From the Ministry of Truth: 9/11: The Movie!

[Merijeek]

@rjung

I can only deduce that the Republican Brain Trust must be really sweatin’ an impending beatdown at the November elections to help massage such a ham-fisted effort at scaring the masses this Fall.

Gas prices are dropping. The upcoming “beatdown” will, in a completely unconnected sequence of events, be far less severe than expected.

-Joe

[elucidator]

From Daily Kos:

Roger Cressey, former Chief of Staff to the President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board at the White House from November 2001 to September 2002, told Scarborough:

SCARBOROUGH: Roger, let me begin with you. There are points of this docudrama that are more drama than fact. But talk about Bill Clinton and the central premise by ABC that he should have done more to get Bin Laden.

CRESSY: Joe, it’s amazing, based on what I’ve seen so far is how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed instructing Ahmed Rassam to carry out the millenium attacks. Then they got the big stuff wrong, this fantasy about how we had a CIA officer and the Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Massoud looking at Bin Laden and they breathlessly call the White House to say we need to take him out and the White House said no. I mean it’s sheer fantasy. So, if they want to critique the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, based on fact, I think that’s fine. But what ABC has done here is something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.

SCARBOROUGH: But at the same time, doesn’t history show that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to go after bin Laden, but the President and his cabinet were afraid to do so because they may offend some people in the Arab world?

CRESSY: Actually, Joe, that had nothing to do with it. If you read the 9/11 Commission report, it makes it very clear. In most of those cases, George Tenet, the Director of the CIA, said because there was single source intelligence it was his recommendation to the President not to take the shot. There was never a case where we had a clear shot at Bin Laden and the decision to take it wasn’t made.

Emphasis added. Offered without comment.

[Captain_Amazing]

Yeah, but it’s a network TV movie. Does it matter if it’s accurate or not so long as it’s good?

[Carol_the_Impaler]

It matters if it’s accurate when lots and lots of Americans lack critical thinking skills and will assume it’s fact.

[John_Mace]

@BobLibDem

That’s sort of like saying binLaden’s primary source is the Koran. (or whatever way you spell it).

I can see the headlines tomorrow: Angry mobs attacked US embassies worldwide as Muslims protested the mispelling of Al-Qu’ran on a popular US message board. The poster who created the stir, known only by his on-line handle of “elucidator” was unavailable for comment and remains in hiding somewhere in the wilds of Minnesota.

[John_Mace]

OMG, I made it worse! Al-Qur’an, of course. A thousand pardons!!

[BobLibDem]

@John Mace

I can see the headlines tomorrow: Angry mobs attacked US embassies worldwide as Muslims protested the mispelling of Al-Qu’ran on a popular US message board. The poster who created the stir, known only by his on-line handle of “elucidator” was unavailable for comment and remains in hiding somewhere in the wilds of Minnesota.

Aren’t there about as many ways to spell Al-Qu’ran as there are of spelling al-Qaeda or Kadaffi? The only one I can remember is Koran. I mean no disrespect for our Islamic friends, but if they could all agree on spellings it would make things easier.

[Zebra]

I love the fact that they are using the marketing techniques pioneered by The Passion of the Christ to hype this movie.

If I were ABC, I would want the conservative pundits on my side to get people to watch. If you recall, the president was very popular on September 12th. So, if the movie ends on that day, it is a happy ending.
In “Against All Enemies” Richard Clark says that President Clinton wanted to put ‘boots on the ground’ (special forces) in Afghanistan but the Joint Chiefs said no that won’t work. They were probably right, but Clinton actually listens to his Generals about military operations,
Commerical Free? Who would to advertise on this show?

[JohnBckWLD]

@Zoe

I hope ABC decides to give historians equal time.

I nominate the esteemed Signatories over at 911truth.org

[Bricker]

Shockingly, this new-found demand for accuracy in filmography from the Left arises now, and not after the release of Farenheit 911. What a coincidence.

[BobLibDem]

@Bricker

Shockingly, this new-found demand for accuracy in filmography from the Left arises now, and not after the release of Farenheit 911. What a coincidence.

I must have been sleeping- when did Farenheit 911 play commercial free on a major network just prior to an election?

And I dare add that Moore was much more factually accurate than ABC. From a NY Times report, (though from the SF Gate site)

Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Moore’s opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in “Fahrenheit 9/11” are supported by the public record.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bricker

Shockingly, this new-found demand for accuracy in filmography from the Left arises now, and not after the release of Farenheit 911. What a coincidence.

I objected, strenuously, to each and every fictionalized docudramatic depiction of an event that never happened in Fahrenheit 9/11. Do you do the same, M. Tuquoque?

