"Objective" ABC 9/11 Docudrama Contains Lies
The Path to 9/11, a docudrama set to air for millions on the fifth anniversary of the attacks that changed this country forever, contains a scene that suggests President Bill Clinton let Osama bin Laden escape. According to Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC, the scenario, in which Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to kill Bin Laden when he is cornered by CIA agents in Afghanistan, never occurred. It was completely made up by writer Cyrus Nowrasteh.
Both Richard Ben-Veniste — one of the 10 members of the independent Sept. 11 commission, and Sandy Berger have denounced the scene. Said Berger:" It’s a total fabrication. It did not happen."
There are other troubling inaccuracies as well.
Is it any surprise then, that advance copies of Path to 9/11 have only been sent out to Republican bloggers and not Democratic ones? Said Americablog: "...the fact that ABC is only targeting Republicans with this anti-Clinton TV show is prima facie evidence that this is nothing more than one big fat campaign contribution from ABC/Disney to the Republican party. A contribution grotesquely wrapped in the ashes of nearly 3,000 Americans."
An interview with the show's writer reveals an obvious right-wing bias. Have Disney and ABC become tools of the right wing?
So on September 10th and 11th, millions of Americans are to be spoon-fed this bit of rewritten history. And we have still not captured Osama bin Laden.
In a related kicker to this news, it was reported yesterday that Pakistan, the Bush administration's so-called "ally" in the war on terror, would not take Bin Laden into custody "as long as [he] is being like a peaceful citizen." See video.
Yesterday, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY-28), Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee, released a statement condemning the program's "documentary" billing: "ABC has a responsibility to make clear that this film is not a documentary, and does not represent an official account of the facts surrounding the September 11th attacks," Rep. Slaughter said. "Disclaimers noting that The Path to 9/11 is a docudrama should be shown throughout its airing. We have yet to establish the impartiality and accuracy of the people behind this film and the claims it advances, and the American people need to know that...But what is far more important is the timing of this movie," Rep. Slaughter continued. "The anniversary of the attacks is an emotional time, and it is wrong for anyone to play on those emotions and use them to advance a political agenda."
Tell ABC to tell the truth about 9/11.
You may have missed...
What If 9/11 Never Happened? [tr]
Mychal Judge: The Saint of 9/11 [tr]
I already sent a personal letter to Robert Iger of Walt Disney as well as the producers regarding this matter. Here is what I wrote:
ABC Programming:
I received an email this morning from a dear friend with an alarming title: ABC To Broadcast Slanted 9/11 Piece. While I consider myself a moderate, I have no opinion one way or the other regarding conservative versus liberal agendas. However, broadcasting networks (with the exception of obvious Republican/Conservative owned and operated Fox News/News Corp.) should take objectivity in news and reporting as seriously as Doctors take the Hippocratic oath. While I have yet to see said 9/11 "tribute", I would be greatly disheartened to discover a conservative (or any other political party) distortion of the truth. While this country is divided politically and a scant two months before a national election in which Republicans have decided to make fear and security the central issues of their campaigns, I sincerely hope ABC thinks twice before airing such a piece...
According to reports from those who have seen it, the "docu-drama" is also riddled with factual errors. Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has already debunked one of the film's central scenes -- involving Sandy Berger -- as completely false. I am also aware that screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh is an avowed conservative who has spoken on a panel entitled "How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift?" There is certainly no way that a conservative producer, with an anti-Clinton axe to grind, should be allowed to use public airwaves to broadcast a gross distortion of the truth -- especially on the anniversary of the worst day in our history, and two months before an important national election…
I call upon you to pull this slanted "docu-drama" from its scheduled airing on Monday.
Sincerely,
Cory J Dorschel
Posted by: Cory | Sep 6, 2006 12:25:57 PM
I can't wait to see all of the crap that the wing-nut's will post here today! YAHOO! Get it going boys!
Posted by: Wayne | Sep 6, 2006 12:45:48 PM
No need to "get it going, boys." Just watching the Clintonistas go ape shit over some truth getting out is sweeeet. I'm sure libs would have rather ABC did a dramatization of Clinton's Black Ninja Raid (with Bubba playing the lead ninja, of course) but the collective laughter of the country would have taken out the satelite.
Posted by: Tom | Sep 6, 2006 12:51:46 PM
So the 9/11 commision report is GOP propaganda?
As we all know the Clinton administration was a paragon of purity and virtue.
Pax,
j.
Posted by: Jame | Sep 6, 2006 1:00:18 PM
Figures the biggest wingnut on here would make a comment... Ignorance must be a pretty potent drug...
Posted by: Cory | Sep 6, 2006 1:05:06 PM
So is Clinton's crotch. Get your nose out of it, Cory.
