This could get interesting

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Clinton Administration Officials Assail ABC's 'The Path to 9/11'

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 7, 2006; A09



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."

Marc Platt, the film's executive producer, said that although it "does contain composite and conflated scenes and representative characters and dialogue, we've worked very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously of concern. We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view."

The former Clinton aides voiced their objections in letters to Robert A. Iger, chief executive of ABC's corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., but the network refused to make changes or to give them advance copies of the movie. They were not interviewed by ABC; it hired as a co-executive producer Thomas H. Kean, the Republican who chaired the Sept. 11 commission, but no Democratic members of the panel.

"In an undertaking this gargantuan," Platt said, "it's impossible to interview every single person available, and we didn't believe we needed to." He said that "maybe I'm naive" in thinking that hiring only Kean would not prompt criticism of a political slant.

The fierceness of the debate reflects a recognition that a $40 million miniseries -- whose cast includes Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton and Penny Johnson Jerald -- can damage Clinton's legacy in the anti-terrorism fight on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Among the scenes that the Clinton team said are fictional:

? Berger is seen as refusing authorization for a proposed raid to capture bin Laden in spring 1998 to CIA operatives in Afghanistan who have the terrorist leader in their sights. A CIA operative sends a message: "We're ready to load the package. Repeat, do we have clearance to load the package?" Berger responds: "I don't have that authority."

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.

? Tenet is depicted as challenging Albright for having alerted Pakistan in advance of the August 1998 missile strike that unsuccessfully targeted bin Laden.

"Madame Secretary," Tenet is seen saying, "the Pakistani security service, the ISI, has close ties with the Taliban." Albright is seen shouting: "We had to inform the Pakistanis. There are regional factors involved." Tenet then complains that "we've enhanced bin Laden's stature."

Albright said she never warned Pakistan. The Sept. 11 commission found that a senior U.S. military official warned Pakistan that missiles crossing its airspace would not be from its archenemy, India.

? "The Path to 9/11" uses news footage to suggest that Clinton was distracted by the Republican drive to impeach him. Veteran White House counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke, who also disputes the film's accuracy, is portrayed as telling FBI agent John P. O'Neill: "Republicans went all out for impeachment. I just don't see the president in this climate willing to take chances."

O'Neill responds: "So it's okay if somebody kills bin Laden, so long as he didn't give the order. . . . It's pathetic." The Sept. 11 commission found no evidence that the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal played a role in the August 1998 missile strike, but added that the "intense partisanship of the period" was one factor that "likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against bin Laden."

Clinton allies have complained that advance copies were sent to a number of conservative commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, but not to liberals. Limbaugh, saying that the screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a friend of his, told his radio audience that the film "indicts the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger. It is just devastating to the Clinton administration. It talks about how we had chances to capture bin Laden in specific detail."

ABC said copies of the film were sent to media organizations and commentators without regard to ideology, and that Democrats and Republicans were invited to a screening in Washington. At the screening, Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the Sept. 11 commission, assailed the film as inaccurate.

Nowrasteh, who has described himself as a conservative, told Frontpage magazine that the movie illustrates "the frequent opportunities the administration had in the '90s to stop bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so."

Nowrasteh drew criticism from Reagan administration officials for his Showtime movie "The Day Reagan Was Shot." He told the Los Angeles Daily News then that he "made a conscious effort not to contact any members of the [Reagan] administration because I didn't want them to stymie my efforts."

The assault on "The Path to 9/11" assumed the trappings of a campaign yesterday. Four senior House Democrats -- John Conyers Jr., Jane Harman, John D. Dingell and Louise M. Slaughter -- have written Iger to demand that the inaccuracies be corrected. Spurred by the Center for American Progress, which is headed by Clinton chief of staff John D. Podesta, 25,000 people have sent letters of protest to ABC.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
--and what does Bill say??

September 7, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.
Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.

The movie is set to air on Sunday and Monday nights. Monday is the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

Based on the 9/11 commission's report, the miniseries is also being provided to high schools as a teaching aid - although ABC admits key scenes are dramatizations.

The letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton's office, accuses the ABC drama of "bias" and a "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."

Clinton, whose aides first learned from a TV trailer about a week ago that the miniseries would slam his administration, was "surprised" and "incredulous" when told about the film's slant, sources said.

Albright and former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger also dashed off letters to Iger, accusing the network of lying in the miniseries and demanding changes.

ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan last night defended the miniseries as a "dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews."

"Many of the people who have expressed opinions about the film have yet to see it in its entirety or in its final broadcast form," he said. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast before forming their own opinion."

Executive producer Marc Platt told The Washington Post that he worked "very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously of concern. We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view."

The miniseries' creator and the 9/11 panel's former co-chairman, Tom Kean, who was a paid adviser on the film, said some scenes are made up and plan to include a statement at the show's beginning.

In the movie, FBI anti-terror agent John O'Neill, played by Harvey Keitel, and a composite CIA operative named Kirk grouse about bureaucratic red tape following a meeting with Berger and Albright.

"How do you win a law-and-orderly war?" Kirk asks.

"You don't," O'Neill snaps.

The movie then cuts immediately to a newsreel close-up of Clinton insisting he did "not have sex with that woman" - Monica Lewinsky.

Although the movie thrust Lewinsky into the mix as a White House distraction, the 9/11 commission's report found Clinton was "deeply concerned about bin Laden" and that he received daily reports "on bin Laden's reported location," Clinton's letter notes.

In another scene, CIA operatives working with Afghani anti-al Qaeda fighter Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance who was assassinated by bin Laden days before 9/11, gather on a hill near bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms - the terror thug easily in their grasp.

