ABC Team spreads 9/11 misinformation to students

It's called 'conflation of ideas.' Bushco has been using it for a long time to mix the concepts of AQ, 9/11 and Iraq.

Cycloptichorn

Bill and Dick, Osama and Sandy

By Michael F. Scheuer
July 5, 2006

With one credible September 11 movie, "United 93," under our belts, it will be interesting to see whether ABC-TV will complete the September 11 Commission's whitewashing of the pre-September 11 failure of U.S. intelligence-community leaders in its forthcoming mini-series based on Richard Clarke's memoir, "Against All Enemies."
Media teasers about the mini-series have said that Mr. Clarke -- the former "terrorism czar" -- and a senior FBI officer, the late John O'Neill, will be the heroes of the saga. If true, and if ABC's fact-checkers are not diligent in verifying Mr. Clarke's stories and claims, the mini-series will be the September 11 commission's dream come true: The Bush administration will be blamed for September 11, the feckless moral cowardice of the Clinton administration will be disguised and Mr. Clarke and Mr. O'Neill -- in my view, two principal authors of September 11 -- will be beatified.
Mr. Clarke's book, on the basis of my involvement to varying degrees in the issues it covers, is a mixture of fact, fiction and cover-up. Mr. Clarke seems to get most names and dates right, and is correct in damning the early Bush administration for obliviousness to the al Qaeda threat. We must also take him at his word on his touching, if sycophantic, tales of Mr. Clinton instructing a young boy to be good to his mom and Hillary Rodham Clinton's secluded moment praying on her knees.
On the fantasy level, Mr. Clarke lays it on thick. His claim that the Clinton administration "defeated an al-Qaeda attempt to dominate Bosnia" is nonsense; bin Laden sent few fighters there because he had no contiguous safe haven for them. Mr. Clarke's claim that "the CIA had taken months to tell the FBI" several hijackers were in America is a lie. FBI officers sat in the unit I first commanded and then served in and they read the same information I did. If the data did not get to FBI headquarters it is because the FBI then lacked, and still lacks, a useable computer system. The FBI did not know the September 11 hijackers were here because Judge Louis Freeh and Robert Mueller have failed to provide their officers computers that allow them to talk securely to their headquarters and other intelligence community elements.
Another spectacular untruth is on page 52: "Later in the 1990s, CIA... [failed] to put U.S. operatives into the country [Afghanistan] to kill bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership, relying on Afghans instead." Mr. Clarke, of course, was at the center of Mr. Clinton's advisers, who resolutely refused to order the CIA to kill bin Laden. In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke's reaction was that "it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden." I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke's response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so.
Mr. Clarke's book is also a crucial complement to the September 11 panel's failure to condemn Mr. Clinton's failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting. Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before September 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat. That trio, in my view, abetted al Qaeda, and if the September 11 families were smart they would focus on the dereliction of Dick, Bill and Sandy and not the antics of convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.
About John O'Neill, little needs to be said. In my own experience, Mr. O'Neill was interested only in furthering his career and disguising the rank incompetence of senior FBI leaders. He once told me that he and the FBI would oppose an operation to capture bin Laden and take him to a third country for incarceration. When I asked why, he replied, "Why should the FBI help to capture bin Laden if the bureau won't get credit among Americans for his arrest and conviction"?
So, I look forward to ABC's mini-series, as well as to seeing the quality of the network's fact-checkers. If they do their job well, some of the September 11 Commission's whitewash may start to be peeled away. If they fail, however, the reality that Bill, Dick and Sandy helped to push Americans out of the windows of the World Trade Center on that September morning will be buried in miles of fantasy-filled celluloid.

Michael F. Scheuer, a 22-year veteran with the CIA, created and served as the chief of the agency's Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center.

