The False Path to 9/11 - ABC Airs Propaganda

[Phillip Dampier]

ABC/Disney plans to memorialize the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with a fictional docudrama called "The Path to 9/11". Written by an avowed right-wing activist, this work of fiction directly contradicts the accepted record of the 9/11 Commission Report. President Clinton and former administration officials were denied an advance copy; Rush Limbaugh and obscure right-wing bloggers saw it last week. ABC plans to distribute this docudrama to 100,000 educators across the country.

There are two good links for updates on this situation:

http://openlettertoabc.blogspot.com/
http://thinkprogress.org

[injest]

interesting that it was originally touted as a documentary, then as a drama....now it is a 'work of fiction'...

[jpwagoneer1964]

So have you ever even seen this film that ABC is airing?

[Phillip Dampier]

I personally have not, although independent critics who managed to get a copy of the production sent to them via a right wing blog or news source (the only people who got advance copies, by the way) have posted enough scenes and references online to make it clear what the agenda of this film is.  Overwhelmingly, according to Editor & Publisher - an industry trade magazine, this production focuses of perceived failures of the Clinton Administration while giving a virtual free pass to the Bush Administration.  More importantly, it incites viewers because it depicts scenes of Clinton officials hanging up on troop commanders waiting for a "go" order to take out bin Laden (complete fiction straight out of a scene from Clear and Present Danger), uses virtually every Republican talking point (eg. "Clinton is treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem" followed by deep sighs and rolling eyes), and puts words in the mouths of actual former Clinton officials (Ms. Albright warning Pakistan in advance of airstrikes so they could call Osama on the hotline and tell him to look out) that would imply near-treason.

Some 9/11 Commission members are now also condemning the film as wildly inaccurate.  ABC still refuses to provide screeners of the production to anyone other than right wing news sources, talk shows, and columnists, which is very suspicious right there.  But when Rush Limbaugh turns out to be among the filmmaker's best friends and Rush talks about how this production will "get the Clintons," there is little doubt where we are going with this.

My personal position is that ABC needs to heavily edit this to make it stay within the confines of the actual 9/11 Commission report, which is how they have been selling this all along.  Only we now discover that so much of this film goes beyond the report, to edit it in that way may make it impossible to view and make any sense.  Plus, ABC still needs to answer questions about how they vetted this whole project, and why it was publicized exclusively in the right wing media world, and why this kind of thing is appropriate in the first place.

Remember, too, it was ABC-Disney who refused to distribute or involve itself in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, saying it did not want to get involved in 9/11 politics and turn a tragedy into a political football.  One wonders what has changed since.

[Phillip Dampier]

Here are some videos about the coverage:

http://www.phillipdampier.net/downloads/The-Most-Greg-Mitchell-ABC.wmv
http://www.phillipdampier.net/downloads/911_keitel.wmv
http://www.phillipdampier.net/downloads/Scarborough-ABC-911-movie.wmv
http://www.phillipdampier.net/downloads/TSR-ABC-Schools.wmv
http://www.phillipdampier.net/downloads/ABC-Statement-on-series.wmv
http://www.phillipdampier.net/downloads/Countdown-ABC-Benveniste.wmv

[serious crayons]

Here's a story from today's Salon, slamming it. (Note: I normally don't like copying whole stories onto other websites, but you have to watch an ad to see the Salon story, and today's ad is particularly long. I copied the first few paragraphs below so you can get an idea of the tone of the piece.)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/09/08/path_to_9_11/

The Sept. 11 that never was

ABC's docudrama "The Path to 9/11" is a false version of history. It popularizes right-wing myths by exaggerating Clinton's failures and Bush's successes, depicting events that never happened.

