Report: ABC agrees to edit “Path to 9/11” after phone call from Clinton

posted at 2:42 pm on September 7, 2006 by Allahpundit

I’ve got more coming on this but I have to scramble on the Bin Laden thing. Here’s the source — the Ostroy Report, which bills itself as “a fresh, aggressive answer to the powerful Right Wing spin machine.” So good luck with that.

Link via the lovely KP, who’s having herself a full-blown episode over this. She complained to me last night, in fact, that she couldn’t sleep because of it. Via e-mail, I mean.

Updates coming here later. Check back.

Update: Sure looks like Ostroy was right. From the Chicago Tribune:

ABC toned down a scene that involved Clinton’s national security adviser, Samuel “Sandy” Berger, declining to give the order to kill bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified. “That sequence has been the focus of attention,” the source said.

The network also decided that the credits would say the film is based “in part” on the 9/11 panel report, rather than “based on” the report, as the producers originally intended.

Update: I promised updates. Here’s a description of the scene that caused the uproar, from today’s NY Post:

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 [Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy] 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?”

Problem is, it never happened. It almost happened, but apparently it was George Tenet who torpedoed the operation, not the White House, and there weren’t men on Osama’s doorstep when the plug was pulled. Read this post by Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters, though, to see how close they came to devising — and executing — a plan to capture him. In fact, Sheppard’s post drew a response from none other than Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Osama-hunting unit and last seen urging appeasement in that BBC surrender video. Scheuer says he’d always been under the impression that Berger and the National Security Council had cancelled the operation, but he can’t be sure.

Tom Kean, who was one of the heads of the 9/11 Commission and a consultant on the film, has admitted that the scene was fictionalized as a composite of the many, many counterterrorism failures that happened on Billy Jeff’s watch. Mac Ranger leafs through his copy of the 9/11 Commission Report and plucks these two killer paragraphs:

The Clinton administration had as many as four chances to kill or capture bin Laden between December 1998 and July 1999, but all the operations were scuttled because of uncertain intelligence and fears that civilians or dignitaries might be killed. In one example, in May 1999, sources provided detailed reports about bin Laden’s whereabouts in the Kandahar area over a period of five nights, but strikes were not ordered because the military was concerned about the accuracy of the reports and the risk of collateral damage, investigators found.

Having a chance to get [bin Laden] three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry,” a CIA unit chief wrote to a colleague, adding that Tenet “finds himself alone at the table, with the other princip[als] basically saying ‘we’ll go along with your decision Mr. Director,’ and implicitly saying that the Agency will hang alone if the attack doesn’t get [bin Laden].”

Dorkafork finds another passage:

Before it was canceled, Schroen described it as the “best plan we are going to come up with to capture [Bin Ladin] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice.” No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and preparation. The tribals’ reported readiness to act diminished. And Bin Ladin’s security precautions and defenses became more elaborate and formidable.

At this time, 9/11 was more than three years away. It was the duty of Tenet and the CIA leadership to balance the risks of inaction against jeopardizing the lives of their operatives and agents. And they had reason to worry about failure: millions of dollars down the drain; a shoot-out that could be seen as an assassination; and, if there were repercussions in Pakistan, perhaps a coup. The decisions of the U.S. government in May 1998 were made, as Berger has put it, from the vantage point of the driver looking through a muddy windshield moving forward, not through a clean rearview mirror.

That windshield was always pretty muddy for George “Slam Dunk” Tenet, wasn’t it?

I agree with Dean: they shouldn’t be messing with fictionalized scenes when it comes to 9/11. There’s already far too much of that about thanks to the Truthers. And as Dean says, ultimately this lets Clinton off the hook for his real failures. People who don’t know better will hear that a scene was changed in the movie because it portrayed Clinton as weaker on terrorism than he was — and they’ll conclude that he wasn’t weak. How weak was he, in fact? Here’s your quote of the day, courtesy of Barnett:

“You know, it would scare the shit out of Al Qaeda if suddenly a bunch of black ninjas rappelled out of helicopters into their camp.”

