Clinton & former administration officials question 9-11 miniseries

[Steff]

Did anyone watch it? I Tivo'd it and plan to watch later this week.

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060911/ap_on_...DltBHNlYwM3MTY-

 

NEW YORK - ABC made several editing changes to the first part of its miniseries "The Path to 9/11" following furious protests by Clinton administration officials that it fabricated scenes about their actions prior to the terrorist attacks.

 

But the network resisted calls to cancel the $40 million miniseries, airing commercial-free over two nights. Part two is scheduled for Monday, with an interruption for President Bush's address to the nation.

 

Several scenes were cut or changed from the movie that aired Sunday and finished 20 minutes shy of its three-hour time slot. ABC has called it a dramatization, not a documentary.

 

One scene, in a copy of the movie given to television critics a few weeks ago, indicated President Clinton's preoccupation with his potential impeachment may have hurt the effort to go after Osama bin Laden.

 

In the original scene, an actor portraying White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke shares a limousine ride with FBI agent John O'Neill and tells him: "The Republicans are going all-out for impeachment. I just don't see in that climate the president's going to take chances" and give the order to kill bin Laden.

 

But in the film aired Sunday, Clarke says to O'Neill: "The president has assured me this ... won't affect his decision-making."

 

O'Neill replies: "So it's OK if somebody kills bin Laden, as long as he didn't give the order. It's pathetic."

 

Another scene in the critics' cut showed O'Neill asking Clarke on the telephone: "What's Clinton going to do (about bin Laden)?"

 

Clarke replies, "I don't know. The Lewinsky thing is a noose around his neck."

 

This was cut entirely from the film that aired Sunday.

 

Another scene in the movie that depicted a team of CIA operatives poised outside of bin Laden's fortress in Afghanistan, ready to attack, was substantially shortened from the original. Pictures of the waiting Afghanistan operatives are interspersed with those of officials in Washington, who had to approve the mission.

 

The original version depicted national security adviser Samuel R. Berger hanging up on CIA chief George Tenet as Tenet sought permission to attack bin Laden. The movie aired Sunday did not include Berger hanging up.

 

The effect of the editing in that scene is to deflect specific blame. It ends with actor Donnie Wahlberg, portraying the head of the CIA team in Afghanistan, saying: "Are there no men in Washington, or are they all cowards?"

 

In the critics' version, Wahlberg's statement is followed directly by archival footage of Clinton's video testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Sunday, that footage was not included.

 

Twice, the network de-emphasized the role of the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks in its film.

 

The critics' version contained a note in the opening credits that the film is "based on the 9/11 commission report." That was omitted Sunday.

 

In a separate disclaimer that ran three times Sunday, ABC said the material is "drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 commission report and other published materials and from personal interviews." That differs from a note in the critics' version that said the dramatization "is based on the 9/11 commission report and other published sources and personal interviews."

 

The disclaimer emphasized that the movie was not a documentary.

 

"For dramatic and narrative purposes the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression," the note said.

 

Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said in a statement Sunday night that ABC and its parent, The Walt Disney Co., "chose fiction over fact and entertainment over education in airing their TV show."

 

Critics, such as historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., said it was "disingenuous and dangerous" not to include accurate historical accounts in the movie.

 

Thomas Kean, head of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks and a backer of the film, said on ABC's "This Week" Sunday that he hadn't seen the final cut of the movie but urged Americans to watch it.

 

"If people blame Bill Clinton after seeing this, then the miniseries has failed," said Kean, the former Republican New Jersey governor. "That's wrong and it shouldn't happen."

 

John Lehman, another Republican commission member, said on the ABC News show that he's told the film is equally harsh on the administrations of President Bush and his father.

 

"And if you don't like the hits to the Clinton administration, well, welcome to the club," Lehman said. "The Republicans have lived with Michael Moore and Oliver Stone and most of Hollywood as a fact of life."

[southsider2k5]

It cracks me up how the focus on my last post was '20 minutes' and I see 200 links refuting it. OF COURSE Clinton was worried about covering up a blow job. But none of that matter now.