Did the Dems Threaten ABC?Blue Crab Boulevard calls this letter an "enormous miscalculation." Blog of the Week Riehl World View agrees that the Democrats will pay a political price for their heavy-handedness:

[T]he ramifications of the current move by Dems to pressure ABC are going to have consequences far beyond a docu-drama. Americans don't like people, especially politicians, messing with their TV. And the other big issue facing Republicans in the run up to the coming elections besides Iraq was firing up their base. I say was because the Dems have just saved the Republicans from having to go to the trouble.
The Democrats' shameless maneuvering now going on on behalf of Clinton brings back, not only the animus Republicans have always felt for Clinton, while drawing attention to their general weakness in foreign affairs, it also reminds everyone of the scandal ridden side show that was Democrat Clinton's presidency.


Well, one can always hope. But it's hard to think of an instance of bully-boy tactics by the Democrats causing them any serious problems.

UPDATE: ABC says that it is still making changes in the program, evidently in response to the Democrats' attacks, so we won't know how effective the Democrats' tactics have been until the program airs.

Why Does the Left Hate "The Path to 9/11"?
By Hugh Hewitt
Thursday, September 7, 2006

On Sunday and Monday nights at 8 PM, ABC will air a five hour mini-series, "The Path to 9/11." I have watched it, and it is a riveting and in some respects horrifying recreation of the events from the hours before the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 through the awful events of 9/11. Rarely does television reach this level of drama, and director David Cunningham and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh deserve great praise from left, right and center for a masterful retelling of the crucial events leading up to the devastation of five years ago.

A five hour show that must condense eight years by necessity will not be complete, but it is very accurate. As a very accurate docudrama, "The Path to 9/11" has drawn the deep anger of the Clinton political machine. Representatives of that era have been demanding at a minimum edits and some outright cancellation of the program. Monica Lewinsky makes an appearance, you see, as does Bill Clinton's videotaped testimony about his perjury. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is portrayed as indecisive, Madeleine Albright as misdirected, George Tenet as sputtering. The film does not spare the Bush Administration its shots either, but for the left in the US the most damning thing possible is a recounting of the deep slumber concerning al Qaeda that overcame not just President Clinton but all parts of the national security apparatus throughout the '90s. The film does not damn those in charge during those years. It does however deliver a indictment of criminal negligence from which there is simply no escape.

By attempting a programming coup against the series, the Clinton forces have brought enormous attention to the film, and for that I thank them. The program is not primarily about the Clinton stewardship --or lack thereof-- of the national security. It is not even secondarily about that.

Rather the mini-series is the first attempt --very successful-- to convey to American television viewers what we are up against: The fanaticism, the maniacal evil, the energy and the genius for mayhem of the enemy.

In the self-serving complaints about this scene or that take delivered by Richard Ben-Veniste and other proxies are replayed again the deadly narcissisms of the'90s. The program's great faults are --they say-- in the inaccurate portrayal of Bill Clinton and his furrowed brow and continual efforts to track down bin Laden.

It is all about them, you see. Just as it was in the '90s. To hell with O'Neill or the victims of 9/11, and forget about the worldwide menace that continues to nurse its hatred, though now from caves and not compounds.

Not a word from these critics about the program's greatest strength, which is in the accurate rendering of the enemy, and the warning it might give about the need for continual vigilance.

Critics of the program want to argue that a five hour program has collapsed eight years too brusquely. There is, by the way, zero mention in the fve hours of the allegations that Clinton let bin Laden slip through his fingers when the terror chief was offered up by Sudan. There is no Atta meeting in Prague, no suggestion of a Saddam history of terror ties unrelated to 9/11 --in short, there is no reaching by the writer/producers/director. It is an objective show, and not one that will cheer the right. But any show that does not praise Clinton or hopelessly conflate the eight years of the Clinton tenure with the eight months of the pre-9/11 Bush Administration is to be condemned.

"The Path to 9/11" is a faithful and compelling recreation within the limits of the craft of the fatal nonchalance of the '90s, combined with a salute to the hard-working men and women who struggled against the bureaucratic insanities of that era, represented chiefly in the person of FBI Agent John O'Neill, played by Harvey Keitel, and a supporting cast of brave and never-discouraged lower level Bureau and CIA operatives who understood the risks. In trying to deep-six the series, the Clinton forces are trying to silence their story.

The Clinton operatives are also bringing a useful attention to the program and especially any last minute edits ABC might make. The network risks outrage from center and right if it airbrushes the narrative, and even from those in Hollywood who stand by the idea that a good faith piece of work should be unmolested by the PC police.

