Senate Dems To Disney CEO: Cancel 9/11 Docudrama (or else?)

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John Mace

Well, it’s just silly to claim that Clinton wasn’t distracted by the Lewinski scandal.

Whether you believe that or not, it’s still false for ABC to claim that the 9/11 Commission said it when they actually said the opposite. That’s just blatantly lying.

[Renob]

@Diogenes the Cynic

How did any Senators threaten ABC?

They asked ABC to pull the documentary and then essentially said that if they didn’t ABC would be violating a law governing the ability of ABC to broadcast. It’s not a blatant threat, but why else invoke the law unless you wanted to suggest that if ABC did not comply then there may be some sort of legal payback? They could have easily just complained about the show and left it at that. As it was, they also brought the law into it. For a network broadcaster, whose very existence depends on the government, that’s pretty serious stuff.

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Whether you believe that or not, it’s still false for ABC to claim that the 9/11 Commission said it when they actually said the opposite. That’s just blatantly lying.

Where did they claim that?

@Shayna

The evidence that gross lies as portrayed in the movie become believed and reported as fact…

That’s your idea of a “gross lie”? And you have no idea where that reviewer got that claim from.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John Mace

Where did they claim that?

It’s in the NYT review quoted by Shayna.

[Shayna]

@John Mace

Well, it’s just silly to claim that Clinton wasn’t distracted by the Lewinski scandal. Of course he was-- it took up some of his time, of which there is a finite amount.

Bullshit. And that it took up a percentage of his time is not the point. The point is whether it took up so much of his attention that it superceded his attention to terrorist threats – which the 9/11 Commission report explicitly said it did not. From the Actual 9/11 Commission report (bolding mine):

Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton’s problems. He told them to ignore them. Berger recalled the President saying to him “that they were going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing.”[sup]51[/sup] All his aides testified to us that they based their advice solely on national security considerations. We have found no reason to question their statements.

<snip>

Clarke hoped the August 1998 missile strikes would mark the beginning of a sustained campaign against Bin Ladin. Clarke was, as he later admitted, “obsessed” with Bin Ladin, and the embassy bombings gave him new scope for pursuing his obsession. Terrorism had moved high up among the President’s concerns, and Clarke’s position had elevated accordingly.

<snip>

During the last week of August 1998, officials began considering possible follow-on strikes. According to Clarke, President Clinton was inclined to launch further strikes sooner rather than later.

There’s a hellofa lot more, but I think that’s sufficiently representative. I agree with the challenge in President Clinton’s letter; “We challenge anyone to read the 9/11 Commission Report and find any basis for the false allegations noted above or the tenor of the drama, which suggests that the Clinton Administration was inattentive to the threat of a terrorist strike.”

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

It’s in the NYT review quoted by Shayna.

That statement was made by the NYT reviewer, not ABC.

[BobLibDem]

@John Mace

Where did they claim that?

Check the text of the letter from Bill Clinton’s lawyer.

Using newsreel footage of President Clinton, the drama insinuates that President Clinton was too pre-occupied with the impeachment and the Lewinsky matter to be engaged in pursuing bin Laden. This allegation is absurd and was directly refuted by ABC News consultant Richard Clarke in his book, Against All Enemies: “Clinton made clear that we were to give him our best national security advice without regard to his personal problems. ‘Do you recommend that we strike on the 20th? Fine. Do not give me political advice or personal advice about the timing. That’s my problem. Let me worry about that.’ If we thought this was the best time to hit the Afghan camps, he would order it and take the heat.”

[John_Mace]

@Shayna

Bullshit. And that it took up a percentage of his time is not the point. The point is whether it took up so much of his attention that it superceded his attention to terrorist threats – which the 9/11 Commission report explicitly said it did not. From the Actual 9/11 Commission report (bolding mine): There’s a hellofa lot more, but I think that’s sufficiently representative. I agree with the challenge in President Clinton’s letter; “We challenge anyone to read the 9/11 Commission Report and find any basis for the false allegations noted above or the tenor of the drama, which suggests that the Clinton Administration was inattentive to the threat of a terrorist strike.”

You’re missing the point of your own quotes. Those quotes support the claim that none of the decsions he made were influnced by the Lewinski scandal-- ie, no Wag the Dog. That’s entirely different from being “distracted”, which simply means he had to spend a goodly amount of time on his impeachment.

[John_Mace]

@BobLibDem

Check the text of the letter from Bill Clinton’s lawyer.

Look, none of us has seen this film. So what if they have one fucking scene of Clinton dealing with the Lewinski issues. The “insinuation” is in the mind of Clinton, and the response in his letter talks about whether he based any of his decisions on the political consequences, which is another matter entirely. Does the film have Clinton telling anyone to drum up some terrorism news so that the Lewinski scandal gets less press? I don’t think so.

[elucidator]

Not to put too fine a point on it, or anything.