 

Southsider hit it on the head, though... Michael Moore is a f***ing celebrity, but now ABC is nothing short of political hacks. Amazing the double standard.

 

 

Look through the thread. You'll see people EQUATING Moore with ABC. That is the opposite of a double standard.

 

No this is pretty much a double standard. I remember when Moore's movie came out, all of the stuff we heard about his being stifled, theaters didn't want to carry the movie, people were too busy tearing the movie apart to actually see it, there was too much spin control, they were trying to stifle this before an election... all of that stuff. The basic theme was that the evil neo-cons were trying to keep this poor individual from getting the truth out.

 

Now the Clinton administration has an equivilant movie come out (and I use the word on purpose because they both seem to be able to be challenged factually depending on who you talk to. For every link that swears the conversation to not kill Bin Laden didn't happen, there are others who swear it did. In this situation we are taking the word of the people who looks the worst if it did indeed happen, so take that FWIW) Its always "different" when something like this kicks your idiology in the teeth. Republicians were outrages when Moore got away with it, and did everything to stop it, now the Dems are doing the exact samething. Yet somehow now it is different, even though all of the same basic arguements are being used (it isn't the "truth", what if people believe it, this is a politicial ploy, we are only trying to show how it "really happened" etc)

 

Um, one question...can you tell me the last name of the person who is currently the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 2008?

 

I have never understood that either. Of all of the stuff you can hang on HIllary!, there are much better things than what her husband did. The insider trading stuff is more interesting than anything, and before all of the links get posted declaring everything under the sun actually did or didn't happen, let me just say having worked where I have worked, I have a little more intimate knowledge than most. And in self-interest, that's about all I am going to say about that.

[Flash Tizzle]

From an entertainment purpose, I thought it was quite good. Dramatizations of the original WTC attack, as well as events leading up to the original 9/11 plot, were done fairly well. Remove the political aspects and indecisveness of Washington, it's still interesting watching the events unfold overseas. I've never seen an actual film detailing pre 9/11 planning to such detail.

 

If you want to know who looks bad, it's the FBI and CIA. A good 10 minutes is devoted to an FBI informant -- a middle eastern man -- yelling at FBI officials for failing to heed his warnings of several individuals planning to set off explosives within New York City. FBI even had the men responsible for the 93' attack followed, but the order was given to discontinue due to legality issues.

 

That brings up another point -- several instances within the film, the forthwright impression of US policies hindering counter terrorism was given. IIRC, the quote given to explain why the FBI quit following the 93' WTC suspects was a variation of, "America doesn't allow its citizens to be spied on." The middle eastern informant then replies, "does it allow their citizens to be killed from terrorist bombs?" Another moment, a complaint is issued that information within Youseff's laptop would never have been admissable in court if set in America.

 

Personally, I enjoyed the films devotion to Youseff from the 93' bombing through his travel abroad to the Philippines and Pakistan. Don't hear much about him in the news. I guarantee a sizable portion of Americans were unaware of several subplots within the film, such as Youseff's apartment fire which exposed his airplane plot, or the Millenium bombing suspect caught at the Canadian border.

Edited September 11, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[Steff]

Thanks Flash. I'm looking forward to watching it.

 

On Saturday I watched a special on HBO detailing the day, for the first time saw the first plane hitting WTC North, and I just sat silent watching it.

[southsider2k5]

Thanks Flash. I'm looking forward to watching it.

 

On Saturday I watched a special on HBO detailing the day, for the first time saw the first plane hitting WTC North, and I just sat silent watching it.

 

The video from the firefighters training on the streets or a new video?

[Steff]

The video from the firefighters training on the streets or a new video?

 

 

 

The firefighters and then several new tourist video's.

[southsider2k5]

The firefighters and then several new tourist video's.

 

Wow. I never knew there were other videos of the first plane's impact.

[Steff]

Wow. I never knew there were other videos of the first plane's impact.