No matter your opinions of Presidents Clinton and Bush, be sure to watch (or set your TiVo) to ABC Sunday night at 8. You be the judge. Hopefully ABC will give you that chance.

CRITICS & HYPOCRITES

September 8, 2006 -- How to tote up all the hypocrisy spew ing from Camp Clinton - including from the former president himself - over ABC's upcoming mini-series, "The Path to 9/11"?

Calling the docudrama, which is based on the Kean-Hamilton 9/11 Commission's report as well as other sources, "fiction," the Clintonites want it re-edited to tone down its criticism of the former president - or, better still, yanked entirely.

To show the film as it now stands, Bill Clinton's office said in a statement yesterday, would be "despicable."

What - no liberal cries of "censorship"? Nothing about the sacred constitutional guarantee of free speech? No warnings about the "chilling effect" caused by ideological zealots intent on pursuing their partisan agenda?

Oh, well. Hypocrisy, it's been said, is the lubricant of political discourse.

Clinton's folks - including former National Security Adviser Sandy "I've Got Stolen Secret Papers Down My Pants" Berger - claim the flick is full of factual errors that portray them as lax in their pursuit of Osama bin Laden.

But the 9/11 Commission did fault the Clinton folks, along with the Bush administration, for mistakes that paved the way for 9/11. As we've argued on this page for the past five years, those mistakes extend back to the Reagan and Carter administrations.

But with Democrats battling to regain control of Congress, it seems that nothing that doesn't place 100 percent of the blame on George W. Bush is acceptable.

How the tables have turned. Remember how Democrats responded to Republican criticism three years ago, when CBS prepared to air a two-part drama about Ronald Reagan that portrayed the late president as an unfeeling tyrant, complete with wholly invented dialogue?

"This is censorship, pure and simple," wailed Barbra Streisand.

The Reagan film's defenders noted that some of the critics hadn't even seen the film - just like ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who now complains about the 9/11 film, even though she only has second-hand information about it.

And People for the American Way lashed out at "the echo chamber of right-wing pundits and Republican Party officials" for declaring that Ronald Reagan "is off-limits to media treatment that is anything short of fawning."

Gee. Isn't that exactly what the Clintonites are saying about their leader right now? How shocked they seem that some folks in Hollywood, of all places, deem to portray Team Clinton in a way that is "short of fawning."

Tom Kean, co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission and a paid consultant for the film, insists it is balanced and accurate - adding that "people in both administrations are not going to be happy."

Which is as it should be. The saddest part about the real-life path to 9/11 is that the blame dates back a quarter-century.

Sad to say, the Clintonite protests seem to be working - ABC late yesterday said it has altered some scenes. Just how far the network gives in remains to be seen.

Give it a rest Cyclo. Bubba has to admit that he:
1. Failed inhis efforts to "get Osama"
2. Did not try hard enough.

Trying is not good enough.

He should admit he was "distracted by the Babe in the White House". He was distracted and the Republicans are to blame for the distraction since they are the one who pursued the silly impeachment hearings,.,

woiyo wrote:

Give it a rest Cyclo. Bubba has to admit that he:
1. Failed inhis efforts to "get Osama"
2. Did not try hard enough.

Trying is not good enough.

He should admit he was "distracted by the Babe in the White House". He was distracted and the Republicans are to blame for the distraction since they are the one who pursued the silly impeachment hearings,.,

Perhaps you will then concede that Bush is too by the family nemesis in Iraq to focus on the evil bin Laden.
Perhaps you will also conceded that this distraction in Iraq is the reason behind the disbanding of "Alec Station", the CIA led task force who's mandate was to hunt bin Laden and other top AQ members/leaders.

So, if merely trying isn't good enough, what do you call the disbanding of this CIA task force?

So, if merely trying isn't good enough, what do you call the disbanding of this CIA task force?

