The False Path to 9/11 - ABC Airs Propaganda

[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.