 

 

2 snipits, one from a man shooting video of his kids in the city and another from a guy shooting video from somewhere near the Brooklyn Bridge. Both just barely got it. The thing that really really killed me was Rudy's exec assistants husband was working there and was killed. She found out days later that she was pregnant.

[NorthSideSox72]

No this is pretty much a double standard. I remember when Moore's movie came out, all of the stuff we heard about his being stifled, theaters didn't want to carry the movie, people were too busy tearing the movie apart to actually see it, there was too much spin control, they were trying to stifle this before an election... all of that stuff. The basic theme was that the evil neo-cons were trying to keep this poor individual from getting the truth out.

 

Kap was referring to this thread, and the responses in it. There simply was no double standard present therein.

 

And as for comparing the two, not only were people here not using a double standard, they were in fact trying to be fair and use just one. Moore's films were not shown commercial free, sandwiched around a Presidential address, and marketed by a public network as truth. The double standard, if one exists, lies with ABC.

 

Now the Clinton administration has an equivilant movie come out (and I use the word on purpose because they both seem to be able to be challenged factually depending on who you talk to. For every link that swears the conversation to not kill Bin Laden didn't happen, there are others who swear it did. In this situation we are taking the word of the people who looks the worst if it did indeed happen, so take that FWIW) Its always "different" when something like this kicks your idiology in the teeth. Republicians were outrages when Moore got away with it, and did everything to stop it, now the Dems are doing the exact samething. Yet somehow now it is different, even though all of the same basic arguements are being used (it isn't the "truth", what if people believe it, this is a politicial ploy, we are only trying to show how it "really happened" etc)

I have never understood that either. Of all of the stuff you can hang on HIllary!, there are much better things than what her husband did. The insider trading stuff is more interesting than anything, and before all of the links get posted declaring everything under the sun actually did or didn't happen, let me just say having worked where I have worked, I have a little more intimate knowledge than most. And in self-interest, that's about all I am going to say about that.

 

I'll say again, I don't give a damn about Clinton's legacy, or Hillary's candidacy. What I do care about is the way the film was presented, as I noted above. It was just scummy and improper, in my opinion, and may constitute an in-kind contribution.

[Rex Kickass]

I did not and will not watch it. I don't need a docudrama to capture anything about September 11 that I don't already feel. Between The Simpsons season premiere, football on NBC, Celebrity Fit Club 4, Flavor of Love 2, Intervention, and a Law and Order marathon on USA, it wasn't even on my radar.

 

What bothered and still bothers me was the way it was marketed, the producer's own comments regarding it, is what bothers me about it.

[Texsox]

It amazes me how the Democrats are all in a panty-wad tight uproar about this. From what I hear, there's plenty of blame to go around, on all accounts, but the 20 miuutes of "Clinton blame" is JUST too much!!! OMG!!@#$!%!!!!!

 

It amazes me how Republicans don't care about accuracy as long as it benefits their party. But let CNN make a mistake in a 15 second report and every conservative blogger and the GOP Radio Network goes nuts.

 

Plenty of this crap to go around on both sides.

[Balta1701]

No this is pretty much a double standard. I remember when Moore's movie came out, all of the stuff we heard about his being stifled, theaters didn't want to carry the movie, people were too busy tearing the movie apart to actually see it, there was too much spin control, they were trying to stifle this before an election... all of that stuff. The basic theme was that the evil neo-cons were trying to keep this poor individual from getting the truth out.

 

Now the Clinton administration has an equivilant movie come out (and I use the word on purpose because they both seem to be able to be challenged factually depending on who you talk to. For every link that swears the conversation to not kill Bin Laden didn't happen, there are others who swear it did. In this situation we are taking the word of the people who looks the worst if it did indeed happen, so take that FWIW) Its always "different" when something like this kicks your idiology in the teeth. Republicians were outrages when Moore got away with it, and did everything to stop it, now the Dems are doing the exact samething. Yet somehow now it is different, even though all of the same basic arguements are being used (it isn't the "truth", what if people believe it, this is a politicial ploy, we are only trying to show how it "really happened" etc)

No one is saying that this film shouldn't be shown or viewable. Or at least I'm not, I can't guarantee that no one is.

