ABC Adjusting Their Docudrama
Drudge has the story from the LA Times that ABC has decided to cave into pressure from former Clinton administration officials in their docudrama in the events that lead up to 9/11.
ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is quickly becoming a political cause célèbre.
The network has in recent days made changes to the film, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. Meanwhile, a left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the miniseries, while conservative blogs have launched a vigorous defense.
"The Path to 9/11," whose large ensemble includes Harvey Keitel and Patricia Heaton, offers a panoramic sweep of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The movie dramatizes what it deems intelligence and operational failures of the Clinton and Bush administrations, relying heavily on public records. Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 commission, served as a consultant.
After a screening of the first episode in Washington last week, some audience members attacked the film's depiction of the Clinton administration's pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Among those unhappy was Richard Ben-Veniste, an attorney and member of the 9/11 commission whom some conservatives have dismissed as a Democratic attack dog. Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, has criticized the movie for suggesting that the Clinton administration was in a position to capture Bin Laden in 1998 but canceled the mission at the last minute.
After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved.
"That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said, adding: "These are very slight alterations."
Yes, we knew this film would be controversial, and it would bring to a head the argument as to whose fault this attack was. Now many people will disagree with us, but thet is all a part of the debate. Howard Kurtz points out today that many administration officials are attacking the movie.
Top officials of the Clinton administration have launched a preemptive strike against an ABC-TV "docudrama," slated to air Sunday and Monday, that they say includes made-up scenes depicting them as undermining attempts to kill Osama bin Laden.
Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright called one scene involving her "false and defamatory." Former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said the film "flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions." And former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who now heads the William J. Clinton Foundation, said: "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."
ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes." But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission's report, although that report contradicts several key scenes.
Berger said in an interview that ABC is "certainly trying to create the impression that this is realistic, but it's a fabrication."
This is their excuse. It is a "fabrication," a "lie." But yet the record cannot be buried from the Clinton administration about how inept his administration was in handling terrorist incidents committed against the United States and its interests abroad. He treated the ;93 WTC attack as a law enforcement issue, and every subsequent attack the same way. From Kenya, Tanzania, and Khobar Towers to the USS Cole, the administration thought they could get these animals through indictments and arrest warrants. Simply put, they did not take the threat seriously, and never considered the attacks as acts of war. As Frank Gaffney has stated on numerous occasions, our enemy was on a war-footing, and we were not in the 1990s.
Because we did not take our enemy seriously, we became vulnerable very quickly. Inaction and fouled-up operations led us down this road. President Clinton can can throw whatever tantrum he wants regarding this movie, but it cannot change the history record. He has stated that if ABC does not change the movie that it should be pulled.
WHY? Is his damned legacy so important that he has to lie to the nation? The docudrama is not built up over "right-wing conspiracy theories." It is based, in part, off of the 9/11 Commission Report and interviews. Sandy Burger, Clinton's former National Security Advisor, has raised a big hullabaloo . In the WaPo piece (linked above) there is this from Sandy Berger:
Berger said that neither he nor Clinton ever rejected a CIA or military request to conduct an operation against bin Laden. The Sept. 11 commission said no CIA operatives were poised to attack; that Afghanistan's rebel Northern Alliance was not involved, as the film says; and that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet decided the plan would not work.
Page 112 of the Commission Report contradicts this point. There was a capture plan that Berger was aware of. He knew the plan was being developed. And yes, there were tribes involved in the plan. (This explanation starts on page 111 under the heading "The CIA Develops a Capture Plan".) But they want this movie stopped because their lies are about to be shown to the nation. It is not going to be pretty to the former president and his administration.
It will not show that they were worthless, but it swill show that when push came to shove, that administration was asleep at the switch, and tried the politically-correct way to deal with a bloodthirsty enemy. We cannot negotiate with these people; the only answer is to kill them. President Clinton, coming off of a terribly "fubar-ed" mission in Somalia, decided that such military operations were not worth the risk.
Not worth the risk? I am sure that such a notion warms the hearts of those who lost loved ones on 9/11. And as far as we are concerned, President Clinton's legacy lay at Ground Zero. He opted to run his administration the way he did to stay popular. He chose to keep everyone happy by doing nothing. And while he did that, our enemy kept intensifying their attacks. And they kept targeting us. Abroad, major attacks made by al-Qaeda specifically went after Western tourists. They went after "military targets" in the Riyadh bombing at Khobar Towers, and in Yemen with the USS Cole. But still President Clinton refused to act.
It should have been clear to the administration that the people they were "fighting" had no respect for laws (unless they were sharia law), and their supporters shared that view. If you are not getting cooperation or assistance from those people, and your enemy could care less what they are charged with, then why continue the same, ineffective tactics? The tactics should have changed. We should have gone after bin Laden, and al-Qaeda with everything we had.
President Clinton decided that was not prudent. And because of that, our enemy was emboldened enough to hit us badly after the new president was in office. Were there failures in the Bush Administration? Some, but not entirely of President Bush's own accord. And while we are equal here, and willing to admit the mistakes committed by this administration, we will not stand by the wayside and allow pressure from a bunch of former political hacks whitewash the historical record. The record is there for everyone to see. All you need are the tools and the time. And the time aspect is small; Thomas and I comprised the information over the course of a few weeks showing where the Clinton administration made its mistakes.
I think the former administration needs to quit whining, and suck it up. They helped deliver this attack to our doorstep through their own inactivity. They should share the blame for those that died, and simply state that they are sorry for not doing their job better.
Marcie
Drudge has the story from the LA Times that ABC has decided to cave into pressure from former Clinton administration officials in their docudrama in the events that lead up to 9/11.