"It's perfect for us," says Kirk, a composite character played by Donnie Wahlberg. But the team aborts the mission when an actor portraying Berger tells them he can't authorize a strike.

"I don't have that authority," the Berger character says.

"Are there any men in Washington," Massoud asks Kirk later in the film, "or are they all cowards?"

The reps for an outraged Clinton wrote to Iger that "no such episode ever occurred - nor did anything like it."

The 9/11 commission report echoes his denial, and found that Clinton's Cabinet gave "its blessing" for a CIA plan to capture bin Laden and determined that ex-CIA Director George Tenet squashed the plan.

The third contested scene focuses on Albright, who is depicted alerting Pakistani officials in advance of a 1998 U.S. missile strike against bin Laden in Afghanistan - over the objections of the Pentagon. The movie claims the tip-off allowed bin Laden to escape.

But the 9/11 commission reported that it was a member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff - not Albright - who met with a senior Pakistani Army official prior to the strike to "assure him the missiles were not coming from India."
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
If it's not correct and twisted. And It was happening to Bush. Well we know who all would be screaming foul play. My take on these type of items is it's history. Take time to get it right by asking input from all not just a few. Good or Bad news is all fair. But get it right.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Weasel, what lies did Moore tell?:shrug:
Must be that liberal Hollywood at it again.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
c`mon guys....where`s your sense of humor?...

the disney people are known pawns under rove`s omnipotent power.... remember what sage keith olbermann says...by disparaging the movie....by calling abc/disney names,you`re just "emboldening" them....

true dat`...:grins:
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
I don't chime in much anymore, but does anyone here really think there won't be/aren't (Michael Moore) movies being made about Bush that at a minimum "stretch" the truth.

This movie will be awful and full of scenes that will be disputed by both sides. Really surprised ABC is airing especially since their ratings aren't bad right now.

This is a blow to the "networks have liberal agenda" argument.

I think the posts here will be more interesting than any four page letter sent to ABC. ;)
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I haven't had time to study all the commentary on this, and probaby won't watch it either, but a snap judgement on my part is that it is probably along the lines of Moore's Farenheit and should probably be allowed to be shown, at the very least. I wonder if there is something regarding the FCC and legalities and Presidential representation or something that may come into play - or some such thing. Farenheit hasn't been on network TV yet, I don't think, so maybe hasn't come up that way.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
So GW and now Dawgs I repeat my question. What exactly were the lies in Moore's movie?:shrug:
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
In my opinion Bill Clinton change the face of this earth with his dispicable act with Monica. Gore wins easily if this doesn't happen (then again the power hungry thieves might have thought of another way to steal the election) We don't go to Iraq and who knows if 9-11 isnt intercepted under Gore. When the World trade centers were bomb in 93 the people who did this were all caught tried and convicted. This was three months after Clinton took office. Almost a year after Bush took office we have 9-11. This on his watch. On August 6 he gets a memo "bin laden ready to attack" and basically throws it in the trash. The leader of this attack is still looose after five years. I think i will believe what Richard Clarke said under oath (a Bush and Clinton guy) before im gonna believe anything Disney say's. My god if the roles were reversed and this was on Clintons watch and he sat in the classroom like a scared little school girl the right would still be screaming about this. I also wonder if ABC will talk about the four times Clinton sent bills for stepped up airport security and the Republicans shot it down all four times saying it would cost to much.
 

Happy Hippo

Registered
Forum Member
Mar 2, 2006
4,794
120
0
In my opinion Bill Clinton change the face of this earth with his dispicable act with Monica. Gore wins easily if this doesn't happen

Really now...that could be stretching it a bit... I don't think anyone thought less of Gore because of this incident. After all, he wasn't there, was he? :scared I don't even want to imagine...

And furthermore, can't live in hypothetical realities that "if" this happened "this" would happen, etc. It is what it is, and we have to deal with it in our present situation. :shrug:
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,715
290
83
53
Belly of the Beast
c`mon guys....where`s your sense of humor?...

the disney people are known pawns under rove`s omnipotent power.... remember what sage keith olbermann says...by disparaging the movie....by calling abc/disney names,you`re just "emboldening" them....

true dat`...:grins:

gw, If watchin' a movie can take your mind off the impending destruction of western society for 3 hours, then I'm all for it. This is the happiest post of yours I've seen in some time.

Cheers!!:mj06:
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Sounds like ABC now saying there maybe some bending or fictional parts in this. Like I said above go a head and do it. But it's our history so do it right. No fiction to try and make it feel better for ABC.
And if they want to do it with smack. Then end it with. And Bush did nothing in his first 9 months to get Bin either. And has now even dropped the special unit that was looking for him.
Update and if true real sad. Just reported acopy of this film was sent to Rush the Lush to review. He was going to help with it's fair and balanced look. AS said if true a new low for conservatives.
 
Last edited:

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Really now...that could be stretching it a bit... I don't think anyone thought less of Gore because of this incident. After all, he wasn't there, was he? :scared I don't even want to imagine...

And furthermore, can't live in hypothetical realities that "if" this happened "this" would happen, etc. It is what it is, and we have to deal with it in our present situation. :shrug:

Dont you remember Gore making out with his wife for ten minutes at the convention? What do you think he was doing that for? He ran away from Clinto the whole time he was running. You have to be kidding if you don't think this was a huge factor. The southeners who the republicans screw time and time again but they just can't seem to figure it out, will never forgive this. I guess if Clinton got caught with a sheep instead of a cow it might have been a different story.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top