Posted by: Tom | Sep 6, 2006 1:08:15 PM
Sorry Tom, the vacuous hole that is your brain just overtook me and sucked me in. My apologies. (Round One [ding ding ding])
Posted by: Cory | Sep 6, 2006 1:13:21 PM
Laugh it up, gay republican house n*****s. I'm sure you'll be laughing when we impeach your beloved fake redneck come december. And this time, it'll be for cause.
Posted by: nuflux | Sep 6, 2006 1:15:14 PM
You know, explain to me why every time someone has a valid point to make regarding this current President, the conservative zealots keep bringing up sex and Clinton's affair??? "So is Clinton's crotch???" I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Bill Clinton's sexual escapades were worse than a President twisting and turning the constitution, lying to the American people, thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent on a war for oil in the Middle East, using "moral agenda" and fear to win campaigns (and might I remind readers that as gay men, BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT YOU and if you use Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" argument, at least he wasn't trying to take away your civil rights with constitutional amendments), practically giving free rides to Corporate pals (Enron *cough cough*) before getting busted, putting in Republican wingnuts buddies into the Supreme Court, and on and on and on. None of this equates getting fellatio in the oval office. C'mon now. Republican conservative homosexuals make about as much sense as Republican conservative handicapped African-American Lesbians, it doesn't...
Posted by: Cory | Sep 6, 2006 1:36:26 PM
Cory, don't try to understand them. They're just soulless, shameless liars who will present any nonsensical diversion to obscure their own evil behavior. That's all. In fact, that's all conservatives do: they come up with reasons for people to feel GOOD about their BAD tendencies. Greed, hatred, chauvanism, elitism--I'm sure you can think of others.
Posted by: nuflux | Sep 6, 2006 1:44:43 PM
The position of the Bush defenders in this thread is so indefensible and patently absurd that I suspect "they" are a plant from ABC/Bushlandia. God knows there is no end to the dirty tricks in the Republicans' playbook (see Karl Rove, Valerie Plame episode, Ohio and Florida election shenanigans, etc.). Either that or they're just plain old narcissistically wounded schmos desperate for some attention (see reality TV phenomenon); ignore them (their worst nightmare).
Posted by: JOE 2 | Sep 6, 2006 2:01:54 PM
Republikkkan homophobes high-fived on 9/11 because they knew on 9/12 they could start a needless war and throw 90 billion dollars of tax money to Halliburton.
Posted by: bambambam | Sep 6, 2006 2:05:57 PM
Sorry, 9/11 happened on King Fuckheads watch, not Clintons. I do, however, still hold that 9/11 would have never happened had Clinton kept his pecker in his pants. His transgression cost Gore the 2000 election, and all that intellegence that the Clinton adminstration tried to turn over to King Fuckhead was tossed aside.
Posted by: Rad | Sep 6, 2006 2:15:47 PM
I don't entirely agree with Cory; of course it makes sense for some gays to be Republican, just as it makes sense for some conservative handicapped African-American Lesbians to be Republican. People vote their own priorities and not everyone sees their stake in identity politics as their biggest priority. I am no conservative by a long shot, but we shouldn't assume gays or any group will just vote one way based on their social identity...gays should be actively courted for their votes and not simply taken for granted.
However, what's with the conservative responses to this article? They don't even make sense to me. Sorry to break it to you, but not everyone appalled at ABC's upcoming misuse of 9/11 is a 'Clintonista' or a Clinton Crotch-sniffer. You don't have to be a Clinton apologist to balk at a 'docudrama' that appears to fabricate certain steps on the "Path to 9/11." That the network is revisiting 9/11 fears to misrepresent facts and sway public opinion for political gain is disgusting. If you guys stand to gain from such bald propaganda disguised as nightly news, good for you. However, it doesn’t make the claims true or any less despicable. If you read the whole post, Jame, you will read that it does not claim that the 9/11 report was GOP Propaganda, but rather that one of the 10 members of the Sept. 11 commission has already denounced the scenario ‘dramatized’ in the ABC special. And take note, despisers of all things Clinton: If someone puts forward a substantive critique of the GOP or Bush Administration, your sneering that Clinton was hardly “a paragon of purity and virtue” is not nor ever will be an intelligent or relevant reply to the orignial critique. Maybe we can move beyond the childish calls of “Oh yeah? Well your guy is stupider times a million infinity.” Hopefully one day.
Posted by: GBM | Sep 6, 2006 2:37:29 PM
"United We Stand" they cried.
"I'm a Uniter not a Divider" he promised.
"I'm the Decider" he intoned.
If these things are true, why are we more divided than at any other time since the Civil War?
From the moment Bush took the oath of office, he is responsible. No one else. Not Clinton, not his own father. He promised to defend us. He did not add on an asterisk to the oath " except for such conditions that may arise which are the result of President Clinton's sins or failings."
The attacks of 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. That is a fact. If he, his cronies or his political supporters cannot take responsibility for what actually occurred during his term in office without blaming some previous administration, then he is unfit for the office.