That’s weak.

Let’s spare a thought, though, for our friends on the left, whose justifiable paranoia about being seen as weak on terrorism has led them to ask not only that the offending scene be edited, but that the whole damned miniseries be shelved. Never mind that the executive producer’s given money to Clinton, or that, according to Jamie Poniewozik of Time, it’s much more damning of Bush than Clinton. There’s a legacy at stake here.

Me, I’m just glad we get to spend the fifth anniversary of the attacks pointing fingers and watching dramas chronicling American failures and recriminations instead of, say, programs about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the threat it represents. I’ll join the Dem campaign to have “Path to 9/11” pulled — if ABC will let MEMRI fill those five hours of airtime. Can I get some bipartisan love for that idea?

No, of course I can’t.

Update: Spruiell has video of Tucker Carlson punching holes in anthropomorphic weasel David Brock’s complaints about the miniseries.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Great … Clinton must have threatened to have them killed. Can you imagine Bush asking for something like that?

darwin on September 7, 2006 at 2:43 PM

What did Berger smuggle out in his socks anyway? Could it be…the evidence of this very incident???

Alex K on September 7, 2006 at 2:49 PM

So the Clinton Admin was not responsible in any way for the attacks on 9/11? Good to know….

JasonG on September 7, 2006 at 2:49 PM

ABC just censored themselves for a Democrat? Hmmm, does this ever go on in their news division? This is nothing new.

Stormy70 on September 7, 2006 at 2:54 PM

She complained to me last night, in fact, that she couldn’t sleep because of it.

Yeah, probably because it once again exposes democrats as being weak on defense in an election season.

thirteen28 on September 7, 2006 at 3:00 PM

They “toned down” the scene where Berger hung up on operatives ready to conduct a mission to kill bin Laden because it wasn’t fully accurate. According to the 9/11 Commission’s Report:

Clarke wrote to Berger’s deputy on February 10 that the military was then doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be in position to strike the following morning. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.

No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by. Clarke told us the strike was called off after consultations with Director Tenet because the intelligence was dubious, and it seemed to Clarke as if the CIA was presenting an option to attack America’s best counterterrorism ally in the Gulf. The lead CIA official in the field, Gary Schroen, felt that the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable; the Bin Ladin unit chief, “Mike,” agreed. Schroen believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11.

Then there’s this:

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.

He’s right. It wasn’t Albright and Pakistan, it was Richard Clarke and the UAE:

On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA. When the former Bin Ladin unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such a clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate. “Mike” thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting Bin Ladin.

The TV show admittedly based some events and characters on “composites”… thus, they comingled multiple acts of Clinton administration failure…

TexasRainmaker on September 7, 2006 at 3:01 PM

Bubbah: “It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known.”

I’ll have one misleading Bubbah and a side order of Sandy Burglar.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”

Terp Mole on September 7, 2006 at 3:01 PM

Our friend Greg Mitchell on MSNBC right now, talking about this!

Alex K on September 7, 2006 at 3:04 PM

Clinton must have some compromising photos of Disney CEO Robert Iger…Or maybe not.

He has given thousands in direct contributions to Democrats over the last few years.

Valiant on September 7, 2006 at 3:04 PM

“It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known.”

It certainly is, Bill. It certainly is. Looks like you’ve got a long list of folks to call, huh?

Pablo on September 7, 2006 at 3:04 PM

He’s coming down a lot harder on the accuracy of this drama than he did on the accuracy of the photojournalism.

Alex K on September 7, 2006 at 3:06 PM

Greg Mitchell, I mean.

Alex K on September 7, 2006 at 3:06 PM

Censorship ??? why isn’t hollywood, the media, the aclu and all the gang screaming about the freedom of expression, freedom of speech….etc……OH, I forgot this is bill clinton we are talking about,,

robo on September 7, 2006 at 3:09 PM

The very fact that the Clintonistas have been petitioning ABC to back off on this docu-drama is a sure sign of the incompetence and neglect of Slick Willie’s administration when it came to combating terrorism. They obviously have something to fear. Unfortunately Clinton paid far more attention to the polls and his approval rating then he did to Al Qaeda attacking American interests around the world.

