:55 amOT:
Does anyone else here still have to keep re-typing their name & email address for every post?
September 8th, 2006 at 10:56 amI just want people to tell the truth and you know, not to pretend it’s something it’s not.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:58 amThat’s exactly what most of us want.
We’ve been lied to for 6 years about most anything you can think of.
How ’bout those secret CIA prisons? Bush outright lied to Americans on that, but now we’re supposed to support ‘retroactive legislation’ making it OK for anyone involved? I don’t think so.
Chickenhawks are chickenshits, plain & simple. If just one of those polluting the air waves ranting about Freedom & Justice would actually go over & serve, they may gain some credibility, but I’m still waiting for Bill O’Leilly or Druggie Limpblow or Sean ‘The Great American’ Hannity to back up mouth with body.
I’m still waiting…
Still here…
Storms, sorry, but I reach just the opposite conclusion: It’s a sad day for the media and conservative politics when they have to be lectured to by Bill Clinton. Clinton may have lied about “having sex with that woman,” but lying about the events leading up to 9/11 is a wee bit more serious.
Why are conservatives so afraid of the truth? No one is saying Clinton was infallible, that he made no mistakes dealing with al Qaeda, et al. – just that we want the truth. And the problem is?
September 8th, 2006 at 10:59 amPretending is what Hollywood and the entertainment industry does. The level of credit that people give to TV as a responsible unbiased delivery vehicle for the truth blows my mind. The docudrama as a genre is a slippery animal in itself. I’m sorry that sooooo many people are supporting the idea that they now what’s better for everyone else regarding a legitimate use of the market to express a view. Protecting the helpless from themselves is abhorrent. It just reaffirms dependance on a collective group to decide what people can digest freely. Maybe someday people will stand up and give everyone the bird for telling them what they can’t watch. At some point the irrational tit for tat mentality will start with the left by just passing on this obviuos retaliatory example.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:02 amTrueblue, Yep! The site is messed up big time…..Then there is a long wait between the posting time untill it show’s up as posted……Oh well guess it’s because it is Friday, the day after the full moon and just another day in campaign speeches by dummest and all his dumb handlers…..LOL…Blessings..Peace
September 8th, 2006 at 11:03 amBush Plans Prime Time Sept. 11 Address
The Associated Press
Friday, September 8, 2006; 9:05 AM
This just came out:
WASHINGTON — President Bush will make a prime-time address from the Oval Office on Monday to mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the administration had requested network time for the address at 9:01 p.m. EDT. The address is expected to run 16 to 18 minutes, he said.
I wonder if this doesn’t coincide with the only part of “The Path to 9/11″ that puts Bush in a bad light, when he ignores the “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US” PDB. I don’t put anything past these bastards.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:04 amCall Disney at 1-818-560-1000 or 1-818-460-7477. Call ABC at 1-212-456-7777 or 1-818-560-1000. Please be polite, but firm, regarding why you find lying to the public about 9/11 to be offensive.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:05 amtesting
September 8th, 2006 at 11:10 amSharon,
Thanks. Peace to you.
trblmkr,
OMFG- that makes sense! This thing just can NOT air.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:10 amCall the numbers I posted, everyone!
Don’t let them f- us over again!
#20…Dave. I don’t think conservatives are ‘afraid of the truth.’ We’ve seen conservatives like Brent Bozell, Richard Miniter, and John Podohoretz say the inaccurate Sandy Berger scene should be removed from the film. And it appears that ABC is doing so. With that scene removed, progressive objections to the film should be lifted. From the reviews I have read, it appears the film shows the pre-9/11 mistakes of both the Clinton and Bush II administrations.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:12 amGO BUBBA!!!
If these ABC Bushtard Republican scum still decide to run that travesty, they will certainly regret it!
September 8th, 2006 at 11:13 amGO BUBBA!!!
If they dare to still put that Bushtard Republican travesty on the air, they will certainly regret it.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:15 amActually, all of this helps the GOP. Having Clinton griping about parts of the movie will only underscore the failings of his administration. If no one said anything, it would pass uncommented on.
landv.net
September 8th, 2006 at 11:15 am#21 Fly Brain:
For the millionth time, this is not a free speech/cencorship issue. You can’t make a movie that’s supposedly based on real historical events with the people who took part in them still alive and dramatize, alter, fictionalize, spin, fabricate, or twist them to your political advantage and then claim they are ‘based on’ anything. Fiction is fiction and fact is fact. We shouldn’t meld the two, especially when 9/11 is the subject matter.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:15 amcriticism where warranted is very good thing. However, at this point ABC owes it to the people of America to come clean. Was someone incompetent, were they hoping to make lots of money off it, were they kissing the GOPs ass?
September 8th, 2006 at 11:15 amThere is a blue dress that has a lot more to do with 9/11 than Pres. Bush ever had. 8 years of the Clinton gutless attempts to throw lawyers at the problem and the “Gorelick” wall along with his immobilized and distracted stasis due to the Lewinsky affair ARE the root causes of 9/11. Just read “The Cell” and “Losing Bin Laden”. The two attacks on the WTC were very much connected (The participants of both attacks were related). This story deserves to be told and the efforts to “cherry pick” history to distort what happened is shameful and tragic. Where was the moral “outrage” when M. Moore movie filed with half truths, distortions and outright lies came out? Clinton’s eight years in office eviscerated the defense and intelligence of this country and left us vulnerable to attack. When 9/11 was being planned prepared for, Clinton was in the middle of the affair and resulting impeachment made it impossible to even observe let alone react to these events. Which is exactly took place after the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings, Somalia, and the Kohbar tower bombing…..nothing.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:15 amI find it unbelievable that people are so insulted by Clinton’s sexual escapades. It’s so juvenile it’s embarassing.
It’s really too bad that Clinton didn’t just come out and say ‘Yeah, I had sexual relations with that woman. So what? You wanna watch next time?”
EXTRA! EXTRA! BILL CLINTON GOT A BLOWJOB WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT AND HE LIED ABOUT IT. HE EVEN STAINED MS. LEWINSKY’S DRESS! CHECK IT OUT!