According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President had ten sexual encounters, eight while she worked at the White House and two thereafter.(35) The sexual encounters generally occurred in or near the private study off the Oval Office -- most often in the windowless hallway outside the study.(36) During many of their sexual encounters, the President stood leaning against the doorway of the bathroom across from the study, which, he told Ms. Lewinsky, eased his sore back.(37)

Ms. Lewinsky testified that her physical relationship with the President included oral sex but not sexual intercourse.(38) According to Ms. Lewinsky, she performed oral sex on the President; he never performed oral sex on her.(39) Initially, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President would not let her perform oral sex to completion. In Ms. Lewinsky's understanding, his refusal was related to "trust and not knowing me well enough."(40) During their last two sexual encounters, both in 1997, he did ejaculate.(41)

According to Ms. Lewinsky, she performed oral sex on the President on nine occasions. On all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts. He touched her genitals, both through her underwear and directly, bringing her to orgasm on two occasions. On one occasion, the President inserted a cigar into her vagina. On another occasion, she and the President had brief genital-to-genital contact.(42)

I'm sure ABC will happily change the script to make Mr. Keitel happy. Of course, this will have no impact whatsoever since the film has already been shot.

Maybe Mr. Keitel should start demanding that they re-edit the finished product, since that would make more sense. :wink:


**The above post is for humorous purposes only. Any resemblance to any serious discussion, living or dead, is not intentional.

Ah yes, that old first amendment can be a heavy burden. Especially when it's being used against you, huh?

I'm sure ABC will happily change the script to make Mr. Keitel happy. Of course, this will have no impact whatsoever since the film has already been shot.

Maybe Mr. Keitel should start demanding that they re-edit the finished product, since that would make more sense. :wink:


**The above post is for humorous purposes only. Any resemblance to any serious discussion, living or dead, is not intentional.

McGentrix wrote:

Ah yes, that old first amendment can be a heavy burden. Especially when it's being used against you, huh?

It can be annoying, yes ;-)

Meanwhile, how did you react, exactly, when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out?

ABC ignores Democrats, won't pull plug on The Path to 9-11

By Hal Boedeker
Orlando Sentinel


Top Senate Democrats urged the Walt Disney Co. on Thursday to cancel The Path to 9-11, but ABC said it would air the epic docudrama about events leading up to the terrorist attacks five years ago.

"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," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and four others wrote.



Reid and his colleagues sent the letter to Bob Iger, Disney's chief executive officer. The senators warned Iger that if the miniseries aired, "The reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged."

A network spokeswoman said ABC has no plans to drop the five-hour program, which will air Sunday and Monday. WFTV-Channel 9 will air the commercial-free program, General Manager Shawn Bartelt said.

The program depicts events in The 9-11 Commission Report, starting with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. In a statement, ABC acknowledged that, like other docudramas, the miniseries contains fictionalized scenes and composite characters.

"No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible," the ABC statement said. "We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it."

But Democrats weighed in fiercely on the $40 million production. The Democratic National Committee called the production "irresponsible, slanderous, fraudulent" and asked Democrats to tell Iger "to keep this right-wing propaganda off the air." The Democrats said they had collected more than 100,000 signatures in an online petition addressed to Iger.

Sandy Berger, former national-security adviser to President Clinton, said the scenes involving Berger are "complete fabrications." In a letter to Iger, Berger wrote, "The incidents depicted did not happen. They are not contained in the 9-11 Commission Report."

Another letter to Iger came from Bruce Lindsey, chief executive officer of the William J. Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Band, counsel to Clinton.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," they wrote.

Asked whether the editing changes were in response to the complaints, the ABC spokeswoman said: "The adjustments are being made to strengthen some scenes and make the points of the specific scenes clearer." She said the edits so far have been minimal, such as changing a few lines of dialogue.

An early version, sent to critics for review, depicted uncertain responses by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican and chair of the 9-11 Commission, served as senior consultant on the miniseries.

In July, Kean said he wished he could make a few changes. "But, look, the spirit of this is absolutely correct," Kean said. "This is the story of how it happened."

CBS' plan to repeat the documentary 9-11 on Sunday has sparked another protest. The American Family Association, a Tupelo-Miss.-based group, objects to coarse language and plans to swamp the Federal Communications Commission with demands for fines against CBS affiliates. But WKMG-Channel 6 says it will air the program.