This ABC presentation could hardly be called news or a revelation of Clinton’s mishandling of our national security. It is only confirmation of what we’ve known to be the truth for a long time. It’s not even news to Clinton. But it must be shocking to him and his cronies to have a DNC ally like ABC trace eight years of his bungling footsteps that fueled the fires of terrorism leading up to 9/11.

Clinton only cared about Clinton. What should we expect from a POTUS who only spoke to the head of the CIA one time during his eight years in office? He despised the military and the intelligence community. He was the ruination of both.

Gary Aldrich warned us about Clinton in his book “Unlimited Access” over ten years ago. If you haven’t read it, you should. If you have, read it again, as a reminder of the disrespectful cult members crowd Clinton dragged into the White House. Aldrich was right and he tried to warn us. Security went flying out the door in the Clinton White House, and now we are paying for his disdain for the intelligence community.

fogw on September 7, 2006 at 3:19 PM

The inmates over at DUmbland have been all over this for the past few weeks, shrieking and screaming for boycott of everything from ABC to Scholastic to even Harry Potter. They’ve been calling media outlets, congressmen, and even school boards demanding people not look at this.

Now if it portrayed Bush in a bad light, I’m sure they’d do the opposite.

Enoxo on September 7, 2006 at 3:28 PM

Entelechy deserves a shout out for bringing this up last week.

It’s been fun watching the Clintonistas freak out about the possibility of their incompetence being aired, especially on a non-right-wing station like ABC.

The more they threaten, freak out, squeal and scream the more I know they have to hide.

From Sandy Burgler to Fat Legs Halfbright to Jamie Gorelick, the whole group should be incarcerated for high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people. History will show the true story of these criminals, whether ABC aborts this baby or not.

NTWR on September 7, 2006 at 3:47 PM

CENSORSHIP!

Oh…no wait, its libs and they don’t do that.

Iblis on September 7, 2006 at 4:08 PM

1. Surely I’m not the only one who remembers the CBS Reagan bio-docudrama bruhaha? Wherein CBS bowed to pressure and did not air it?
2. Surely I’m not the only one who finds the fact that Kean (9/11 comm co-chair) got PAID for consulting on this a little bit indelicate, to say the least?

honora on September 7, 2006 at 4:11 PM

I plan on posting about this later, but I have to say that I’m pissed about this ABC program too… Partly now that they’re caving to Clinton administraion pressures, but also because I think it’s safe to assume Able Danger will have no role in this show. It seems to have relied heavily on the 9/11 commission which as we know was the biggest POS commission ever.

RightWinged on September 7, 2006 at 4:18 PM

Methinks they doth protest too much.

Spurius Ligustinus on September 7, 2006 at 4:22 PM

What are the Clintons and their minions so afraid of? They can’t admit that the sainted Teflon Clinton made a mistake or two during his presidency?

Pretty fragile ‘legacy’ if it’s threatened by this mini-series, if you ask me.

Personally, I didn’t think Clinton was anywhere near one of the better presidents that we’ve had, but I never hated him. I never demonized him. I never held anywhere near the vitriolic seething slanders, lies, and hate that President Bush’s detractors have spewed constantly for the past 6 years (they started long before he was elected).

C’mon Democrats everywhere. We NEED a loyal opposition party in the USA. But the key word in that last sentence is LOYAL. Check your party’s talking points and strategy and they match achmedenijad and osama bin laden and the rest of our terrorist enemies almost verbatim. That alone says a lot about where your party is right now.

I know there are fair, sane people of good will on the Democrat side of the aisle who see some of the absolute lunacy at the far left wing of their party and know in their hearts it’s the wrong way to go. I’m really hoping that they put their Country before their party and go about the difficult work of reforming and rebuilding their party.

techno_barbarian on September 7, 2006 at 4:24 PM

1. Surely I’m not the only one who remembers the CBS Reagan bio-docudrama bruhaha? Wherein CBS bowed to pressure and did not air it?
2. Surely I’m not the only one who finds the fact that Kean (9/11 comm co-chair) got PAID for consulting on this a little bit indelicate, to say the least?

