The DNC comes out on the 9/11 slander movie being used by Disney/ABC to prop up Bush.
The ABC television network — a cog in the Walt Disney empire — unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new “docudrama” called “The Path to 9/11″. ABC has thrown its corporate might behind the two-night production, and bills it as a public service: a TV event, to quote the ABC tagline, “based on the 9/11 Commission Report”.
That’s false. “The Path to 9/11″ is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats and revise history right before Americans vote in a major election.
>> Open Letter to ABC: Don’t Airbrush 9/11
MORE: ABC is actually going out of their way to tell the right-wing that yes, they will smear President Clinton and that they have nothing to worry about. Welcome to the brave new world.
Ben Vineste was just on Olbermann saying that the producers are labeling this as a documentary.
Ben Vineste lied.
As I understand it, the docu-drama is lifted directly from testimony and events contained in the 9/11 Commission Report, which was pronounced inerrant, infallible, and divinely inspired by Democrats after its publication.
Oliver, if you are in a position to challenge the veracity of the testimony given in the 9/11 Commission Report, I would be interested to see your evidence.
Otherwise, let the events in this film be a lesson to you and everyone else that the Clinton administration, for all its supposed intellectual brilliance, had no idea how to pursue a “law enforcement” strategy against terrorists because they had no idea what to do with terrorists once they had captured them.
Of course thanks to Sandy Berger, we’ll never know a lot of what really went on inside the White House during those years, since those memos disappeared into Berger’s pants and then probably ended up in a shredder.
As I understand it, the docu-drama is lifted directly from testimony and events contained in the 9/11 Commission Report,
Thanks, Mike.
Point proven, everyone.
Lies. Presented to schoolkids as fact. Conservatives are being exposed for what they really are: amoral cowards.
First of all, as has been pointed out in numerous venues, the film is not factually accurate.
Secondly, only one American president has presided over the murder of 3,000 citizens on U.S. soil via terrorism. His name is not Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Harry Truman or Franklin Roosevelt.
Maybe Spike Lee can make a “movie based on the 9/11 commission report” that shows how Bush doesn’t think about OBL much, gave up the opportunity to capture him 3 times, and invaded an uninvolved 3rd country while American tax dollars are being shoveled to Pakistan, who is harboring OBL.
Oh, that would be the truth.
I wonder how much of the preznit’s Pet Goat reading will be in the “docu”drama.
First of all, as has been pointed out in numerous venues, the film is not factually accurate.
Name one movie based on a true story that is 100% entirely accurate.
Just name one.
Well, it had to happen.
The Democratic Party is like the Indianapolis Colts of the political world. They have everything going their way for the longest time and then….POW!! They implode.
All this is sure to do is give even more attention to the movie which means more people will watch it.
The Clintonistas have been very good at keeping a lid on the Clinton administration’s bungling of handling terrorism, which set the stage for 9/11 and now more people will know about it.
Also, this movie gives the Democrats a built in excuse if they don’t take over Congress this fall.
Once more from the top: this is being advertised as a dramatisation of actual events as documented in the 9/11 Commission Report and so people are going to believe, or at the very least are being led to believe, that what they see is what really happened, which is what propaganda is.
In addition, this is not just any film “based on a true story”. Something like Man on the Moon had more freedom to embellish things for dramatic purposes (and Andy warned you about that at the start of the film anyway) because it was about a comedian, not an enormous socio-political history of the United States.
Finally, I doubt that you will ever convince me that you’d have precisely the same attitude to this film were the tables turned, and it made shit up against the Bush regime. I know I’d still be upset.
So long Apollo 13. You were sold as a dramatization of actual events based upon the memoirs of Cmdr. Lovell, yet it had fictionalized scenes, so it must be banned!
Once more from the top: this is being advertised as a dramatisation of actual events as documented in the 9/11 Commission Report and so people are going to believe, or at the very least are being led to believe, that what they see is what really happened, which is what propaganda is.
And once again, dramatic or artistic license is almost always used in films and even television mini-series that are based on true stories and actual events. There are often composite characters and composite scenes, characters left out, scenes left out, etc. It is all done in an effort to control for time and to enhance the drama.