Meanwhile all the puritans very secretly begin fantasizing in the shower. Freaks.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:15 am*** Contact you local ABC news affiliate: (here’s my email) ***
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –
If ABC does air “The Path to 9/11″ given the importance of 9/11 and knowing the inaccuracies in this so called “docu-drama” then my regard for your news product is absolute zero. I intend to never view the news from such an obviously biased network. How can anyone purposefully lie about the events of 9/11 to push their agenda? Talk about un-American.
Most Sincerely,
September 8th, 2006 at 11:16 am(name, address, email, whatever…)
11. none of the reich winged lock step troll’s such as you’re self make a “dent†anywhere any more
Except in elections. Except in elections.
Oh, and by the way. What does “you are self” mean.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:16 amTrblmkr, a group of people deciding what other people can watch on TV, with the advanced notion that it is not a documentary, because parts of it are not factual, is certainly a free speech argument. You have got to let people decide for themselves even after the damge may be done. The hypersensitivity of the subject matter has blinded a simple principle of CHOICE. Isn’t that what the Left is about.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:21 am#5
It sounds like you’re saying that Bill Clinton is some kind of habitual liar. Which is kind of funny given the huge whopper that W just admitted to. The other day he just admitted to secret CIA prisons in foreign countries, a story which had been vehemently denied up until then.
Then there’s “No one could have foreseen the breach of the levees.” “Saddam Hussein has sought yellowcake for making nuclear [sorry, nukuler] weapons from Africa.” “Saddam Hussein has harbored and trained terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda,” and the entire practice of signing laws in public then declaring in private his refusal to abide by them.
What lies did Clinton tell that led to the deaths of so many Americans?
September 8th, 2006 at 11:21 amExley – you are right that conservatives have also criticized the apparently inaccurate scene with Sandy Berger (a scene which the writer/producer admits was “improvised), so I should not have painted with such a broad brush. Though, it seems to me that there are a few scenes that have been challenged as inaccurate, but, anyway, I retract the comment about conservatives generally.
My frustration, Exley, is that we liberals have been objecting over the apparent falsehoods in the film (not to mention Scholastic’s decision, now reversed, to supply “study guides”); yet most of the “conservative” posters on TP have ignored that issue. Over and over again, I read comments like “you liberals think Clinton was infallible” or “you just want to blame Bush” … and the point is, we just want accuracy in this or any film dealing with 9/11. In other threads, I have acknowledged that Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11″ may also contain inaccuracies; I don’t want that film presented to my kids in school, along with study guides, either.
Anyway, if this film is as inaccurate as its critics suggest – and, I note that ABC hasn’t really denied those allegations; they just say it’s “fictionalized” – I go back to the point I’ve tried to make several times before: Truth = good; lies = bad.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:24 am#37 Fly Man:
There exists a huge amount of legal precedent that slander, libel, or just plain ol’ lies are free speech. This is going to air in the UK (BBC2, if it airs at all) where the hurdle for libel laws, even for public figures, is much lower. You can bet the lawyers at Disney are pissing their pants about that.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:34 amDId anyone Notice that the so called wall erected between FBI and CIA that the movie claims was created by President Clinton was found by the report to have existed Long Before the Clinton Presidency. And from the 9/11 testimoney this wall was Resestablished AUG 2001 by the Bush Admin at the same time they were receiving warnings about Bin Laden and terrorist activity
I think the Dubya is a TRAITOR
September 8th, 2006 at 11:35 am#39, Dave, Well, I can’t speak for other “conservative” posters on the site. I have pretty much stayed out of this whole debate. But I agree with you that if the film is substantially inaccurate than it should not be used as a teaching guide in schools.
And when I say “substantially” I mean the inaccuracies have to go beyond such regular, tried and true fixtures of historical docu-dramas, such as having composite characters or condensed timelines. Such tools are necessary when making a docu-drama. I am sure that the various mini-series and movies about the Kennedys, the Civil War, etc. have employed such tactics with no real violence done to history.
It seems to me that the Berger scene was “substantially” inaccurate. It just didn’t happen. So, it should be removed. But I really haven’t read anything else that seems that egregious about this film.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:37 am#33
This has been refuted by the 9/11 commission.
Under Clinton’s watch, the perpetrators of the first WTC attack were captured, tried, and imprisoned. Almost five years since 9/11 and no bin Laden…
This is not about F9/11 so I don’t want to go into it. But there is a difference between a privately funded movie that shows on participating theaters’ screens, and a miniseries that is broadcast on public airwaves. F9/11 is also a documentary: it only contains interview footage and narration. This program claims to be a dramatization of a documentary but in many cases is a dramatization of a fabrication. Finally, I remember quite a bit of outrage so don’t pretend it was the darling of Hollywood.
Actually, most of the evisceration happened under Bush I, after the Gulf War and the end of the Cold War. I’m trying to remember who was SecDef then. [Hint: the answer is Dick Cheney.]
And if it was really so bad, why didn’t the Bush II administration shift into overdrive on January 20, 2001 to repair it? They were in charge for almost eight months before 9/11. There’s no record of them saying, “Holy crap, we need to revamp all our defense and intelligence operations to deal with the threat of global terrorism.” Nor is there any evidence of them taking any kind of proactive action. None of the blame Clinton crowd has any explanation for this part…if it was so bad, why didn’t 43 know it?
Now you’re just repeating yourself. But while you’re at it, if you want to assume you’re correct you can just pat yourself on the back for that whole impeachment thing. The right went through with that whole stunt, knowing that they couldn’t remove him from office, knowing that a majority of Americans approved of the job he was doing, just because they could. If (again, this is contradicted by the 9/11 commission) he were so distracted by that that he couldn’t do his job, it is again the fault of the Republicans.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:39 amThrough a little effort on my part, my family and I have totally blocked ABC & ABCF, both low and HiDef channels on 47 TVs so far, and that’s just a start. I also notified ABC that this blockage would be PERMANENT and that I would be writing their sponsors that they are wasting their money advertising on ABC. I emailed KGO in San Francisco and, I think, most important of all, explained to them that they are totally irrelevant, as any shows I did use to watch will sooner or later be released on dvd and I would buy them then, relegating them to “nothing” status. And I’m serious. No ABC station or affiliate will ever again be seen on all these screens, and by the end of today, I will have helped block them on 74 TV sets belonging to family and friends. I urge everyone to do the same. Cancel the station, buy the programs you like and enjoy them sponsor-free.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:39 amI think the BEST part about the Michael Moore film is that Bush Tried to claim he knew nothing of BIn Laden being in Tora Bora. A few months later the CIA released info saying that yes indeed they knew, at that time he was there.