Well there is difference. CBS went all out to make Reagan look like a buffoon, a complete idiot ….. you know, the way the MSM treats Bush now. I don’t recall anyone making a fuss over how he dealt with the Commie menace, or anyone asking CBS to strike out a particular event or quote by Reagan or any of his front line cabinet members.

Funny how you libs love someone like Kean when he chairs the 9/11 commission and lays into the Bush administration, and then complain when he gets paid for consulting work on a docu-drama that might shed Clinton/Berger in a bad light.

Does it bother you when Clinton is paid a couple million bucks to give a speech abroad and steps up to the podium and criticizes the policies of Bush and his management of the war on terror? No, that’s perfectly OK with you.

Hypocrite.

fogw on September 7, 2006 at 4:28 PM

So it’s he-said, she-said on the Sandy thing. How in the hell are we to know which is which? I for one don’t trust any statement of fact coming out of the Clinton office on its face. And does KP really think she knows the facts herself? Or is she just trusting that this film has got it wrong because Clinton said so? When they haven’t seen it yet either?

The whole thing sucks an egg.

Anwyn on September 7, 2006 at 4:30 PM

Bill Clinton can’t stand the fact that he hasn’t yet had his own “PT 109” movie or his mini-series of the “Cuban Missile Crisis”, but instead is portrayed as a fella seeking a bj in the oval office.

gary on September 7, 2006 at 4:31 PM

Well there is difference. CBS went all out to make Reagan look like a buffoon, a complete idiot ….. you know, the way the MSM treats Bush now. I don’t recall anyone making a fuss over how he dealt with the Commie menace, or anyone asking CBS to strike out a particular event or quote by Reagan or any of his front line cabinet members.

Funny how you libs love someone like Kean when he chairs the 9/11 commission and lays into the Bush administration, and then complain when he gets paid for consulting work on a docu-drama that might shed Clinton/Berger in a bad light.

Does it bother you when Clinton is paid a couple million bucks to give a speech abroad and steps up to the podium and criticizes the policies of Bush and his management of the war on terror? No, that’s perfectly OK with you.

Hypocrite.

Whoa there cowboy. Yes there is a difference–in your opinion the Reagan thing was unfair, and of course you assume the ABC thing is completely accurate. What is not a matter of opinion is that the Reagan piece didn’t run? Get it? It’s not hard.

CBS/Reagan BAD/not run
ABC/Clinton BAD/run

Do not assume to know what bothers or does not bother me. I think cashing in on 9/11 is smarmy. I don’t have an opinion on Kean one way or another. Seems to me the rightwing has been all over him as he dared cast any stones Bush’s way.

I don’t think Clinton should denigrate the Bush admin policies, regardless of how foolish they are, but I fail to see the connection.

honora on September 7, 2006 at 4:39 PM

ABC sent copies of the first version out to all kinds of people for reviews. It’s only a matter of time before the excised portions turn up online. Clinton can bitch all he wants. He’s gonna regret it when the clips make it into the intertubes.

CENSORED ABC FOOTAGE ON YOUTUBE! Drudge will have a link to it two miutes after it appears and it will go viral five minutes after that. I’m glad the Flincher in Chief made such a stink. It reminds everyone why they shouldn’t vote for his wife.