If people choose to believe that everything in the movie is true, that is their problem. Their ignorance is not ABC’s propaganda.
In addition, this is not just any film “based on a true story”. Something like Man on the Moon had more freedom to embellish things for dramatic purposes (and Andy warned you about that at the start of the film anyway) because it was about a comedian, not an enormous socio-political history of the United States.
Oh, so now the type of movie it is makes all the difference? Give me a break.
Finally, I doubt that you will ever convince me that you’d have precisely the same attitude to this film were the tables turned, and it made shit up against the Bush regime. I know I’d still be upset.
Not so. I could have cared less for instance when conservatives went batshit over ‘The Reagans.’ It was a movie and I didn’t watch it.
And Nimrod, what of movies like, ‘JFK’, ‘Mississippi Burning’, ‘Missing’, and ‘All The Presidents Men?’
These are films that take huge liberties with what actually happened, are nowhere near in Oliver’s terms “factually accurate” and are often shown in high schools across the country in sociology, history and journalism classes.
I haven’t seen “The Path to 9/11,” but I hope it opens with the scene at Blair House, January 7, 2001 – 13 days before he was even Inaugurated – where the President-elect (and the Vice President-elect and Condoleeza Rice) were told that America faced a “tremendous,” “immediate” threat from Osama Bin Laden – and then ignored the threat, focusing on Iraq instead.
A nice place to end it would be with shots of the President clearing brush intercut with Secretary Rice trying to recall for the Senate the title of the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing. (“Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.”)
LOL! Go back to troll school Jay. If JFK had come out 8 weeks before the ‘64 election, maybe you’d have a point. Nobody’s saying this movie shouldn’t be made; it’s that this movie SHOULDN’T BE PROMOTED TO SCHOOLCHILDREN AS FACT.
From Scholastic’s propaganda piece, distributed to teachers nationwide:
“The Path to 9/11 offers your students and their families important information regarding the causes of and events leading to that tragic day. Encourage your students and their families to watch The Path to 9/11 and use the accompanying Resources and Discussion Guide pages to:
-Track the historical time line of events before, during, and after 9/11
-Lead critical discussions about these events
-Use critical-thinking skills and analysis in classroom debate”
Propaganda. Lies. Given to children.
Jimmmmmm, from the previews I’ve read, the 8/6/01 PDB IS in the movie. Just so you know…
LOL! Go back to troll school Jay. If JFK had come out 8 weeks before the ‘64 election, maybe you’d have a point. Nobody’s saying this movie shouldn’t be made;
I didn’t accuse anybody of saying they didn’t want the movie made.
Now we have another excuse as well. First we have Nimrod saying that it’s ok for filmmakers to take liberties depending upon what type of movie it is. Now we have the good Dr. telling everybody that since it is bad because it is going to be shown 8 weeks before an election.
Of course, he (like everybody else I have asked) ignores my question about those other movies, with Dr. citing something absurd about ‘JFK’ if it was in 1964.
And kdis in high school are not ‘children.’ They are at an age where critical thinking becomes important. If they choose to believe everything in the movie just because it was on TV, then that’s their problem and a problem for their parents.
So give me a huge break with the “for the children” nonsense.
JFK presents a theory, as a theory. Watch the film someday, it doesn’t suggest that Garrison’s ideas are the truth. Oliver Stone is very careful on that score. He has said himself that he doesn’t necessarily agree with all of Garrison’s conclusions? He only ever wanted to spark debate and make people think. About something that happened almost 30 years before the film was released.
Mississippi Burning isn’t based on a true story, it’s inspired by one. It follows the basic lines of the famosu incident with the dead civil rights workers, but the characters and such are fictional, which if nothing else gives the impression that it’s not supposed to be taken as gospel.
All The President’s Men is based on the book by the two main characters and stops just as the scandal breaks.
I’ve never heard of Missing before but Costa-Gavras isn’t usually one to make shit up for propaganda purposes.
The forensic marvel has reduced my logic to shambles. Why don’t you just say my mother wears army boots, if that’s all you’ve got?