Also The Special flights For Bin Laden family members were AGAIN reconfirmed after the movie. THe FBI even released info saying they were far more extensive than previously stated.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:39 am#40
Whoops, s/b “aren’t free speech”
September 8th, 2006 at 11:41 amFLASHBACK to 2003:
‘The Reagans’ has CBS playing defense
By Gary Levin, USA TODAY
A four-hour miniseries on Ronald and Nancy Reagan has created a firestorm for CBS as Republican loyalists marshaled a campaign to soften the TV movie’s depiction of the former president.
Emmy and Golden Globe Award-winners James Brolin and Judy Davis star as Ronald and Nancy Reagan in The Reagans.
• In the past two weeks, CBS has made 18 changes to the completed film, enraging its producers, says a person knowledgeable about the production.
• Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie sent CBS a letter Friday requesting that The Reagans be reviewed for “historical accuracy†by Reagan intimates. Barring that, he asked the network to insert a disclaimer “crawl†every 10 minutes during the film that describes it as fictional.
•Newsweek reports today that CBS is considering dumping the movie on its sibling pay channel Showtime, which suggests that the furor has sent advertisers fleeing.
Reagan loyalists, basing criticisms largely on media reports, remain unswayed and say the portrayal is unfair. “The troublesome aspect is it may be perceived by some to be historically accurate,†Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke says
Trolls, reapeat after me: “I *HEART* MY COnSERVATIVE DOUBLE STANDARD”
September 8th, 2006 at 11:42 amFLASHBACK to 2003:
‘The Reagans’ has CBS playing defense
By Gary Levin, USA TODAY
A four-hour miniseries on Ronald and Nancy Reagan has created a firestorm for CBS as Republican loyalists marshaled a campaign to soften the TV movie’s depiction of the former president.
Emmy and Golden Globe Award-winners James Brolin and Judy Davis star as Ronald and Nancy Reagan in The Reagans.
• In the past two weeks, CBS has made 18 changes to the completed film, enraging its producers, says a person knowledgeable about the production.
• Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie sent CBS a letter Friday requesting that The Reagans be reviewed for “historical accuracy†by Reagan intimates. Barring that, he asked the network to insert a disclaimer “crawl†every 10 minutes during the film that describes it as fictional.
•Newsweek reports today that CBS is considering dumping the movie on its sibling pay channel Showtime, which suggests that the furor has sent advertisers fleeing.
Reagan loyalists, basing criticisms largely on media reports, remain unswayed and say the portrayal is unfair. “The troublesome aspect is it may be perceived by some to be historically accurate,†Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke says
Trolls, repeat after me: “I *HEART* MY CONSERVATIVE DOUBLE STANDARD”
September 8th, 2006 at 11:45 amAt least no Republicans threatened any legal consequences over the Reagain movie.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/senate-democratic-leadership-threatens.html
Free Speech indeed….
September 8th, 2006 at 11:53 amExley, I confess I haven’t read all your comments, so I certainly can’t criticize you. As far as the film goes, the whole process stinks – the writer/producer having a political axe to grind, the fact that at least one scene, perhaps more, is cut out of whole cloth, distributing advanced copies to Rush Limbaugh, et al., e-mailing Hugh Hewitt to assure him that the final version will still bash Clinton, utilizing Scholastic to distribute the writer/producer’s version of history in the schools, advertising the film as a faithful adaptation of the 9/11 Commission Report (at the same time saying, hey, it’s just a “docudrama”), etc. So, needless to say, I have serious doubts about this project!
We’ll see how the controversy evolves after the thing is aired …
September 8th, 2006 at 11:54 amWhile I see very clearly the importance of getting the facts straight, once again I fear that the right has shifted the debate completely away from the most salient point. Why are we even having a docuDRAMA. The wounds are still fresh. What we need is a clear, unbaised researched presentation of the facts. Not a bunch of emotional drivel.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:01 pm#49 Alanh,
That is a good point. As outraged as some progressives may be about what is supposedly in the film, one has to be a little quesy at the news of United States Senators writing to a network with implied threats of legal / legislative consequences if a certain program is not tailored to their desires. That should give every American — conservatives and progressives — some qualms. Everyday citizens writing letter and e-mails, making phone calls to network officials is all well and good. But when government officials start getting involved, that is worrisome.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:02 pmExley, Alanh – I, too, have some concerns about overreaching by members of Congress. They should leave it to the private citizenry to voice objections. (Of course, government officials have every right to voice their objections – you don’t check your First Amendment rights at the Capitol Hill door, after all. But threats… that’s another matter altogether.)
Reminds me of the record labeling controversy in the late 80’s, early 90’s. Supporters of parental advisory labels repeatedly argued – it’s not censorship, it’s private action directed against private corporations. Except, the problem was, members of Congress and various state legislators hauled record company executives into special hearings and threatened to enact legislation unless the record companies agreed to label records “voluntarily.”
September 8th, 2006 at 12:11 pm#53, Dave wrote: Of course, government officials have every right to voice their objections – you don’t check your First Amendment rights at the Capitol Hill door, after all. But threats… that’s another matter altogether.
Couldn’t agree more.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:16 pmAh, I’m an extremist. Ho hum.
Anyway, there is a distinct difference between threats and criticisms. I wonder how much else in the movie is “docudramatized.” I think the big issue is whether or not Clinton turned down the Yemenis offer to give up bin Laden, no?
landv.net
September 8th, 2006 at 12:22 pmInteresting take from Commission member John Lehman:
September 8th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
I knew the Bubba thread would attract the most trolls.
My boss put a bumper sticker on her car that says “I miss Bill’.
Awesome!