The Apologist on September 7, 2006 at 4:46 PM

They’ve been setting this up for years. All the blame Bush for 9/11 , all the distractions, the ‘monologue-ist’ discussions, everything about 9/11 for 3 years has been a set up for this very thing. Oh the wasted time and effort, but thats another story.
Somewhat cleverly, Bush has been slammed into the forefront of blame on the ‘not killing Osama Bin-Hidin’ concern. Clinton and his Office is mainly to blame. Read the commision, look closely, look around.
Hannity was just playing TAPES of Bill ” I didnt have sexual relations” Clinton talking about OBL and indicting himself (accidentally of course) on the opportunities to kill OBL. Clinton chose not to, multiple times, for reasons that dont add up.
How anyone could ever believe Clinton again is beyond comprehension.

shooter on September 7, 2006 at 4:53 PM

Correction Honora,

CBS/Reagan IDIOT/not run
ABC/Clinton TURNED BACK ON TERRORISTS/run only favorable portrayals

I don’t assume the ABC thing is accurate, I can’t pass any judgement until I’ve seen it. Wish I could’ve seen it uncut. Or is that cut and run?

You most certainly had an opinion on Kean …..

2. Surely I’m not the only one who finds the fact that Kean (9/11 comm co-chair) got PAID for consulting on this a little bit indelicate, to say the least?

You seem to think Kean was “cashing in” on 9/11 by being paid as a consultant, and found that smarmy.

I would argue that the King of Smarmy was Michael Moore, who cashed in on 9/11 and was hailed as the hero of the left in this country.

fogw on September 7, 2006 at 4:54 PM

Foggy please don’t feed the driveby’s, they just keep coming back.

shooter on September 7, 2006 at 5:01 PM

ABC = American Broadcasting Cowards.

They can do all the hit pieces they want on Conservatives. But as soon as they get a little pressure from the left, they fold like a chair.

dallas94 on September 7, 2006 at 5:04 PM

Entelechy deserves a shout out for bringing this up last week

Definitely does. Bubba’s never been much for the truth – it’s all about looking good for the peeps (more specifically, the ladies). Looks like Bubba’s Hollywood mafia got involved here.

Rick on September 7, 2006 at 5:04 PM

Foggy please don’t feed the driveby’s, they just keep coming back.

shooter on September 7, 2006 at 5:01 PM

But shooter, he’s doing such a good job of it though! ;)

Preach it, Brutha foggy!

techno_barbarian on September 7, 2006 at 5:08 PM

Here is a question I would like answered. If they are about to edit this movie per Clinton’s instructions, then what will be put in its place? I’m certain that they won’t correct it, and place the realistic blame on George Tenet.

Oh well. If nothing else the movie should remind Americans that We are at War, and have been for well over 10 years. That fact alone speaks volumes of accurate history, and I cannot see where that helps the democratic party. Not even a little bit.

DannoJyd on September 7, 2006 at 5:11 PM

Honora’s no driveby!

Alex K on September 7, 2006 at 5:15 PM

The Reagan bio-pic was pulled by CBS but run on Showtime a few months later.

rw on September 7, 2006 at 5:21 PM

DannoJyd, they’ll re-edit it to show Clinton reacting to Black Hawk Down (you know sending more troops when they were asked for) WTC 1, The African Embassies, Khobar Towers, & the USS Cole by sending the military in and taking care of Bin Laden & gang instead of sending troops to Kosovo (where we still are btw) to make the Muslims like us.
Why is it the Dems loved Farenheit 9/11 which was full of lies but are unable to watch something which is closer to reality than that thing was. Well if anyone didn’t believe that Hollywood is in the Dems back pocket certainly has no excuse now.

Catie96706 on September 7, 2006 at 5:23 PM

What, are we now shocked that a network might roll over after getting rolled by the Clintonista apparatus? I would have been shocked if the Disney Network held its ground.

Kid from Brooklyn on September 7, 2006 at 5:26 PM

I thought the main controversial scene was a fictionalized version of the Tarnak Farms operation (as I detailed in the link to my post Allah added. Thanks!) I’m rather surprised at many on the right who keep referencing Predators/cruise missiles. Really the only major difference is the blame is put on Berger instead of Tenet, and the “imminence” of the operation is Hollywood-ized a bit.

dorkafork on September 7, 2006 at 5:38 PM

Listen to Rush Limbaugh this coming Monday. He said he’ll describe to listeners which parts of the 9/11 movie were edited out as a confirmation. This is what he said today.