 

But here's where the real double standard is coming in...Moore's film, people had to pay to get access to it. This film was broadcast for free over publically owned airwaves. You didn't have to pay to get access to it. In other words, it was a biased, partisan piece which went out over the public airwaves...within 60 days of an election even. Not to mention without commercial interruption.

 

And then there's also one other double standard. Moore's film had a ton of trouble being released because the Disney corporation supposedly didn't want to have itself wind up at the center of a partisan debate. That led to F911 being moved outside of Disney and dealt with soley by the Miramax guys with an agreement to donate most of the proceeds to charities. Honestly, it was probably the correct move by Disney. But of course now, Disney spends $40 million to produce a partisan 9/11 documentary that it broadcasts over its own airtime, without any real hope of getting the money back through selling ad space. Same corporation...totally different response.

[Texsox]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/11/911.poll/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington has risen from almost a third to almost half over the past four years, a CNN poll released Monday found.

 

Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

 

But the Clinton administration did not get off lightly either. The latest poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, found that 41 percent of respondents blamed his administration a "great deal" or a "moderate amount" for the attacks.

 

That's only slightly less than the 45 percent who blamed his administration in a poll carried out less than a week after the attacks.

 

Still, most Americans appear to be fatalistic, with more than half -- 57 percent -- saying they think that terrorists will "always find a way to launch attacks no matter what the U.S. government does."

 

Plenty of blame to go around. It was the failure of a nation, not just these assclowns

[longshot7]

I watched part 1 of the miniseries last night. Thought it was quite good, despite the scenes that were made-up. I especially liked the direction and the editing. As for the content, the first part (The first WTC bombing was done well), the search for Bin Laden seemed problematic and way too easy for Donnie Wahlberg's character to find The Tall One. The stuff with the higher-ups in the Admin, although important to the story to get across the themes of the piece, didn't make sense at times. Why did Berger refuse to give the order to kill Bin Laden? It's not clear. Although, despite this, it's clear the federal bureacracy hinders operations like this rather than helping them. Can anyone picture Jack Bauer waiting for 4 different federal agencies to clear an operation when a terrorist is in front of him and about to move? And even when the intentions were good, the Clinton admin was hampered that everytime it acted, the public believed it was to cover up something in the impeachment scandal. The film did not go into detail why the intel was faulty during the last Cruise strike, although that would have been interesting. Was it a drug manufacturing plant, or a bomb plant?

 

I expect tonight's episode to be as hard on Bush 43's failures in the eight months preceding 9/11 as it was on Clinton. Lord knows they definitely had as much, if not more, responsibility for what happened.

[Rex Kickass]

Rumor is, American Airlines is threatening to sue ABC for Libel over PT9/11.

 

Here's the text of the alleged email communication:

 

Mr. xxxxxx,

 

I think it is important for you to know that ABC had factual errors in

its dramatization, and we are looking at possible legal actions as a

result. According to the 9-11 Commission report, it was not American

Airlines, nor was it even the right airport that was depicted. In

reality, it was another airline, flying out of Maine. Please know this

was a tragic incident in our company's history and we hope you will be

sympathetic to our employees and our airline on this day especially.

Again, we are outraged by this situation, and we alerted ABC about its

gross error. It is very unfortunate.

 

Roger

 

Roger Frizzell

Vice President, Corporate Communications & Advertising

American Airlines

 

Source AMERICAblog so I don't know how reliable it is.

[Balta1701]

Rumor is, American Airlines is threatening to sue ABC for Libel over PT9/11.

 

Here's the text of the alleged email communication:

Source AMERICAblog so I don't know how reliable it is.

Linkity.

FORT WORTH, Texas, Sept. 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- American Airlines today issued the following statement regarding the ABC-TV program The Path to 9/11:

 

"The Disney/ABC television program, The Path to 9/11, which began airing last night, is inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occurred on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

"A factual description of those events can be found in the official government edition of the 9/11 Commission Report and supporting documents.

 

"This misrepresentation of facts dishonors the memory of innocent American Airlines employees and all those who lost their lives as a result of the tragic events of 9/11."

