The Path to 9/11

[docbyers]

The controversy over ABC's "The Path to 9/11" has the left in a tizzy. Everyone from left-wing blogger Markos Moulitsas to former President Bill Clinton wants ABC to pull the plug on the docudrama, which is set to air Sunday and Monday.

As far as I know, HumanEvents.com was the first news outlet to carry a review of "The Path to 9/11." Govindini Murty, who runs the Liberty Film Festival, said in the review, "Let me start by saying that 'The Path to 9/11' is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible." (For excellent coverage of the controversy, check out Murty's LIBERTAS blog.)

I probably should've figured liberals would have a fit. When the liberal Center for American Progress began attacking the docudrama, all the pieces fell into place.

New York Times: "Three From Clinton Administration Urge Disney to Cancel or Revise 9/11 Mini-Series"

Washington Post: "Clinton Administration Officials Assail ABC's 'The Path to 9/11'"

United Press International: "Clinton ex-aides criticize 9/11 drama"

New York Post: "Bubba Goes Ballistic on ABC About Its Damning 9/11 Movie Insists Net Pull Drama"

Walt Disney CEO Robert A. Iger, a fellow Ithaca College alumnus, should stand firm. There's no reason to let Bill Clinton and his cronies rewrite the history books to their liking. I'm no fan of Tom Kean, the 9/11 Commission chairman who served as the docudrama's co-executive producer, but even this liberal Republican is getting unfairly smeared.

Thanks to Murty's excellent review, we've been hearing from quite a few angry liberals -- many of them mistakenly contacting our office instead of ABC. Our inbox has been flooded with generic form letters and we've even had a few callers, such as this one (click here to listen) who called the idea of showing the movie to children "illegal."

[cobychuck]

    They just don't want the truth to be known.  They know what they did and why they did it and now they are afraid to say they were wrong.  Any light shed on their indescretion should set them to complaining.  Keep the pressure on Disney to show that series!

[flew-da-coup]

Typical of the left.

[MIRCS]

Now Dumb....I mean Democrats have sent a letter to Disney

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney's plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, "When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right."

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network's representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, "As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission's findings the way that they had." <"9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006>

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as "deeply flawed" and said of the program's depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, "It's 180 degrees from what happened." <"9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006>

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, "he thought they were making things up."

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. <"9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006>

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, "It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer."

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan





Sounds like extortion and bullyoing to me.........Bastards

[Old-Navy]

That's what politicians are famous for.  Extortion is just a sideline.

[docbyers]

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."

In addition, the network decided that the credits would say the film is based "in part" on the 9/11 commission report, rather than simply "based on" the bestselling report, as the producers originally intended.

ABC, meanwhile, is tip-toeing away from the film's version of events. In a statement, the network said the miniseries "is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews."

The statement adds: "The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it's not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate. The attacks were a pivotal moment in our history that should never be forgotten and it's fitting that the discussion continues."

None of ABC's moves is likely to quell the debate, however.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal advocacy group, said on Wednesday it had collected 25,000 letters asking ABC to either correct or cancel the miniseries. "The miniseries presents an agenda that blames the Clinton administration for the 9/11 attacks while ignoring numerous errors and failures of the Bush administration," the center said in a news release.

[cobychuck]

    Does anyone have an e-mail address we can write to urge them to play the series and quit bowing to the left's hissy fit?

[docbyers]

I didn't see anything so awful in the show last night.  OK, the Clinton/Lewinsky tape is always good for a chuckle ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."), which might not do Hillary's presidential campaign any favors; and Sandy "Burglar" Berger didn't come off in too good a light when they had their chance to capture Osama bin Laden.  Other than that, I'm not too sure what the left is complaining about.  It's common knowledge that the Democrats are weak on national security (most of our worst foreign crisis have come under Democratic leadership - Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton) and MAYBE Clinton was playing with cruise missles to divert attention from a dress stain, but hey, it may have been just a timing coincidence...