ABC's upcoming five-hour docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is quickly becoming a political cause célèbre.
The network has in recent days made changes to the film, set to air Sunday and Monday, after leading political figures, many of them Democrats, complained about bias and alleged inaccuracies. Meanwhile, a left-wing organization has launched a letter-writing campaign urging the network to "correct" or dump the miniseries, while conservative blogs have launched a vigorous defense.
"The Path to 9/11," whose large ensemble includes Harvey Keitel and Patricia Heaton, offers a panoramic sweep of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The movie dramatizes what it deems intelligence and operational failures of the Clinton and Bush administrations, relying heavily on public records. Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 commission, served as a consultant.
After a screening of the first episode in Washington last week, some audience members attacked the film's depiction of the Clinton administration's pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Among those unhappy was Richard Ben-Veniste, an attorney and member of the 9/11 commission whom some conservatives have dismissed as a Democratic attack dog. Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, has criticized the movie for suggesting that the Clinton administration was in a position to capture Bin Laden in 1998 but canceled the mission at the last minute.
After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved.
"That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said, adding: "These are very slight alterations."
Yes, we knew this film would be controversial, and it would bring to a head the argument as to whose fault this attack was. Now many people will disagree with us, but thet is all a part of the debate. Howard Kurtz points out today that many administration officials are attacking the movie.
Top officials of the Clinton administration have launched a preemptive strike against an ABC-TV "docudrama," slated to air Sunday and Monday, that they say includes made-up scenes depicting them as undermining attempts to kill Osama bin Laden.
Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright called one scene involving her "false and defamatory." Former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said the film "flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions." And former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who now heads the William J. Clinton Foundation, said: "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."
ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes." But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission's report, although that report contradicts several key scenes.
Berger said in an interview that ABC is "certainly trying to create the impression that this is realistic, but it's a fabrication."
This is their excuse. It is a "fabrication," a "lie." But yet the record cannot be buried from the Clinton administration about how inept his administration was in handling terrorist incidents committed against the United States and its interests abroad. He treated the ;93 WTC attack as a law enforcement issue, and every subsequent attack the same way. From Kenya, Tanzania, and Khobar Towers to the USS Cole, the administration thought they could get these animals through indictments and arrest warrants. Simply put, they did not take the threat seriously, and never considered the attacks as acts of war. As Frank Gaffney has stated on numerous occasions, our enemy was on a war-footing, and we were not in the 1990s.
Because we did not take our enemy seriously, we became vulnerable very quickly. Inaction and fouled-up operations led us down this road. President Clinton can can throw whatever tantrum he wants regarding this movie, but it cannot change the history record. He has stated that if ABC does not change the movie that it should be pulled.
WHY? Is his damned legacy so important that he has to lie to the nation? The docudrama is not built up over "right-wing conspiracy theories." It is based, in part, off of the 9/11 Commission Report and interviews. Sandy Burger, Clinton's former National Security Advisor, has raised a big hullabaloo . In the WaPo piece (linked above) there is this from Sandy Berger:
Berger said that neither he nor Clinton ever rejected a CIA or military request to conduct an operation against bin Laden. The Sept. 11 commission said no CIA operatives were poised to attack; that Afghanistan's rebel Northern Alliance was not involved, as the film says; and that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet decided the plan would not work.
Page 112 of the Commission Report contradicts this point. There was a capture plan that Berger was aware of. He knew the plan was being developed. And yes, there were tribes involved in the plan. (This explanation starts on page 111 under the heading "The CIA Develops a Capture Plan".) But they want this movie stopped because their lies are about to be shown to the nation. It is not going to be pretty to the former president and his administration.
It will not show that they were worthless, but it swill show that when push came to shove, that administration was asleep at the switch, and tried the politically-correct way to deal with a bloodthirsty enemy. We cannot negotiate with these people; the only answer is to kill them. President Clinton, coming off of a terribly "fubar-ed" mission in Somalia, decided that such military operations were not worth the risk.
Not worth the risk? I am sure that such a notion warms the hearts of those who lost loved ones on 9/11. And as far as we are concerned, President Clinton's legacy lay at Ground Zero. He opted to run his administration the way he did to stay popular. He chose to keep everyone happy by doing nothing. And while he did that, our enemy kept intensifying their attacks. And they kept targeting us. Abroad, major attacks made by al-Qaeda specifically went after Western tourists. They went after "military targets" in the Riyadh bombing at Khobar Towers, and in Yemen with the USS Cole. But still President Clinton refused to act.
It should have been clear to the administration that the people they were "fighting" had no respect for laws (unless they were sharia law), and their supporters shared that view. If you are not getting cooperation or assistance from those people, and your enemy could care less what they are charged with, then why continue the same, ineffective tactics? The tactics should have changed. We should have gone after bin Laden, and al-Qaeda with everything we had.
President Clinton decided that was not prudent. And because of that, our enemy was emboldened enough to hit us badly after the new president was in office. Were there failures in the Bush Administration? Some, but not entirely of President Bush's own accord. And while we are equal here, and willing to admit the mistakes committed by this administration, we will not stand by the wayside and allow pressure from a bunch of former political hacks whitewash the historical record. The record is there for everyone to see. All you need are the tools and the time. And the time aspect is small; Thomas and I comprised the information over the course of a few weeks showing where the Clinton administration made its mistakes.
I think the former administration needs to quit whining, and suck it up. They helped deliver this attack to our doorstep through their own inactivity. They should share the blame for those that died, and simply state that they are sorry for not doing their job better.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 3:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home