September 8th, 2006 at 12:27 pmFair enough. Let’s see what Ed Gillespie says on the matter:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102184,00.html
I’m glad that we’ll have Ed to stand up and demand that these historical inaccuracies be fixed, and relegate this docudrama to a cable channel. He has apparently already seen it, so we should be hearing from him soon.
Right?
September 8th, 2006 at 12:31 pm38. There’s a difference between lying to try to save your butt and trying to keep “secret” CIA details secret.
What ever else you’re talking about is nonsense.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:41 pmWell put, Dave.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:44 pmStorms (No. 65) – “What ever else you’re talking about is nonsense.”
Well, that certainly is a persuasive argument, dude. I always like to end a debate by saying, “I’m right. You’re wrong. So, there.”
September 8th, 2006 at 12:45 pmI’ve looked around to see if there’s anything about Dan Rather lying about G.W.’s service record. I can’t find anywhere that you progressives objected to that being in the news and that wasn’t even a “drama”.
What gives?
September 8th, 2006 at 12:53 pmAlanh, thanks.
The whole “free speech” thing is tricky. The First Amendment allows people to speak freely, but it doesn’t protect the speaker from other peoples’ views. If ABC were to cave to public pressure, there is no First Amendment issue. (If it caves to government pressure, its far less clear.)
The thing is, we have to be consistent. Free speech is for everyone, even the “bad guys.”
I think it’s great that this controversy erupted in the first place. It gives people the opportunity to air their opinions and to try to correct some of the misperceptions about what Clinton did or didn’t do to stop al Qaeda. Yet, it’s said that it took a potentially misleading film to start the debate; and sadder still that if the film airs with misleading scenes, many folks will be deceived.
ABC should have started with an accurate, non-partisan film in the first place. I’m sure we’d still be arguing over what Clinton did right or wrong, but at least we wouldn’t be in a situation where we have to choose between airing a misleading film or trying to prevent the film from being shown. Nobody wins under either scenario, in my view.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:54 pmI suspect the people who are the most upset about the alledged disregard for truth in the ABC mini-series are some of the very same people who had the most praise for Michael Moore’s so-called documentary Fahrenheit 911. It is completely laughable that these people try to portray their outrage over the ABC miniseries to be some sort of noble defense of truth – the lack self-honesty is really quite staggering.
September 8th, 2006 at 12:57 pmI’ll try to be as simple as I can with this one.
The people in Moore’s film are REAL PEOPLE (granted, with their own opinions and agendas).
The people in this ‘docudrama’ are ACTORS, protraying scenes that have no documented basis in fact. Not real people.
Do you understand the difference?
September 8th, 2006 at 1:07 pmBtriuthful – If you read my earlier post, it’s clear that I agree with you to the extent you are arguing that the government has considerable power to regulate broadcasting. Where I disagree is the implicit argument that the First Amendment has no bearing on broadcast regulations. And the Supreme Court disagrees, too.
In FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364 (1984), the Supreme Court struck down Section 399 of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which barred public television stations that received CPB funds from engaging in editorializing, on First Amendment grounds. This is what the Court said about the interplay between the First Amendment and the government’s power to regulate broadcasting:
“[T]he restriction imposed by 399 is specifically directed at a form of speech – namely, the expression of editorial opinion – that lies at the heart of First Amendment protection. … As we recently reiterated in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), ‘expression on public issues “has always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.â€â€™ Id., at 913 (quoting Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 467 (1980)). And we have emphasized:
“‘The freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the Constitution embraces at the least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment. . . . Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.’ Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S., at 101 -102.
“The editorial has traditionally played precisely this role by informing and arousing the public, and by criticizing and cajoling those who hold government office in order to help launch new solutions to the problems of the time. Preserving the free expression of editorial opinion, therefore, is part and parcel of ‘a profound national commitment . . . that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). As we recognized in Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966), the special place of the editorial in our First Amendment jurisprudence simply reflects the fact that the press, of which the broadcasting industry is indisputably a part, United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 166 (1948), carries out a historic, dual responsibility in our society of reporting information and of bringing critical judgment to bear on public affairs. Indeed, the pivotal importance of editorializing as a means of satisfying the public’s interest in receiving a wide variety of ideas and views through the medium of broadcasting has long been recognized by the FCC; the Commission has for the past 35 years actively encouraged commercial broadcast licensees to include editorials on public affairs in their programming. Because 399 appears to restrict precisely that form of speech which the Framers of the Bill of Rights were most anxious to protect – speech that is ‘indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth’ – we must be especially careful in weighing the interests that are asserted in support of this restriction and in assessing the precision with which the ban is crafted. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).â€
468 U.S. at 381-83 (footnote omitted).
So, the point is this: The government may, or may not, have the power to do anything about “The Path to 9/11,†but you can’t say that the First Amendment has no bearing on the issue.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:17 pmLudongbin (No. 75) – so, you’re saying we’re liars because we object to lies being told in an ABC “docudrama.” Does that make you “hones” because you (apparently) think its okay to lie?
Must be more of that black-is-white, truth-is-fiction Bushwhacker logic …
You fellers are just too durn smart fer us simple lib’ruls …
September 8th, 2006 at 1:31 pmDang it, shoulda been “honest” not “hones” in No. 80.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:36 pmI think the film should criticize Bush where warranted. More than one administration dropped the ball on terrorism in general, and many people have died as a result. I also believe that because here we go again…
September 8th, 2006 at 1:45 pmits about time to vote and politicians are jumping on this bandwagon…trying to sway people to get the vote…lets look at everything when we vote…. Obviously its being brought up just before the November elections….go figure…Lets all just remember the shock, the pain and the turmoil of 911…where were you….how did it affect you…and how many people had to die because of this oversight and negligence due to our administration……Lets just never forget….and take a moment of silence and respect on the eleventh for all that died in that horrible, horrible moment…..
Will you stop with the comparisons to “The Reagans”? Did you actually see the movie? I did. Other than portraying Nancy as being a little, um, unconventional with the astrology thing and very controlling, it was actually a very affectionate portrait. Brolin (Mr. Babs Streisand) was very convincing as the Gipper.