[flew-da-coup]

I don't see the point in blaming anyone. What happened was so unthinkable we were blindsided. We learned and my guess is that we will learn again. Yes Clinton should have taken him when Sudan offered him to us, but with no hard evidence and the fact that the ACLU is causing a bunch of terrorist being held now to be released, Bin laden would have been released anyway thanks to the ACLU.  Bin Laden was a known terrorist before George Bush was in office and had already commited acts of terrorism against the U.S. so I don't see how it's his fault. Okay I will concede, Clinton did screw up. I tried to defend him , but logic & facts wouldn't let me.   

[docbyers]

Why Censor Disney?
by Austin Bay

This year, Iran's theocratic dictators celebrated Sept. 11 by banning several opposition newspapers, including Iran's leading "reformist" daily, Shargh.

Shargh had committed political sin and published a cartoon that Tehran's robed dictators found insulting to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Associated Press reported the cartoon featured a chessboard with a white horse confronting a black donkey. "In Iranian culture," the AP opined, "the donkey is a symbol of ignorance. Iranian judiciary officials apparently took the donkey to represent Iran in negotiations with the West over nuclear issues."

Americans may be dismayed, but the urge to censor runs deep in politicians of all stripes. A week earlier, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., threatened to use government powers to censor ABC Television and prevent ABC and its owner, Disney, from showing its "docudrama," "The Path to 9/11."

On his Website, Reid urged Disney/ABC to cancel the miniseries. Reid damned the show's writer-producer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, by name and questioned "the motivations" of the show's creators. He also mentioned invoking the Communications Act of 1934 -- a not-too-subtle threat of government action.

"The usual voices" who claim to defend artistic freedom and free speech didn't speak out for Nowrasteh. Remember their silence next time conservatives gripe about faux-art like Andres Serrano's infamous "Piss Christ." Serrano's unimaginative presentation was lauded by the self-described "arts community" as a great, courageous statement. Alas, if urine on a crucifix is courage, I'd like to see cowardice.

But back to ABC's "Path to 9/11." Reid's threat of censorship, followed by a series of threats and protests by former Clinton administration officials, ensured I'd give the docudrama at least a short look-see.

I can't say I'm not a fan of the "docudrama" genre, per se. Shakespeare's history plays are docudramas of a sort. For the sake of poetry and plot, "Henry V" substitutes imagination for fact, as does "Julius Caesar."

There's a limit, however, to phony facts. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger complained -- after a number of journalists and politicians saw the film in preview -- that they never spoke several of the lines attributed to them. Unlike "Henry V," Albright and Berger aren't ancient history, and having actors portraying them speak inaccurate words -- particularly craven words -- is a blow too low. Apparently, ABC edited those scenes, and it should have.

ABC also added a label to its product, informing the consumer that the movie was, well, a movie -- a dramatization, where events and characters were condensed in the interest of storytelling. This might be an encouraging trend. Some of the more execrable television "news" programs, which are little more than sensationalist claims of doom and gloom, need to carry the same label.

So -- with these caveats -- I watched the ABC docudrama instead of the Sunday night football game.

As a thriller, the movie was mediocre. However, its re-enactment of the assassination of North Alliance leader and U.S. ally Ahmed Shah Masood on Sept. 9, 2001, was particularly compelling. Mahsood had done far more to defeat the USSR in Afghanistan than any of Osama bin Laden's "Arab Afghans." His murder -- a historical fact -- demonstrated that al-Qaida and the Taliban fear Muslims who don't buy their poisoned brand of Islam, and especially fear them when they are allies of the United States. The movie conveyed that.

The flick wasn't much of a political statement, either, unless the viewer happened to believe Islamo-fascists aren't at war with the civilized world. As for the folks who believe the West or George W. Bush created Islamo-fascist terrorism, then their own conspiracy theories are far more fictional than this movie.

The movie did dramatize several of al-Qaida's pre-9/11 terror attacks. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa and the bombing of the USS Cole aren't Hollywood fantasies, they are horrible facts.