 

American said it will have no further comment beyond the statement at this time.

[Texsox]

The Top 5 Least Historically Accurate

Moments in "The Path to 9/11"

 

 

5> President Al Gore sends a team to New York to recount the

number of towers affected.

 

4> President Clinton's limo takes him to an NSA briefing, but

drives right past a McDonald's.

 

3> The axis of evil has been expanded to included Stemcellistan.

 

2> President Bush awakens from a bad dream and finds himself in

bed with Suzanne Pleshette.

 

 

and Topfive.com's Number 1 Least

Historically Accurate Moment in "The Path to 9/11"...

 

 

1> "Monica! Quick! I must hide the microfilm in this cigar lest

al-Qaeda find it!"

 

 

 

Join ClubTop5 to see the whole 17-item list and the

Runner Up/Honorable Mention submissions for today's list:

"Yomama bin Lame" and "Not a Priority"

http://www.topfive.com/html/ClubTop5.shtml

[Balta1701]

DALLAS American Airlines is prepared to pull its advertising from ABC in order to protest its portrayal in the network's recently aired movie The Path to 9/11, according to a source. The carrier also said it is considering legal action against the network.

 

American officials declined comment on the possible withdrawal of ads, and ABC representatives could not immediately be reached for comment on any facet of the situation.

 

The airline spends $25 million annually on broadcast TV ads; it could not immediately determined how much is spent on ABC, but according to one source, "It's extensive."

 

Roger Frizzell, vice president, corporate communications and advertising, American, confirmed that the client is mulling its legal options.

 

The film in both its first and second parts appears to suggest that chief hijacker Mohammed Atta was flagged as a security risk at Boston's Logan Airport by American Airlines personnel. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, that incident occurred earlier that morning, in Maine, and the airline was U.S. Airways.

Linkity.

[southsider2k5]

Linkity.

 

So AA didn't even have him as a security risk... yeah, that makes me feel a lot better about American Airlines.

[Damen]

So AA didn't even have him as a security risk... yeah, that makes me feel a lot better about American Airlines.

 

Did I miss something in reading that, where do you see that AA didn't even have him as a security risk?

[bmags]

Did I miss something in reading that, where do you see that AA didn't even have him as a security risk?

 

i guess it was US Airways not AA...

[Steff]

So AA didn't even have him as a security risk... yeah, that makes me feel a lot better about American Airlines.

 

 

Why would they have him as a risk in the first place? From what I have read, seen, heard, the g'ment had him pegged but did not communicate that info out. In reality, airlines see how many people pass their gates daily? Millions? Are they to be held responsible for knowing who possible terroists are? At some point the government has to have better communication with the airlines in nailing these people, no?

[kapkomet]

Why would they have him as a risk in the first place? From what I have read, seen, heard, the g'ment had him pegged but did not communicate that info out. In reality, airlines see how many people pass their gates daily? Millions? Are they to be held responsible for knowing who possible terroists are? At some point the government has to have better communication with the airlines in nailing these people, no?

You're right.

[Texsox]

Why would they have him as a risk in the first place? From what I have read, seen, heard, the g'ment had him pegged but did not communicate that info out. In reality, airlines see how many people pass their gates daily? Millions? Are they to be held responsible for knowing who possible terroists are? At some point the government has to have better communication with the airlines in nailing these people, no?

 

Correct. And to get around this the government just figures everyone as a risk.

[southsider2k5]

Why would they have him as a risk in the first place? From what I have read, seen, heard, the g'ment had him pegged but did not communicate that info out. In reality, airlines see how many people pass their gates daily? Millions? Are they to be held responsible for knowing who possible terroists are? At some point the government has to have better communication with the airlines in nailing these people, no?

 

There had to be something, because US Air had him on their lists.

 

My point was, I think it is funny that AA was upset that they were pegged as having flagged Atta. To me I think it is a better thing that US Air at least did something right, vs AA who had no clue. I don't know the upside of wanting everyone to know that you were MORE incompetitant than less.