So anyway, what’s really bothering me is how ABC/Disney can afford a ~ $50m gift to the Republican party. ($40m production + $10m lost ad sales). I used to work in finance for a TV channel. I can tell you it doesn’t add up – they can’t just put on a 5-hour PSA and not expect to be reimbursed by someone somewhere. Hmm. Maybe they figured they’d get to build that new themepark they planned about 10-15 years ago on the Manassas Battlefield after all. Keep following the money…
September 8th, 2006 at 1:54 pmThis is NOT a right-wing propaganda production!!!
September 8th, 2006 at 1:59 pmNever mind that the vast MAJORITY of preview copies were given
to right-wing fascist like Rush “limpdick” Limbaugh.
The fact that he LOVED it – does NOT mean that the this
pileOfshit was not even handed.
snark off
Predictably, some conservatives are already labeling us liberals “terrorists” and “fascists,” saying that we “oppose free speech” because we object to the mini-series. Sigh.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:01 pmSomeone has had more than their fair of crack for the day. Holy mackerel.
Er, read the relevant passages of the 9/11 Commission Report if nothing else. Spewing irresponsible nonsense only makes you look retarded.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:02 pmDude, you ain’t no Conservative. Conservatives believe in small government, no intrusion into our personal and economic lives, and military strength to contest the power of countries that would deprive us of our rights. That’s a republican. You and your ilk support a massive secret beaurocracy that eves-drops into every aspect of our lives. You and your ilk support frittering away Earth’s most powerful nation’s military in persuit of proven lies. You and your ilk are costing TRUE conservatives their support and possibly their office! You advocate a form of government no true Conservative wants…a corporate republic where the Welfare Programs that TRUE Conservatives dispise are alive and well, just feeding ueber-rich companies instead of poor people. In the end, the government is larger and less efficient than when Bush started (and THAT is saying something). Learn what _real_ conservatism is before you open your mouth. Tis better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:07 pmAlanh – To think this whole debate began over the simple observation that the government should think very carefully before it threatens a private network over what can only be described as political speech.
The funny thing is, I’m as liberal as they come. To me, though, liberal includes respecting the First Amendment. If we ever get to the point where the Courts decide that the First Amendment simply has no applicability at all to broadcast TV and radio – that is, that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants; can dictate the content of TV and radio broadcasts, etc. – then we will be like all those other countries with “state run television.” I’ve never heard of a liberal endorsing that position!
September 8th, 2006 at 3:02 pmDave, I think for many, “liberal” has morphed simply into “anti-Bush.” Or perhaps that’s the fault line between liberal and left at this point.
For my part, I tend conservative, but I’m more interested in discussing a topic that making cheap points. So I appreciate your considered approach.
What’s your take on McCain/Feingold, btw?
September 8th, 2006 at 3:15 pmSlander is not free speach. The content, method of creation, selective review, and timing all add up to incontrovertable slander against, not only the individuals portrayed, but against the entire Democratic party – myself included.
If ABC goes through with this, I expect to be a plaintiff in a multi-billion dollar class-action slander suit.
September 8th, 2006 at 3:20 pmHow badly would the Dems want to lose that they’d want to drag this out in a lawsuit that would only portray them as thin-skinned? And then to go over all the particulars of the issue? It won’t happen.
Nor should it. This isn’t slander and the Reagan movie wasn’t slander. These are public officials…they are up for criticism. That’s the American way.
September 8th, 2006 at 3:33 pmAlan, it’s not an issue of “criticism” per se; it is of a program supposedly based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission which have certain people portrayed as doing and saying things which are false and for no apparent reason. The actual events themselves were sufficiently dramatic, don’t you agree?
If you produce a program that will be distributed as an *educational program* to schools, as *accurately portraying what occurred*, given the subject matter, the least you could do is get it right vs. allowing scenes that depict certain events that never occurred — events which cast them in a poor light (e.g., Sandi Berger hanging up on a CIA operative that’s supposedly got OBL in his sights; Richard Clarke’s supposed musings about why they aren’t going after OBL, Ms. Albright having tipped off Pakistan to a missile strike, etc.).
If the story involved *you* and you were portrayed as having said or done something that paved the way directly or indirectly for 9/11 to occur, your position would be entirely different. Don’t lie to yourself.
Slander wouldn’t be the proper term in any event.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:38 pmIf the story involved me doing something wrong, of course I wouldn’t like it–whether true or not. That’s human nature.
I’m truthfully not clear on what degree these events never did happen, or if it’s simply that the principals in question deny they did. I don’t know what they based this on. Perhaps the CIA operative? But in any event I don’t think a “docudrama” should form the basis for a history lesson delivered in school. Unless they are doing a pure documentary, and even then, a documentary has a point of view…so in this case that’s definitely inappropriate.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:51 pmBut it *is* clear that certain events did not occur — from the Commission Report. I can’t imagine why if these events had occurred anyone would believe they would not have been brought up during that exhaustive investigation.
“I don’t know what they based this on.”
Again, primarily, according to the producers, the 9/11 Commission Report. As has already been pointed out a number of times, there are flat out fictional events inserted into the program as well as info that directly contradict the Report. That’s what folks are peeved about — as well they should be.
Once more, there’s simply no excuse given the breadth of info out there for the producer-screenwriters to choose to include such scenes … except to put portray certain people in a bad light. If I were Richard Clarke, I’d be terminating my relationship with ABC News just on principle. (Yes, I know it’s programming from the entertainment division, but the collateral damage to the rest of the network will occur by default if they air as-is.)
The network is also back-peddling, saying that it’s been in the editing stages, etc. Then why did they send out copies on DVDs to a bunch of conservatives (yet refused to send copies to others who requested them, including Clinton’s foundation)? And did those copies state that it was a rough draft vs. the version they intend to release? Haven’t heard that.
“Perhaps the CIA operative?”
That’s just it — there *was never any CIA operative [group] on the ground* near OBL on the verge of taking him out. Ever. Read the Report and other sources. Surely this person would have stepped forward long ago and not used a network miniseries as his vehicle. Have you heard about this before now? No.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:12 pmShame on abc. I am going to boycott abc/disney and their affiliates for considering airing this 9-11/clinton inaccurate account. Desperate Housewives, adios…tonight, one of my favorites…20/20, in twenty years! BOYCOTT ABC/DISNEY.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:22 pmActually, that’s not true. Read Chapter 4.
an excerpt:
The principals considered a cruise missile strike to try to kill Bin Ladin.One
September 8th, 2006 at 5:24 pmissue they discussed was the potential collateral damage—the number of innocent
bystanders who would be killed or wounded. General Zinni predicted a
number well over 200 and was concerned about damage to a nearby mosque.