Kokonut on September 7, 2006 at 5:41 PM

Clinton Adminstration weakness helped lead to the disasterous events of 9/11 ? I don’t know. I mean, we all know how memories can fade over time and all ….

Perhaps for clarity we should consider this little gem, via The Boss quoting Al Jazeera:

“The video showed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and two of the 19 Islamist militants that took part in the attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza el-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.

They spoke of the situation faced by Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.”

Well, let’s see now. I’m having a little trouble remembering back that far, so help me out here: Which U.S. President was responsible for so hopelessly fouling up our relations with Muslims in Bosnia that OBL himself felt compelled to mention it to the hijackers immediately prior to their carrying out the attacks of 9/11?

And what to make of this statement from the arch-terrorist himself in 1996:

“But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal.”

The left can try to spin this issue however they want, and God knows they’ll get enough help from the legacy media in doing so, but the objective, contemporaneous record lays bare the truth of Clinton and Clarke’s poor performance in heading off trouble with Al Qaeada, at least insofar as the terrorists themselves viewed their efforts. It would seem, then, that present efforts to bleach the stain of that incompetence amount to little more than Clintonista revisionism.

Blacksheep on September 7, 2006 at 5:42 PM

I heard Rush make a good point today. He said that the film really doesn’t make you mad at the Clintonistas or anybody on the Bush side of things. He made the point that the people you’ll really be mad at are the people you should be mad at. The terrorists that have inflicted jihad on us since long before Clinton OR Bush.

Wonder why there’s not that much outrage of the film that vividly depicts the assasination of Bush at that Canadian film festival?

There’s way too much maddness out there. And people with powerful visual communications toys are abusing those toys.

techno_barbarian on September 7, 2006 at 5:45 PM

I expect this from Islamofascists and their cartoon outrage but this is a new low for the democrats and the media.
Why do they cave so easily?

RobCon on September 7, 2006 at 5:49 PM

Honora wrote:

Whoa there cowboy. Yes there is a difference–in your opinion the Reagan thing was unfair, and of course you assume the ABC thing is completely accurate. What is not a matter of opinion is that the Reagan piece didn’t run? Get it? It’s not hard.

CBS/Reagan BAD/not run
ABC/Clinton BAD/run

Hold on there.

The Reagan docudrama ran, unedited, on Showtime on cable, in spite of requests from his family for changes.

The ABC piece, on the other hand, has been edited at the request of Clinton — a request not granted to Mrs. Reagan and their family.

The Reagan piece stared James Brolin (“Mr. Barbara Streisand” for those who don’t know) as Reagan. Even CBS, a network known for its hostility to Republicans and Reagan, personally and in particular, found it a bit too partisan for their taste and wrote:

CBS believed it had ordered a love story about Ronald and Nancy Reagan with politics as a backdrop, but instead got a film that crossed the line into advocacy, said a network executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity….

…”We believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience,” the network said in a statement Tuesday.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/04/cbs.reagans.ap/

And predictabily, it was DEMOCRATS like Tom Daschle who strongly objected to moving it to Showtime instead of showing in prime time on CBS. But that was “then” when the issue was sliming Reagan. “Now” the issue is telling the truth about the run up to 9/11/01, and the Democrats want to suppress the show entirely, because it might make Clinton look bad.

What liberals and Democrats have to understand is that 9/11 happened. It was the culmination of a long series of mistakes that started on Clinton’s watch and concluded in the 9th month of Bush’s.

Yes. Some people in the Clinton administration WERE culpable for incompetence. This is true. And the 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges this. So why do the Democrats object to telling the people of America the truth?

When “Shit Happens,” it is usually NOT the result of a cosmic alighment of the stars, but the result of people being stupid, vain, ignorant, or incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. And that certainly happened in the run up to the attack, which mostly occured on Clinton’s watch, and some on Bush’s.

But the enemy is NOT Bill Clinton, Berger, Clarke, etc. The ENEMY was and still is Al Qaeda and their leadership, including Osama bin Laden.