[Duke_of_Rat]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Anyway, the Dems aren’t so much concerned about the broadcast itself as they are about plans to try to get the mini-series into schools as an “educational tool.” How would you feel about Michael Moore’s movies being shown in classrooms as “educational?”

Hey, at least they’re not teaching that The Government Planned 9-11 in schools.

(Yeah, it’s a professor at a university, not force-fed public education, but there are some hard core wackos out there if you need bogey men)

[rjung]

Y’know, ABC could make the problem go away by simply running a ticker during the entire length of the movie that says “THIS MOVIE IS NOT BASED ON REALITY. THE SCREENPLAY WAS WRITTEN BY LOYAL BUSH APOLOGISTS. ABC IS A WHOLLY-OWNED WHORE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.” Truth in advertising, y’see?

And comparing “Path to 9/11” to “Fahrenheit 9/11” is unfair to Michael Moore, who didn’t create scenes out of whole cloth, but stuck to actual footage of actual events.

[John_Mace]

If you go to the 9/11 Commission Report in Shayna’s post, above, you can see where the writers got the idea about the scene with Sandy Berger:

The CIA Develops a Capture Plan
Initially, the DCI’s Counterterrorist Center and its Bin Ladin unit considered a plan to ambush Bin Ladin when he traveled between Kandahar, the Taliban capital where he sometimes stayed the night, and his primary residence at the time, Tarnak Farms. After the Afghan tribals reported that they had tried such an ambush and failed, the Center gave up on it, despite suspicions that the tribals’ story might be fiction. Thereafter, the capture plan focused on a nighttime raid on Tarnak Farms.

A compound of about 80 concrete or mud-brick buildings surrounded by a 10-foot wall, Tarnak Farms was located in an isolated desert area on the outskirts of the Kandahar airport. CIA officers were able to map the entire site, identifying the houses that belonged to Bin Ladin’s wives and the one where Bin Ladin himself was most likely to sleep. Working with the tribals, they drew up plans for the raid. They ran two complete rehearsals in the United States during the fall of 1997.

[Followed by a lot of detail about how the plan was refined and how Berger had at times raised concerns about whether we could actually hold and prosecute ObL if we did capture him.]

Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that the principals would not approve it. "Jeff " thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.

So, the writers decided to gin up a story that an actual CIA guy (played by Marky Mark’s brother, I think) was on the ground with ObL in his sights. Berger and Tenet then supposedly call the operation off at the last minute. In actuality, it was just a plan that never was put into action, and it seemed like everyone thought it wouldn’t be successful, including Berger, although Tenet was the guy who officially pulled the plug-- rightly so, since it was a CIA operation. At least the movie didn’t have Clinton himself calling Berger/Tenet at the last minute to put the kibosh on the plan.

[Ludovic]

@Renob

Now probably isn’t the place to get into why Specter is barely a Republican, but his environmental stance, his pro-gun control stance, his love of government spending, and a variety of other things makes him probably the most liberal Republican in the Senate next to Lincoln Chaffee.

What rock have you been under the past 6 years?

[Steve_MB]

@Diogenes the Cynic

IIt’s the law. How I feel about it is irrelevant.

This is either:

1. A statement of a principled position (in which case we expect to never see you advance an argument based on the notion that any particular law is unjust, forever and ever, amen), or

2. A weak evasion of the issue.

[elucidator]

And that is either a) an irrelevant snark on Doggyknee’s character, or b) an irrelevant snark on Doggyknee’s character.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Steve MB

This is either:

1. A statement of a principled position (in which case we expect to never see you advance an argument based on the notion that any particular law is unjust, forever and ever, amen), or

2. A weak evasion of the issue.

I don’t even remember what that post was in response to, but I’m sure I haven’t avoided any issues. I’ve been consistent in saying I think it’s a dumb move by the Dems but not an illegal one.

[Bricker]

@rjung

And comparing “Path to 9/11” to “Fahrenheit 9/11” is unfair to Michael Moore, who didn’t create scenes out of whole cloth, but stuck to actual footage of actual events.

When he edits footage to distort timelines, or places footage in such ways that clearly invite the viewer to draw inferences which are not true, I fail to see this as a meaningful distinction.

[elucidator]

Spin control as compared to wholesale fabrication? “Fail”, indeed.

[Apos]

So okay, stop me where I’m wrong here. The bead I’m getting is that:

This film was initially advertised and in some places still is as “based on the 9/11 Commision Report” full stop, though a “docudrama” disclaimer is being used now in some places. It was marketed as a historical teaching tool in schools.

However, it was written by an avowed conservative activist, directed by a guy with links to a conservative “take back hollywood for christ” group, quietly referred to as “untitled history project,” and screened only to conservatives: obviously someone felt there was something about it they would like. It turns out that the film contains a number of pure fabrications about real life figures which grossly exaggerate the Clinton administration’s culpability and lack of action.

And this is supposed to compare to paraphrasing an ACTUAL comment by Reagan, or a political movie made by Michael Moore which never claimed to be anything but partisan?

If so, then sorry, not buying that brooklyn bridge, kids.