The senior intelligence officer on the Joint Staff apparently made a different
calculation, estimating half as much collateral damage and not predicting damage
to the mosque. By the end of the meeting, the principals decided against
recommending to the President that he order a strike.A few weeks later, in January
1999, Clarke wrote that the principals had thought the intelligence only
half reliable and had worried about killing or injuring perhaps 300 people.
Tenet said he remembered doubts about the reliability of the source and concern
about hitting the nearby mosque.“Mike†remembered Tenet telling him
that the military was concerned that a few hours had passed since the last sighting
of Bin Ladin and that this persuaded everyone that the chance of failure
was too great.118
Some lower-level officials were angry.“Mike†reported to Schroen that he
had been unable to sleep after this decision. “I’m sure we’ll regret not acting
last night,†he wrote, criticizing the principals for “worrying that some stray
shrapnel might hit the Habash mosque and ‘offend’ Muslims.†He commented
that they had not shown comparable sensitivity when deciding to bomb Muslims
in Iraq.The principals, he said, were “obsessed†with trying to get others—
Saudis,Pakistanis,Afghan tribals—to “do what we won’t do.â€Schroen was
disappointed too.“We should have done it last night,†he wrote.“We may well
come to regret the decision not to go ahead.â€119 The Joint Staff ’s deputy director
for operations agreed, even though he told us that later intelligence
appeared to show that Bin Ladin had left his quarters before the strike would
have occurred. Missing Bin Ladin, he said,“would have caused us a hell of a
problem, but it was a shot we should have taken, and we would have had to
pay the price.â€120
The principals began considering other, more aggressive covert alternatives
using the tribals. CIA officers suggested that the tribals would prefer to try a
raid rather than a roadside ambush because they would have better control, it
would be less dangerous, and it played more to their skills and experience. But
everyone knew that if the tribals were to conduct such a raid, guns would be
blazing.The current Memorandum of Notification instructed the CIA to capture
Bin Ladin and to use lethal force only in self-defense.Work now began on
a new memorandum that would give the tribals more latitude.The intention
was to say that they could use lethal force if the attempted capture seemed
impossible to complete successfully.121
Early drafts of this highly sensitive document emphasized that it authorized
only a capture operation.The tribals were to be paid only if they captured Bin
Ladin, not if they killed him. Officials throughout the government approved
this draft. But on December 21, the day after principals decided not to launch
RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA’S INITIAL ASSAULTS 131
the cruise missile strike against Kandahar, the CIA’s leaders urged strengthening
the language to allow the tribals to be paid whether Bin Ladin was captured
or killed. Berger and Tenet then worked together to take this line of
thought even further.122
They finally agreed, as Berger reported to President Clinton, that an
extraordinary step was necessary. The new memorandum would allow the
killing of Bin Ladin if the CIA and the tribals judged that capture was not feasible
(a judgment it already seemed clear they had reached). The Justice
Department lawyer who worked on the draft told us that what was envisioned
was a group of tribals assaulting a location, leading to a shoot-out. Bin Ladin
and others would be captured if possible, but probably would be killed.The
administration’s position was that under the law of armed conflict, killing a
person who posed an imminent threat to the United States would be an act
of self-defense, not an assassination.On Christmas Eve 1998, Berger sent a final
draft to President Clinton, with an explanatory memo. The President
approved the document.123
Because the White House considered this operation highly sensitive, only a
tiny number of people knew about this Memorandum of Notification. Berger
arranged for the NSC’s legal adviser to inform Albright, Cohen, Shelton, and
Reno.None was allowed to keep a copy. Congressional leaders were briefed, as
required by law. Attorney General Reno had sent a letter to the President
expressing her concern: she warned of possible retaliation, including the targeting
of U.S. officials. She did not pose any legal objection.A copy of the final
document, along with the carefully crafted instructions that were to be sent to
the tribals,was given to Tenet.124
A message from Tenet to CIA field agents directed them to communicate
to the tribals the instructions authorized by the President: the United States
preferred that Bin Ladin and his lieutenants be captured,but if a successful capture
operation was not feasible, the tribals were permitted to kill them.The
instructions added that the tribals must avoid killing others unnecessarily and
must not kill or abuse Bin Ladin or his lieutenants if they surrendered. Finally,
the tribals would not be paid if this set of requirements was not met.125
The field officer passed these instructions to the tribals word for word. But
he prefaced the directions with a message:“From the American President down
to the average man in the street,we want him [Bin Ladin] stopped.†If the tribals
captured Bin Ladin, the officer assured them that he would receive a fair
trial under U.S. law and be treated humanely. The CIA officer reported that
the tribals said they “fully understand the contents, implications and the spirit
of the message†and that that their response was,“We will try our best to capture
Bin Ladin alive and will have no intention of killing or harming him on
purpose.â€The tribals explained that they wanted to prove that their standards
of behavior were more civilized than those of Bin Ladin and his band of terrorists.
In an additional note addressed to Schroen, the tribals noted that if they
were to adopt Bin Ladin’s ethics,“we would have finished the job long before,â€
132 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
but they had been limited by their abilities and “by our beliefs and laws we
have to respect.â€126
Schroen and “Mikeâ€were impressed by the tribals’ reaction. Schroen cabled
that the tribals were not in it for the money but as an investment in the future
of Afghanistan. “Mike†agreed that the tribals’ reluctance to kill was not a
“showstopper.†“From our view,†he wrote, “that seems in character and fair
enough.â€127
Policymakers in the Clinton administration, including the President and his
national security advisor, told us that the President’s intent regarding covert
action against Bin Ladin was clear: he wanted him dead.This intent was never
well communicated or understood within the CIA.Tenet told the Commission
that except in one specific case (discussed later), the CIA was authorized
to kill Bin Ladin only in the context of a capture operation. CIA senior managers,
operators, and lawyers confirmed this understanding.“We always talked
about how much easier it would have been to kill him,†a former chief of the
Bin Ladin unit said.128
In February 1999,another draft Memorandum of Notification
I don’t think a boycott is required or advisable. I hear on the whole it is very well done program … except for these items.