By Joe Conason
Pages 1 2
Print Email Digg it Del.icio.us My Yahoo RSS Font: S / S+ / S++
story image

Sept. 8, 2006 | It would be uplifting to believe, as the producers of ABC's "The Path to 9/11" have claimed, that the network spent $40 million on its anniversary docudrama to educate the American people and improve the nation's defenses. And it would be reassuring to believe, as the producers have insisted in recent days, that "our ambitions and our goals and our standards were all about accuracy." But it is impossible to believe, after viewing their somewhat cheesy, sometimes incomprehensible and severely distorted version of the events leading up to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that they acted in good faith on either of those motivations.

Whether "The Path to 9/11" succeeds in cinematic terms will be judged by professional critics, who may or may not find the performances convincing, the script compelling, the visuals effective and the direction competent. Certainly the movie benefits from the presence of actors such as Harvey Keitel, who plays legendary FBI agent John O'Neill, and from location shooting in Morocco, New York and Washington, but these filmmakers are not about to displace Bernardo Bertolucci, Richard Attenborough or even Oliver Stone.

Part of the problem faced by the makers of "The Path to 9/11" was the sheer scope and complexity of the story they attempt to tell, which begins with the first bombing of the World Trade Center by Islamic terrorists in February 1993 and concludes with the catastrophic second assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon. The main narrative thread traces the often frustrating campaign by O'Neill, a truly heroic cop's cop, and his ally, former White House counterterrorism director Richard Clarke, to stop al-Qaida's myriad plots against the United States.

That story deserves to be told well -- and has been recounted already with considerably more care in Clarke's own book and in "The Man Who Knew," a PBS "Frontline" documentary about O'Neill that first aired in October 2002. The ABC dramatization, of course, is intended to reach millions of viewers who don't read books, let alone government reports, and don't watch documentaries. The danger is that this false version -- which popularizes favorite right-wing myths -- will be seen by millions and accepted by them as truthful. (On Thursday, Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., called on ABC to make clear that "The Path to 9/11" is not an official account of the facts surrounding 9/11, noting, "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.")

[Phillip Dampier]

Louise Slaughter is our representative in Congress (her district covers urban Rochester and, bizarrely, urban Buffalo ((a city 60 miles away)) thanks to evil redistricting which gave her a ridiculous headphone-shaped district.)  She has been getting far more vocal in these last few years, including on this issue.  If you hear her, you'd wonder about what in the world is life like in western NY, because she was born and raised in Kentucky, and has kept her accent despite being a resident of Rochester for two dozen plus years. 

[jpwagoneer1964]

I thought you had not. Sounds like a lot of folks we all know who refuse to see BBM because the think its a 'gay cowboy movie'. So you basing you post on biased media who have also not seen the film. Irresponsible at best.The networks are anything but 'rightwing', ABC is running the film without commercials. I repectfully request that you reserve judgement until viewing the film. I feel homepage banner has no place on BBM boards.

I am verry sorry you and anyone who has lost a loved one to 9/11. I hope your father is doing well.

[Marge_Innavera]

Certainly the movie benefits from the presence of actors such as Harvey Keitel, who plays legendary FBI agent John O'Neill, and from location shooting in Morocco, New York and Washington, but these filmmakers are not about to displace Bernardo Bertolucci, Richard Attenborough or even Oliver Stone.

Tuesday night I saw the feature film World Trade Center, which was directed by Oliver Stone, and was impressed by the re-creation of the event from the perspective of people who were in the middle of it.  It balanced some vivid and often disturbing images, particularly of Ground Zero only hours after the event, with personal stories while steering clear of a disaster-flick approach. If these reports are accurate, it's too bad that ABC didn't take that kind of approach.   

The ABC dramatization, of course, is intended to reach millions of viewers who don't read books, let alone government reports, and don't watch documentaries. The danger is that this false version -- which popularizes favorite right-wing myths -- will be seen by millions and accepted by them as truthful. (On Thursday, Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., called on ABC to make clear that "The Path to 9/11" is not an official account of the facts surrounding 9/11, noting, "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.")