When faced with an enemy of greater might, the swiftest victory for the lesser warrior is to divide and conquer.
We are clearly a divided nation, so who is really winning the war on terror?
Posted by: Crixi Van Cheek | Sep 6, 2006 2:59:59 PM
Well written, GBM, but how/whom one loves is, surely, one's most "core identity" rather than just "social identity" or "identity politics." That being said, the answer to why "they" attack others rather than defend their fuhrer is because there IS no defense.
Posted by: Leland | Sep 6, 2006 3:17:17 PM
Would this be the same Sandy Berger who was stripped of his security clearance and convicted of a misdemeanor for removing documents in his socks from the National Archives related to 9/11 and UBL? Would this be the same Richard Clarke who was, in fact, never more than a mid-level NSC advisor, and who made his name over his personal disagreements with Bush regarding the conduct of the so-called War on Terror? The least you can do is be honest about your sources, if you expect ABC to be honest about its movie.
Posted by: Greg | Sep 6, 2006 4:18:00 PM
"Tell ABC to tell the truth..." oh, yeah, right. Like THAT's gonna happen. That would be like Bill O'Reilly turning to the camera and apologizing to America for Fox News.
Posted by: circuitmouse | Sep 6, 2006 4:43:01 PM
Ah gay republicans...you keep me young. People who vote for people who hate them because of who they are. That's not an "identity politics" issue, it's just masochism and self-hatred.
Anyways, no the bi-partisan 9/11 report isn't GOP prop...but only using some of the report along with "personal interviews," and the help of ONLY the republican co-chair, not the democratic co-chair, to construct a film that comes off as a documentary and was written by an avowed conservative, who leaves off the fact that BUSH sat there for more than ten minutes doing nothing -- chosing to, instead, suggest he responded immediately. Yup, no slant there.
Posted by: chrisnyc | Sep 6, 2006 5:11:59 PM
There is no indication here of how this all-important docu-drama treats the Bush Admin. Maybe he gets it bad too. I dunno. When was the last time we had competent foreign policy in the US? Do our leaders actually serve our interests? Tomorrow is the cut-off date for broadcast media under McCain-Feingold. They won't be able to air comments on candidates running for office in Nov. Not sure there are any Internet restrictions, but probably not for now. This is one nasty law. Be careful what you say--you don't want to get arrested!
Posted by: Anon | Sep 6, 2006 5:27:35 PM
The biggest problem with this propagandadrama is that it lets the Bush regime off the hook for 911. They had all the tools and warnings they needed to stop the 911 attacks, but they didn't even try.
The funniest part is where ABC/Disney is lying and saying that their GOP propaganda piece is based on the 911 Commission Report. They have no shame.
ABC has been an extreme-right propaganda network for some time, but they have never sunk this low before.
Posted by: liberalhomo | Sep 6, 2006 6:33:20 PM
I sent the little note with an ammendment:
I don't want an email reply...but I will be watching and taking note of the advertisers supporting this docu-lie. You can bet not one of them will see a dime of my money...starting with Disney.
ABC now stands for American Broadcast Chickenshits.
End of email note.
So - does anyone know who are the advertizers supporting this piece of trash??
Posted by: Mark | Sep 6, 2006 6:42:00 PM
On a related note, that sound you heard a couple of days okay was moi doing my Happy Dance after learning that Chris Crain was leaving his Executive Foolship position at Window Media. Perhaps, now, readers of the "Washington Blade," et al. will have to go somewhere else for their pearls of wisdom from his most absurd hire: Fake Marine Whore For Anyone/GOP Flack But No One Could Seriously Call A Writer Jeff Gannon.
Posted by: Leland | Sep 6, 2006 6:53:15 PM
PS: In terms of how they treat the gay community, they most certainly have sunk, crawled, slithered this low before: Elizabeth Vargas digging Matthew Shepard's body up to brutalize him all over again on her "20/20" special in 2004, condemned not just by his mother, but by the former Laramie policeman who investigated his murder.
Posted by: Leland | Sep 6, 2006 6:59:19 PM
without seeing the dramatic interpretation, i can't really make a qualified determination about whether or not it feels biased. but i honestly don't see why some of you think it's necessary to be a gay republican to own up to the fact that Clinton bungled a huge amount of terrorist-related things on his watch, in no small part because of bumbling idiots like Berger. now, as some have noted, if Bush gets off lightly in this broadcast, it will feel very unbalanced. but things like the Taliban and al-queda, and international serial killers like Osama bin Laden didn't magically appear when Bush was sworn into office. hell, a lot of these problems have their roots in the Iranian revolution in the 70's for goodness sake. nothing exists in a vacuum, and despite the fact that Bush has dropped the ball pretty dramatically in his response to the threat, the threat was there, to be dealt with by several Presidents who didn't have the courage to do anything about it.
Posted by: Aatom | Sep 6, 2006 7:25:16 PM