I think that ABC is already being forced to set things right. Hopefully, they will do judicious editing or at least insert a strong disclaimer at the bottom of the screen before/during these particular scenes. It won’t cut the mustard to have a vague disclaimer at the beginning about “dramatization” and “fictionalization”, etc.
Dramatization and “fictionalization” is appropriate in a “docudrama” when you *just don’t know what actually occurred*, e.g., conversations-events that took place on United 93. While they had some information about events because of the phone conversations, and could extrapolate from the cockpit voice recorder, they had to *imagine* quite a lot of it.
For instance, you don’t have the families of the pilots on that flight protesting that the pilots weren’t lax in terms of security for having opened the cockpit door because there a recording exists of what went on in the cockpit. The record evidently shows that they did not, even though they’d received the warning about cockpit intrusions, say anything or do anything before opening the door (like verify who it was that knocked on the door, or that the flight attendant wasn’t under duress). Had the record reflected otherwise, the families would have had the right to protest.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:34 pmAlan, could you have possibly have taken the time to format that into readable form before hitting “post”???? (And a little judicious editing of offtopic material wouldn’t have been out of place.) Yikes.
I don’t see where you see that operatives were on the ground at a given time ready to take out OBL. “Tribals” in the area are not CIA field agents. And where do you see the event where they are moments from taking him out but Sandi Berger told them they weren’t authorized to do that and hung up on the operative??? ‘Cause that’s what the ABC program depicts.
The whole missile strike thing being nixed by Tenet is an entirely different matter. (And you’ll remember that when Clinton *did* order missile strikes, he was accused of “wagging the dog”.)
September 8th, 2006 at 5:40 pmBill Clinton saying he just wants people to tell the truth is like Michael Moore saying he wants people to not eat themselves into obesity.
September 8th, 2006 at 6:42 pmComment by Storms
==
Wanna know whats funny?
Clinton spends more time with Bush Sr than Sr. spends with his own son. What does that tell you?
#99…Alanh….Thank you for that extraordinarily relevant and telling passage from the 9/11 Commission Report. Reading that again it is clear that President Clinton wanted Bin Laden dead, but that that desire was not effectively or efficiently communicated to those who would have the responsibility of making that desire a reality.
That passage from the Report seems to indicate that while, no, the disputed Berger scene did not occur exactly as written, the “idea” underlying the scene is accurate; to wit, the administration in the 1990s (not Clinton himself) failed to deal with the Al Qaeda threat effectively. It seems the intent was there, but the execution was lacking.
It seems the “sense of the scene” would have been more accurate if it was Tenet who is seen saying no to launch the strike against Bin Laden.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:50 pmWe must remember that Clinton passed an important Counter-Terrorism Bill.
One billion dollars.
The con congess did not fund it. Instead they thought that a blue dress was more important.
Yes a lie is important. But Terrorism was more than wag the dog.
The cons blame Clinton for dropping the ball. The cons shot themselves in the foot.
September 9th, 2006 at 2:02 amExley (though I doubt anyone is still paying attention to this thread!) – I don’t quite follow your “sense of the scene” argument. Why didn’t the “Path to 9/11″ writers just write what the 9/11 Commission Report says, instead of inserting scenes which are cut from whole cloth?
September 9th, 2006 at 8:49 pmClinton and all the citics of the movie need to remember the phrase, “Me thinks thou protest too much.” All these politicians and pundits have gone from looking concerned about a mini-series to terrorized that the truth may be seen by the Amercian people.
Wow! Where was all this outcry, publicity and demands when Michael Moore presented a now proven farsical tale of 911. Clinton’s is even quoted as saying:
I guess once he and his Administration are in the spotlight, the truth may actually matter now.
September 10th, 2006 at 10:10 amYou know the old saying ‘Everyone is entitled to an opinion’? Well, it’s wrong. Only those with knowledge are entitled to opinions. I’m amazed at how many of you people think that you have the right to comment on something about which you obviously have little or no understanding. It’s laughable. Please, in the future, do some research before you flap your jaws.
September 10th, 2006 at 6:17 pmI THINK THAT YOU SHOULD ALL GET A JOB AND STOP BEING IDIOTS WITH ALL OF THIS BACK AND FORTH ARGUING. IF YOU HAVE THIS MUCH TO SAY, THEN RUN FOR OFFICE AND MAKE A CHANGE.
September 11th, 2006 at 11:50 amI think they took some liberties, but I don’t know what “docudrama” doesn’t. Given this…and I guess I should have narrowed it down but I was hurrying the other day:
the CIA was authorized
to kill Bin Ladin only in the context of a capture operation. CIA senior managers,
operators, and lawyers confirmed this understanding.“We always talked
about how much easier it would have been to kill him,†a former chief of the
Bin Ladin unit said.128
I think it’s clear that the specifics might have been overly dramatized, but it seems clear that there was a perhaps over concern about not killing bin Laden.
September 11th, 2006 at 1:50 pmHI,
Just seen the ‘docudrama’ Path to 9/11. While I found it extremely interesting and very moving I somehow think that we are all being taken for fools. This docudrama does nothing to educate the America / Western civilisation on why / how the WTC’s were attacked.
While I think that the attacks were completely and undeniable wrong, I cannot help but feel that docudrama’s such as Path to 9/11 only enrage people more. We all know that what happened was inconceivably and horribly wrong, but I feel like the drama is only adding to people’s already warped views of Muslims etc. There are too many parts in the drama that shows the American’s coming ‘close’ to averting this travesty in the first place, too many for my liking.
The real hero’s are the ones who gave their lives trying to save those trapped in the towers.
September 11th, 2006 at 5:19 pmNow on this day, may I just say, God be with us All.