As many of us recall, the attempts on the Right to politicize this tragedy began very early, including but not limited to the antics of Pat Robertson who blamed women, gays and religious minorities for antagonizing the spiteful god he believes in. But more importantly the Republican party, President Rove and his puppet in the Oval Office have been exploiting it for five years, with much of the electorate falling for it like it was a pigeon drop con on the street. So if these reports are accurate, it's hardly surprising that a broadcaster now over a half century old would be putting together something like that on the five-year anniversary.

Too bad - I saw trailers and was looking forward to seeing a good documentary on the background, though will still check it out to see if these reports are  accurate.

One thing to mark on the calendar for next week: PBS will be airing a very well-done, very moving documentary called Faith and Doubt At Ground Zero.  It focuses on the impact in terms of religious response, and originally ran on the first anniversary in 2002. At the time, they made the transcript available for printout on their website, and I hope they do the same this time out.

[LauraGigs]

I appreciate your point of view JP, and the respectful way you put it to Phillip.  But we must admit several things are suspect:

- The show is being promoted in such a way that people can misconstrue it as a news/documentary piece, which it isn't.

- Its conclusions are not the same as those of the (flaming liberal, I'm sure) 9/11 Commission, even though it claims to be basically 'reinterpreting' that information.

- It was pre-screened to Rush Limbaugh and other members of the right-wing media -- no one else.

Phillip does have the right to express himself here. Personally, I appreciate that he did.

Respectfully,
Laura

So you basing you post on biased media who have also not seen the film. Irresponsible at best.The networks are anything but 'rightwing', ABC is running the film without commercials. I repectfully request that you reserve judgement until viewing the film. I feel homepage banner has no place on BBM boards.

I am verry sorry you and anyone who has lost a loved one to 9/11. I hope your father is doing well.

[Phillip Dampier]

Several Clinton officials and members of the 9/11 Commission have checked in this morning after they had a chance to see the film thanks to leaked screeners.  They are outraged.  One thing people may not realize about this production is that it is based on events prior to 9/11, the vast majority of which is spent on the Clinton years.  So this commemorative documentary essentially covers (conveniently) the period of 1992-2001.

Several ABC affiliates are now reconsidering whether they want to air this, and as of this morning, the advertising campaign was yanked for it, suggesting it may be destined for basic cable and not aired at all on ABC.  Even conservative Brent Bozell has attacked the production as being inaccurate.

To JP: Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher is not biased one way or the other and you can watch his review in the media clip list provided.  We respectfully disagree about whether or not it is appropriate to complain about something that hasn't aired yet.  Conservatives successfully protested The Reagans, which got moved to Showtime and for exactly the same reasons - complaints about the truthfulness of the content of the film which CBS had decided to suggest was a docudrama.  And ABC has not condemned the positive reviews they have received from conservative news sources who got advance copies, only those who would criticize it claiming "it's not finished yet so you can't judge it until you've seen it as a finished product."  That doesn't apparently apply to those who liked the fact the film "got Clinton."

Selling American viewers on a drama that ABC itself claims is "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" when it is not is something that deserves plenty of protest.

The Chicago Sun-Times checks in with their own review: http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-elf08.html

And here are the views of the people involved:

9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick:

“I do have a problem if you make claims that the program is based upon the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report when the actors, scenes and statements in the series are not found in — and, indeed, are contradicted by — our findings.”

9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste:

Some scenes in the film “complete fiction. … The mischaracterizations tended to support the notion that the president [Clinton] was not attentive to anti-terrorism concerns. That was the opposite from what the 9/11 commission found.”

9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer:

In the scene, CIA operatives have Osama bin Laden cornered and are poised to capture or kill him until National Security Adviser Samuel Berger refuses to give the go-ahead. … [M]embers of the 9/11 Commission say none of that ever happened.

