Specter
User
Platinum Board Member
| Posts: 1116 |  |
|
The Path to 9/11 - 2006/09/08 12:08
Hi All,
Just some news you may not have heard. ABC is airing a miniseries on Sunday and Monday night - the 10th and 11th. It is called The Path to 9/11 and is loosely based (at least in part) on the 911 Commission Report.
In the original, unedited film there is one scene where CIA and Afghanistan troops have a compound where Osama bin Laden is hiding, surrounded. They are just waiting on the word from the Clinton Administration to go ahead. In this version, permission is not given and the actor playing Sandy Berger actually hangs up the phone on the CIA guy in charge. The operation is canceled.
There was a big brouhaha over this scene. People from the Clinton administration wrote letters saying it was not accurate. That may be. But as I understand it, the scene was a composite of 8 to 10 separate instances where the Clinton group had a chance at OBL, and declined to take action. According to this op-ed in the Washington Times, written by Michael F. Scheuer (Mr. Scheuer served as the Chief of Alec Station, the Osama bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004) - emphasis mine:
Another spectacular untruth is on page 52: "Later in the 1990s, CIA... {failed} to put U.S. operatives into the country {Afghanistan} to kill bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership, relying on Afghans instead." Mr. Clarke, of course, was at the center of Mr. Clinton's advisers, who resolutely refused to order the CIA to kill bin Laden. In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke's reaction was that "it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden." I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke's response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so.
Mr. Clarke's book is also a crucial complement to the September 11 panel's failure to condemn Mr. Clinton's failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting. Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before September 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat. That trio, in my view, abetted al Qaeda, and if the September 11 families were smart they would focus on the dereliction of Dick, Bill and Sandy and not the antics of convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.
So let's see...the guy in charge of finding OBL plainly states that the Clinton administration would not give permission to go after OBL. And then there is this article at Gateway Pundit. Not only does the article link to additional news reports (some MSM) of missed opportunities and videos taken by Predator drones of OBL, but also has the following:
Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.
What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.
A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.
And the 911 Commission report says the same thing. But there is more. The movie is said to be critical of the Bush administration too. Fine. There have been enough mistakes made to go around. It should be obvious though that the planning and attack on 911 did not all happen the same day. Much of the planning was done on the Clinton watch.
Nevertheless, the Democratic party wants the film quashed. Top legislators from the party wrote to Disney, the parent company, and threatened to pull ABC's broadcast license if they went ahead with the film in the unedited version. Here is an outake from the letter (see the letter here or google for it - emphasis from the site I got it from):
September 7, 2006
Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521
Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.
Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.
Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” {“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006}
Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” {“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006}
Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.”{MSNBC, September 7, 2006}
Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. {“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006}
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.
Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.
As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
So...here we have it out in the open. Democratic legislators don't want the Clinton administration blamed for 911, and actually threaten the network's license if they go ahead with the show in the original format. Blackmail and censorship.
But as I pointed out before, the film is apparently critical of the Bush administration also. So lets take a look at all of the Republicans calling for censorship, reedits, and new scripts:
....
....
....
Oooops...there are none. Sorry about that.
ABC has apparently agreed to reedit the scene to "tone down" the view of Sandy Burglar....I mean Berger.
The real question that should be asked here, is why all the "pre-show" hysteria by the Democrats. There wasn't the same type of objection to Fahrenheit 911 before it came out - even though the nature of the release was the same. And why would democrats try to draw attention to themselves just before elections? And why threaten a major network?
Oh well - watch the show and see how it portrays both sides. Then we can talk about whether it was fair or not. And wouldn't that be the proper time?
___________________
Talk atya L8r,
Specter
The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth. - Edith Sitwell (1887 - 1964); SHARE (2005 - ) |
Specter (1116)