The following includes a decent summary of what they left in, how little they changed it despite the assertion that they were “editing up until air time”:
http://www.niagara-gazette.com/feeds/apcontent/apstories/apstorysection/D8K2SSCO0.xml.txt/resources_apstoryview
“Clarke said the movie ‘is an egregious distortion that does a deep disservice both to history and to those in both the Clinton and Bush administrations who are depicted. ‘ ”
I trust Clarke’s viewpoint because vidently he’s seen the entire thing (never mind having been part of both administrations); I gather tonight it’s Bush’s turn to be bashed.
You either call it a “history project” based primarily on the 9/11 report and you stick with info from that report (vs. directly contradict) or you call it a “docudrama”. You shouldn’t be able to have it both ways (again, esp. when you’re making an “educational program” to be distributed to school kids). In this case, with an exhaustive 20-month investigation, you don’t need a “docudrama” that castes certain folks in a terrible light when the truth is bad enough. The record reflects quite enough in terms of actual events, conversations; this isn’t “Flight 93″ or “United 93″ where so much will remain unknown in terms of filling in the blanks of events-conversations.
Again, Alan, you wouldn’t want folks taking “liberties” with actual events and making you look like a bumbling asshat were you involved. That’s the best, most objective way to look at the big picture.
September 11th, 2006 at 6:37 pmSHOULD WE BELIEVE THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT AND ACCEPT AS GOSPEL TRUTH…LIKE THE MEDIA AND HILLARY CLINTON PROFESSED THE OTHER DAY???
PLEASE READ THE NEWS REPORTS BELOW BEFORE ANSWERING. PLEASE DON’T FORGET SOME KEY FACTORS IN REGARDS TO THE 9/11 REPORT……(OF COURSE IT WAS SO DOWN PLAYED IN THE MEDIA YOU MIGHT HAVE NEVER HEARD) ABOUT CLINTON’S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER STEALING 9/11 DOCUMENTS FROM OUR NATIONAL ARCHIVES….STOP AND THINK OF THE IRONY OF THAT!
JULY 19, 2004
WASHINGTON – President Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, is the focus of a criminal investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from a secure reading room during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings, The Associated Press has learned. . . .
Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had made while reading classified anti-terror documents he reviewed at the archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants. Law enforcement sources said archive staff members told FBI agents they saw Berger placing items in his jacket and pants, and one archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks. He also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio, they said. . . .
The officials said the missing documents were highly classified, and included critical assessments about the Clinton administration’s handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America’s terror vulnerabilities at airports to sea ports.
But what I really like is the slick explanation provided by Berger and his lawyer:
“In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the Sept. 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives,” Berger told the AP. “When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded,” he said.
Monday, July 19, 2004 10:14 p.m. EDT
Here is another glimpse into what really happened
Ashcroft: Berger 9/11 Docs Reveal Clinton Security Lapse
A sensitive after-action report on the foiled Millennium bomb plot, portions of which allegedly were pilfered by former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, sounded the alarm that al-Qaida operatives had entered the U.S. and were preparing to strike.
In testimony before the 9/11 Commission in April, Attorney General John Ashcroft detailed the highly classified March 2000 document, saying it contained a set of sweeping recommendations on how to combat the al-Qaida threat that were completely ignored by the Clinton White House.
September 11th, 2006 at 8:40 pmThe NSC’s Millennium After-Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 – with luck playing a major role,” Ashcroft told the Commission.
“Among the many vulnerabilities in homeland defenses identified, the Justice Department’s surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized for their glaring weaknesses.”
“It is clear from the review,” declared Ashcroft, “that actions taken in the Millennium period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government.”
The Millennium plot review warned the Clinton administration “of a substantial al-Qaida network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here,” the Bush attorney general said.
“Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaida network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls,” he explained.
Ashcroft’s comments suggested why a former Clinton national security official (Sandy Berger) might not want the information contained in the Millennium review to ever see the light of day.
Here are some other facts to consider:
• “Here we’ve got the most important event in America in the past 50 years, the most horrible thing that’s happened to Americans, and yet we pick a bunch of people who are connected to the very people who are at the center of the question of who’s at fault,” says Terry Brunner, a former federal prosecutor who now runs the Aviation Integrity Project in Chicago. “It’s ridiculous.”
Brunner checked out the commissioners and discovered that out of 10, at least six represent the very companies they’re now investigating.
He says they are: “Fred Fielding, Spirit Airlines, United Airlines; Slade Gordon represents Delta Airlines; Sen. Max Cleland – $300,000 from the airline industry; Jim Thompson represents American Airlines; Richard BenVinesta represents Boeing and United Airlines; and Rep. Tim Roemer – Boeing and Lockheed Martin.”
“They’re all up to here, with either being connected to the airlines or to the manufacturer of the airplane,” says Brunner.
•
Debra,
1. It’s best to pay some attention to formatting when you’re posting something that is many inches long.
2. You don’t bother to reference the sources of those “news reports”.
3. You also don’t bother to make any tie-ins in your post.
4. Do you really think that only one copy of any given NSC report exists in the world? The inference in the articles you reference is that SB was wiping out all trace of any recommendations. :)
September 12th, 2006 at 11:34 amFallen, I didn’t see it. My understanding from those who did is that both administrations came in for a drubbing. I’ll say, at this point, what I said in another forum, and that’s that we’d do better to be looking ahead at this point.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:56 pmHow in the hell can Clinton talk about telling the “truth” after that bold face lie he told the world on National TV??!!…..That is too funny….
September 15th, 2006 at 12:48 amEr, I think wanting a “history project” produced by ABC to be accurate about what directly or indirectly led up to the gruesome deaths of thousands of people is a tad different than deciding what your definition of “sex” is and doing your best to avoid admitting that some girl gave you blow jobs. (And, please, how many men wouldn’t deny-deny-deny that on national television after they’d told their wife that they hadn’t had sex with someone else.) Give us a break with those juvenile-assinine observations. :)
September 15th, 2006 at 11:33 amY’know what I can’t understand ? How Bush got re-elected yet, after reading all of these blogs, it seems that everybody hates him. lol
September 15th, 2006 at 9:04 pmBecause of sucessfull negative ad campaigns against Kerry, and the fact that he was Kerry.
September 16th, 2006 at 1:43 am