ROEMER: There were plans, not an operation in place. Secondly, Osama bin Laden was never in somebody’s sights. Thirdly, on page 114 of our report we say George Tenet took responsibility for pulling the plug on that particular Tarnak Farms operation. [CNN, 9/7/06]  

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey:

“If you’re saying this is based on the 9/11 Commission report, there are substantial factual discrepancies. You need to get [them] out. … You can’t sit there as ABC and say, ‘Gee, we don’t have any responsibility. They should make a good faith effort to get this as close to the facts as possible.”

9/11 Commissioner Tom Kean:

“I don’t think the facts are clear, whether it’s Sandy Berger, or whether it’s the head of the CIA, whether a line went dead. I think there are, I think there are a number of — they chose to portray it this way, but my memory of it is that it could have happened any number of ways.”

[Front-Ranger]

I received word that apparently 40,000 people have objected to the showing of this film.

[Phillip Dampier]

Now even conservatives are attacking it:

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor:

The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint. [NYPost, 9/8/06]

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor:

The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.” [OpinionJournal, 9/7/06]

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog:

One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so. [Hugh Hewitt blog, 9/6/06]

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:

When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account. [Fox, 9/8/06] 

Captain’s Quarters blog:

If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point. [Captain Quarter’s blog, 9/7/06]

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:

Look, “The Path to 9/11″ is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen. [CNN, 9/8/06]

Seth Liebsohn, Claremont Institute fellow and produce of Bill Bennett’s radio show:

I oppose this miniseries as well if it is fiction dressed up as fact, creates caricatures of real persons and events that are inaccurate, and inserts quotes that were not uttered, especially to make a point that was not intended. [Glenn Greewald’s blog, 9/7/06]

Richard Miniter, conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror”:

If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that. [CNN, 9/7/06]

Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center:

I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes, important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit them, I think they should edit them. [MSNBC, 9/6/06]

[David In Indy]

I lost a good friend on 9/11. I don't understand why people want to keep "reliving" this awful day over and over again. I am really afraid on Monday I will not be able to even watch television without seeing those awful pictures and videos played over and over again on every channel... all day long. Hell, they're already doing it... three days early.

Now they want to make documentaries, "docudramas", mini movies and full scale cinematic movies about it. I suppose everyone is entitled to watch these kinds of things if they want to. But for the rest of us, we can't get away from it even if we try.

Now they want to make a "docudrama" (what the hell does that mean anyway?)  which is based on half truths and lies. I can't help but  think this is a move by the Republicans in an attempt to polarize the American people even more than we already are in order to win more votes this November by toying with our emotions.

This makes me as pissed as hell.   

[delalluvia]

I didn't lose anyone on 9/11, but I too wonder why people want to keep reliving the day.  I understand the government has a vested interest in reminding the American people 'why' we're at war, but I have such trouble watching the various documentaries...I feel the same way about the Challenger or the Columbia.  Everytime you see such scenes you are watching the moment of people's deaths.

I cannot yet get past that.

P.S.  Thanks for the info Phillip.  I've already had my right-wing friends send me articles like 'Why the Left is Afraid of Path to 9/11.'

I sent them your information in response.

[Phillip Dampier]

I would tell your conservative friends that nobody is "afraid" of ABC airing this program.  Rather, more than 120,000 Americans plus conservative and liberal activists have criticized it for claiming to be based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission when, in fact, it is filled with invented scenes and several defamatory falsehoods attributed to former Clinton administration officials.

At a time when the people of the United States should be coming together, regardless of political affiliations, to mark this solemn occasion, a group of very partisan avowed conservatives have sought instead to create a documentary 60 days before an election that seeks to place virtually all of the blame for the September 11th attacks on former President Bill Clinton, and through the direct use of GOP Talking Points, the Democratic party.

