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.htmlAnd 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.”