And now Bricker’s going to get the Germans all pissed off over the misspelling of Fahrenheit!

[JohnT]

I must have been sleeping- when did Farenheit 911 play commercial free on a major network just prior to an election?

F 911 release dates:

Picture (US): June 2004

DVD and VHS (US): October 2004

Streaming access allowed: November 1st, 2004

World (non-American) TV premiere: November 1st, 2004

And let’s not forget that MM offered the movie for free to any broadcaster in the US who wished to show it the week prior to the elections. (But only after the DVD and VHS sales have been ongoing for a month.) And also, it was available on Showtime (pay channel) for a month prior to that.

By the time the 2004 elections occurred, a minimum 25,000,000 voting-age American adults saw F/911, over 1/5 of the eventual electorate.

So… you can’t really counterargue that F911 wasn’t released in order to sway the election. Hell, the election drove the release dates.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

Shockingly, this new-found demand for accuracy in filmography from the Left arises now, and not after the release of Farenheit 911. What a coincidence.

Feel free to start a thread about the factual inaccuracies in Fahrenheit 9/11. It’s been done, but what the fuck, we can do it again.

I suggest you use this list as a starting point.

[John_Mace]

Is it really a question of whether the assertions in either movie are factually correct or not? Isn’t it more an issue of given 2 possible explanations, which one is chosen? There’s also the bits about selective editing.

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

Terrifel, awesome. clap clap clap

Incidentally, BobLibDem, the Muslims have unanimously agreed on how to spell the name of the Qur’an. They spell it in Arabic. It’s transliterating it into English where the problem arises.

[RTFirefly]

@Captain Amazing

Apparently, it’s primary sources are the 9/11 Commission Report.and John Miller’s “The Cell”. Maybe we should wait to see how it is before being too critical.

Well, some people are getting to “see how it is” now, rather than having to wait until next week. But politics seems to be the determinant in who does and doesn’t get the advance peeks, rather than any connection with the (often fictitious) events described in the movie:

ABC has been aggressively advancing its inaccurate and politically slanted miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” to the right wing. Big players like Rush Limbaugh have been provided copies, as have obscure right-wing bloggers like Patterico.

But ABC has refused to provide a copy to President Clinton’s office. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger have also requested copies of the film from ABC, and both have been denied.

Re ‘docudrama’: I wonder if ABC would publish a docudrama about Bush that had him personally telling the CIA to take this report that bin Laden might attack in the U.S., and shove it up their ass?

Oh wait, that actually happened. Nevermind.

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

Is it really a question of whether the assertions in either movie are factually correct or not? Isn’t it more an issue of given 2 possible explanations, which one is chosen? There’s also the bits about selective editing.

Consider this:

The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded. Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as “a friend of mine,” reviews the action:

So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.

So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed…Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”

Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions. 

ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

   2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

   3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”

[BobLibDem]

@bluethree

Incidentally, BobLibDem, the Muslims have unanimously agreed on how to spell the name of the Qur’an. They spell it in Arabic. It’s transliterating it into English where the problem arises.

Well, sure. And there is a consistent spelling of Chanukah in Hebrew. We just lack an “official” English spelling, which is a shame since it makes doing searches incomplete at best.

[RTFirefly]

More on ‘docudrama’:

From Fox and the NY Post:

“We are trying to maintain as much accuracy, integrity and be as sensitive as we can in documenting an important series of historical events,” producer Marc Platt told The [NY] Post.

Cyrus Nowrasteh, who wrote the script and co-produced the miniseries:

It will be a six-hour miniseries that will be an objective telling of the events of 9/11. We will be connecting the facts and telling the story as it goes back to the first World Trade center bombing in 1993. It will be about how even back then, there were a lot of people who were ahead of the game, who were concerned about the threat of Islamic terrorism, and how they were treated.

And:

I commend ABC because they have continually asked me to be as truthful and honest as I can be. The producers have made every effort to be objective and tell the story truthfully - because that’s what the subject matter, and our audience, deserves.

That was then. Now that people are questioning the veracity of The Path of Lies About 9/11 (based on what Limbaugh and right-wing bloggers have said about it, since that’s all we’ve got), now they’re saying it’s a docudrama, and lots of this stuff didn’t really happen, and so forth.

On another topic, it’s kinda interesting that they’re showing a pricey crock of shit for free, no ads or anything, in expensive prime time. As Digby points out, “It’s basically a gift to the Republican party and the conservative movement.”

And check out the Digby link. He gives a pile of links about the connections between the makers of this film and the religious right.