Anyone who saw Harrison Ford in Clear and Present Danger will recall their emotional stirrings watching a slithery administration official respond to pleas by Willem Dafoe's character to send in forces to rescue American soldiers by quietly just hanging up the phone on him.  It is the ultimate insult, a callous disregard for doing the right thing.  And in Path to 9/11, this scene is repeated, only it literally attributes it to an actual Clinton Administration official by name and leaves viewers with the impression that actually happened.  And it never did.

As a statement from the 9/11 families has said, any production that purports to document the happenings that led to the deaths of their loved ones should be handled with the greatest care for the truth so that such an event can never happen again.  And this production doesn't even come close.

If ABC wants to air a fictional docudrama like this, then the names should be changed to represent fictional characters or a disclaimer should appear regularly throughout the program that this is not based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission and viewers should not intepret the production as a factual program, but rather the personal opinion and views of the filmmakers.  Instead, ABC first sold this as a factual presentation and has only recently changed their tune to suggest scenes are made up.  But it is still telling viewers it is based on the 9/11 Commission Report.

And now new information has come out about the people who made this film.  It seems they are on a mission, so the end result Path to 9/11 turns out to have been no accident.  Read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/discover-the-secret-right_b_29015.html for more details.

If ABC wants to air this on ABC Family, its basic cable network, sometime well after 9/11 (preferably after the election if ABC is honest in its claim that it is not a political program), that's fine with me.

I think a far better tribute to the fifth anniversary of September 11th would be interviews with the families directly impacted to see how they have gotten on in the past five years.

[Phillip Dampier]

LEADING HISTORIANS CALL FOR CANCELLATION OF “FRAUDULENT” ABC 9/11 DOCUMDRAMA
Call Flagrant Falsehoods Gross Disservice to the Public

CHICAGO, IL -- SEPTEMBER 8, 2006 – A group of leading American historians today sent the following letter to Mr. Robert Iger of ABC. Signatories include Pulitzer Prize winner Arthur Schlesinger and Sean Wilentz, Princeton University, this year's winner of the Bancroft Prize, the American history profession's highest honor. Stressing the significance of the “traumatic” events of 9/11, the signers of this letter are calling on Mr., Iger to stand up for responsible media treatments of such important historical moments and withdraw the program from circulation.

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Robert Iger:

We write as professional historians, who are deeply concerned by the continuing reports about ABC’s scheduled broadcast of “The Path to 9/11.” These reports document that this drama contains numerous flagrant falsehoods about critical events in recent American history. The key participants and eyewitnesses to these events state that the script distorts and even fabricates evidence into order to mislead viewers about the responsibility of numerous American officials for allegedly ignoring the terrorist threat before 2000.
The claim by the show’s producers, broadcaster, and defenders, that these falsehoods are permissible because the show is merely a dramatization, is disingenuous and dangerous given their assertions that the show is also based on authoritative historical evidence. Whatever ABC’s motivations might be, broadcasting these falsehoods, connected to the most traumatic historical event of our times, would be a gross disservice to the public. A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the falsification of history, except to expose it. We strongly urge you to halt the show’s broadcast and prevent misinforming Americans about their history.

Sincerely,
Arthur Schlesinger
Sean Wilentz, Princeton University
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Lizbeth Cohen, Harvard University,
Nicholas Salvatore, Cornell University;
Ted Widmer, Washington College;
Rick Perlstein, Independent Scholar;
David Blight, Yale University;
Eric Alterman, City University of New York.

[injest]

It is noon on Sat...it is due to be aired tomorrow night (after an address by Bush no less!! what a fortunate coincidence) and the ABC officials are saying THEY have not even seen a 'final edit' PLEASE!! is any other movie being edited less that a day away from being aired? How many other movies are cleared for broadcast before the ABC people even see it??

I am disgusted with them...

[Shuggy]

"Clinton is treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem" followed by deep sighs and rolling eyes)

I have said since 12/9 (as it was here) that the Twin Towers crashes were a crime, not an act of war, because no other country was involved. My respect for Clinton goes up, if only that were true.