THEY repeatedly attacked this country starting in 1993. Not Bill Clinton. THEY plotted to kill thousands of American in NY City — not Bill Clinton. THEY murdered 3000 of us, not Clinton or anybody in his administration, or in the Bush administration.

THEY chose to attack us and THEY carried it out.

Assessing “blame” may satisfy emotionally, but it is the lessons learned that count. It is a legitimate political discussion to determine if the Democrats have learned that lession, as Republicans assert in the negative.

Likewise, it is a legitimate political discussion to determine if the Republican War Plan will succeed, as Democrats disagree.

The Democrats are hypersensitive because they fear that, once again, the Republicans will be able to point and say that the Democrats are still NOT serious about national defense. And, the Republicans will be right because this IS the face of the modern Democratic Party today.

But that problem is owned by the Democrats and only them.

The response of the DU and KOS crowd to this movie (unseen by most of us as well as them) proves the point. The adverse response of the Clintonistas about their portrayal says more about them as individuals, than any harm to their “reputations” that the public exposure of their inability to understand the nature of the threat that faced us warrants.

If I were Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer, or Rahm Emmanual, I would have written a statement that simply noted that the events depicted occured in a time when most Americans had no idea that the Islamofascists were waging war on us. That America was unprepared and not on a war footing at the time. And that the past is the past. The current election campaign is about chosing a path for a successful future, and that the legacy of the Clinton and Bush Administrations will be written by the historians, not by an ABC TV movie.

And then I would have SHUT UP and let ABC run their movie unchanged.

georgej on September 7, 2006 at 6:01 PM

They’ll finish editing it once they can make it look like Monica was an agent of OBL and Clinton was just trying to get information while ensuring her constitutional rights.
The role of Madeline Notsobright will now be protrayed by Susan Sarandon and Sandy Burgler and Dick Clark are now played by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.

I heard the GWB role was also going to be edited again but Snidely Whiplash wasn’t available for re-shoots.

MCPO Airdale on September 7, 2006 at 6:04 PM

I find it somewhat ironic (if not unexpected) that Bill Clinton and his minions seem to have put more thought and effort into stopping a movie than they ever did to stop islamic terrorists.

LegendHasIt on September 7, 2006 at 6:04 PM

The left has really come unhinged on this.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/

Rick on September 7, 2006 at 6:11 PM

It was a real quick call by the way,all Billy Boy said was ” Remember Vince Foster?”

bbz123 on September 7, 2006 at 6:25 PM

According to Brit Hume on Fox, the DUmmies and the other assorted lefty bloggers are conspiring to set a “Google Bomb” of thousands of identical reviews on the movie so that anyone trying to get information on it will only be able to find THEIR version:
(How everything is “Bush’s Fault” and that nothing bad would ever happen if only we could have a Clinton in the WhiteHouse for life.)

LegendHasIt on September 7, 2006 at 6:55 PM

Thank you, georgej, for nailing it.

NTWR on September 7, 2006 at 7:00 PM

What did Berger smuggle out in his socks anyway? Could it be…the evidence of this very incident???

Alex K on September 7, 2006 at 2:49 PM

What I want to know is why he shred so many documents related to this, at that time? And got away with it.

The conversation about Berger vs. Tenet is not that relevant.

Where the f–k (sorry but I can’t find a more decent substitute) was Bill Clinton, our President of that time to make that decision? That’s the only question!

And that’s why they’re so up in arms.

No one should boycott this drama (in any form) and many should buy it in any version. We are smart enough to know fact from fiction and where the blame really lies. After all we’re not Fahrenheit 911 watchers.

Yes, the topic of Homeland Security and WOT should stay on the table until Nov. 7, whatever it takes! May the better party on these two (and only topics which matter) win!

Entelechy on September 7, 2006 at 7:28 PM

hmmm, where’s that U.S. Constitution? I just know there was something in there called the 1st ammendment I think. Changing a movie for political reasons eh? and it wasn’t finished editing eh? well well, they must have ran some version of a final cut by someone. Given the timing of this whole thing, I hope it blows up in the dems face like any other friggin attempt to thwart the true path of life.