It's also a fact the Clinton administration spent eight years and the Bush administration eight months playing cops and robbers, while al-Qaida was implementing unrestricted warfare. Both administrations treated Islamo-fascist terrorism as a law enforcement issue.

Perhaps Sen. Reid still believes in a cops and robbers strategy. If so, then he must also censor history.

[docbyers]

Why the Clintonistas Did Not Want You to See 'The Path to 9/11'

by Larry Elder
Posted Sep 14, 2006

"I don't want any lies in there parading as the truth, that's all." With that, on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, former President Bill Clinton (the man impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath), struck again.

Before the airing of ABC's docudrama "The Path to 9/11," former members of the Clinton administration and several Democratic senators complained about the docudrama's "fabrications" and "lies" in letters to Robert Iger, CEO of Disney, ABC's parent company.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright urged ABC to cancel its scheduled airing on September 10 and 11. She called a scene in which she alerted the Pakistanis to an impending strike against bin Laden "false and defamatory." Implicitly threatening to yank ABC's broadcast license, several Democratic senators wrote, "Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law. . . . " Where's the ACLU when you need them?

Okay, the Clintonistas criticize conversations or actions that never took place. And, true, an earlier version of the docudrama -- not aired -- stressed that the research came from the 9/11 Commission. In fact, the docudrama also used a couple of books about 9/11, as well as interviews.

Let's review.

The first attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993, Clinton's first year in office. For the next eight years, his administration squandered several opportunities to kill bin Laden. Besides, the docudrama comes down hard on the Bush administration for dawdling during its eight months before 9/11.

In one scene, for example, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice demotes counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, clearly showing the Bush administration's failure to give bin Laden top priority. But did anyone in the Bush administration send letters to ABC demanding revisions -- or else?

What about when Clinton himself, speaking to the Long Island Association in February 2002, admitted that he declined at least one chance to get bin Laden? "He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991," said Clinton, "then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." (Clinton later, in testifying before the 9/11 Commission, called his admission "inappropriate," according to Commissioner Bob Kerrey.)

Did the former president forget that prosecutors, two years after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, named Osama bin Laden as an unindicted co-conspirator? Or that our government suspected bin Laden of aiding, financing, training and arming terrorists for several years?

Over the rest of Clinton's term, al Qaeda remained busy. It attacked U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. It bombed the USS Cole in 2000. In 1998, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, a plan to capture bin Laden at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan was shot down at a high level, although, according to the commission (page 114), "Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. . . . Before it was canceled, [lead CIA officer in the field, Gary] Schroen described it as the 'best plan we are going to come up with to capture [bin Laden] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice.' No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and preparation."

Regarding the Clinton administration's efforts, the 9/11 Report (pages 350-351) reads: "Before 9/11, the United States tried to solve the al Qaeda problem with the same government institutions and capabilities it had used in the last stages of the Cold War and its immediate aftermath. These capabilities were insufficient, but little was done to expand or reform them. . . . At no point before 9/11 was the Department of Defense fully engaged in the mission of countering al Qaeda, although this was perhaps the most dangerous foreign enemy then threatening the United States. The Clinton administration effectively relied on the CIA to take the lead in preparing long-term offensive plans against an enemy sanctuary."

Also (page 358): "Responsibility for domestic intelligence gathering on terrorism was vested solely in the FBI, yet during almost all of the Clinton administration the relationship between the FBI Director and the President was nearly nonexistent. The FBI director would not communicate directly with the President. His key personnel shared very little information with the National Security Council and the rest of the national security community. As a consequence, one of the critical working relationships in the counterterrorism effort was broken."

Bottom line, the Clinton administration treated terrorism as a law enforcement matter. And neither he nor former members of his administration want Americans to understand or remember this. In his Saturday radio address after the first World Trade Center attack, Clinton barely mentioned the attack before beginning a much lengthier discussion about his economic program.

No amount of whining letters to ABC can change those facts.