Now a movie showing a standing WAR President getting killed, yeah thats ok to keep. Folks, this is a reality check and something better be done.

Google is now about to embark on “redoing” history literally with posting 300 years of news online for searching. Who will check it for accuracy? Not a Dem I hope.

johnnyU on September 7, 2006 at 7:59 PM

I guess it was wishful thinking expecting this mini-series to be 100% truthful. No matter how dramatic something already is, someone always has to freaking over-dramatize it. This little incident is a blow to its overall credibility, and that’s a shame.

speed647 on September 7, 2006 at 8:35 PM

ACLU: “We are filing this class-action lawsuit today on behalf of the many conservative men and women deprived of their right to freedom of expression and imagination.

We, as the most credible defender of the First Amendment, supported fully by the Democrat leadership and the party’s multiple wings, including the most liberal, and having equally supported faux-productions, like Fahrenheit 911, are utterly and totally oposed to Fauxmatography, or the post-production modification of movies, dramas and docu-dramas, except and unless they claim to be 100% in the category of documentaries.

A further lawsuit will be filed to address any modification of historical facts, i.e. modifying what “is is”. What was was and can’t be modified, no matter who files the request. We, after all are a democratic republic and not a kingdom.

Entelechy on September 7, 2006 at 10:14 PM

Catie96706, if it turns out that you are correct [I give it about a 38% probability today] I’ll totally lose my mind.

They’ll finish editing it once they can make it look like Monica was an agent of OBL and Clinton was just trying to get information while ensuring her constitutional rights.

Torture by cigar, MCPO Airdale?

DannoJyd on September 7, 2006 at 10:26 PM

AP, you lucky bastard.

You have Bethany flirting with you in front of the whole world, KP e-mailing you in the middle of the night, what’s next, White House Press Corps dinner with MKH on your arm?

theholyhermit on September 8, 2006 at 12:22 AM

Correction Honora,

CBS/Reagan IDIOT/not run
ABC/Clinton TURNED BACK ON TERRORISTS/run only favorable portrayals

I don’t assume the ABC thing is accurate, I can’t pass any judgement until I’ve seen it. Wish I could’ve seen it uncut. Or is that cut and run?

You most certainly had an opinion on Kean …..

2. Surely I’m not the only one who finds the fact that Kean (9/11 comm co-chair) got PAID for consulting on this a little bit indelicate, to say the least?

You seem to think Kean was “cashing in” on 9/11 by being paid as a consultant, and found that smarmy.

I would argue that the King of Smarmy was Michael Moore, who cashed in on 9/11 and was hailed as the hero of the left in this country.

fogw on September 7, 2006 at 4:54 PM

See you keep thinking your opinion is fact, when it is, your opinion. The Reagan piece was objected to mainly because it portrayed Nancy as a bit of a nut–astrology etc–and as having a lot of influence on RR in matters of policy. You think that makes RR look like an idiot, fine. You think it’s unfair, fine. But what you think isn’t the issue. The issue is that CBS was pressured to yank it, the same situation ABC now faces. You don’t see the parallel, well ok.

And there is that niggling little thing that ABC is touting this as “based on the 9/11 commission”. The Reagan thing was based on some no name screenplay.

Second you stated:

Funny how you libs love someone like Kean when he chairs the 9/11 commission and lays into the Bush administration

I responded that I don’t have a particular opinion on Kean one way or another–i.e. I don’t “love” him. I do find his action of parleying his position as Comm chair into $$$$ unseemly. I still cling to the notion that “anything for a buck” has its downside.

That said, I do not object to the ABC “docudrama”–isn’t that a sad little word. People presumably are still able to make informed judgments. I just think it’s a poor way to commemorate this sacred day.

honora on September 8, 2006 at 12:01 PM

Honora’s no driveby!

Alex K on September 7, 2006 at 5:15 PM

Now there’s something I never thought I’d hear! ;^)

honora on September 8, 2006 at 12:26 PM