I make that about the twelfth time that point has been made. They’ll just continue to ignore it because they can’t counter it.
Which it obviously is.
If the Republicans said the sky was pink, you’d make out that it was ridiclous to think it was blue. And I still don’t believe you, you’d be up in arms about this if it was the other way around.
The real hypocricy is that wingnuts always whine about liberal teachers indoctrinating their students.
But when it’s a far right viewpoint? Not a problem for the wingnuts. Even if it takes lies to push that viewpoint.
JFK presents a theory, as a theory. Watch the film someday, it doesn’t suggest that Garrison’s ideas are the truth. Oliver Stone is very careful on that score. He has said himself that he doesn’t necessarily agree with all of Garrison’s conclusions? He only ever wanted to spark debate and make people think. About something that happened almost 30 years before the film was released.
I have seen the film. Many times. It is an outstanding movie. But this notion that Stone only wanted people to think is absurd. Oliver Stone has vigorously defended the film as factually accurate.
All The President’s Men is based on the book by the two main characters and stops just as the scandal breaks.
I didn’t ask you for synopsis of the movie. I have seen it. Quite a few times. It is also an excellent film, but one that takes quite a few liberties with the facts. Stuff is even made up.
I’ve never heard of Missing before but Costa-Gavras isn’t usually one to make shit up for propaganda purposes.
And there it is. Making something up in a film doesn’t automatically make it propaganda. What you Clintonistas see as propaganda, a filmmaker sees as dramatic license.
It’s like I’ve been saying all along. You people don’t give a rat’s ass about factual accuracy in films. You only care about strict 100% factual accuracy in a film that might portray your hero in a bad light. Horror of horrors.
At least you’re admitting it now.
No, you just asked me to agree blindly with everything you said.
You’re either mistaken, been reading different magazines from me, or lying.
Oh, I thought this was a thread on a blog. Sorry, I didn’t realise. I’ll leave you to your bullshit contest.
“You people don’t give a rat’s ass about factual accuracy in films.”
Sad that you continue to fight strawmen. Obviously factual accuracy in film has a certain value. It cannot be emphasized enough, however, that that value INCREASES EXPONENTIALLY WHEN LIES ARE PROMOTED TO SCHOOLCHILDREN AS FACT, AND ARE BROADCAST NATIONWIDE 8 WEEKS BEFORE AN ELECTION.
By the way, what makes you think Clinton is my hero? He was maybe marginally less venal and more effective than we might have hoped.
I’m going to repeat that one a few times so he can’t ignore it anymore:
How many of those “indoctrinated” schoolchildren are going to be voting in that election?
Still to scared to address the point, Farris? Even under an assumed name, it’s just too overwhelming? Sad.
No, you just asked me to agree blindly with everything you said.
No, I asked what your view was regarding showing such films in schools despite their factual inaccuracies.
You’re either mistaken, been reading different magazines from me, or lying.
Read here:
From the moment it was released, its director Oliver Stone has so passionately defended its factual accuracy that he became, for all practical purposes, the new Garrison. What could be more appropriate in the age of media than a crusading film-maker replacing a crusading District Attorney as the symbol of the truth-finder in society? In this capacity, Oliver Stone-Garrison played out his case on television news programs, talk shows, magazines and the op- ed pages of news papers. He held his own press conferences, with his attractive researcher at his side, met with Congressional leaders, and he, as the original Garrison had done a quarter of a century before, used this public platform to focus attention on the possibility that the government was hiding the truth about the Kennedy Assassination. In exploiting this torment of secrecy, Stone proved far more successful than his predecessor in rousing interest in releasing the classified files pertaining to the assassination.
Obviously factual accuracy in film has a certain value. It cannot be emphasized enough, however, that that value INCREASES EXPONENTIALLY WHEN LIES ARE PROMOTED TO SCHOOLCHILDREN AS FACT
And AGAIN I ask what is the opinion of showing movies that I have listed that also contain LIES (as you call them)?
As for when it is being shown, go tell the terrorists that these attacks should have occurred in December because now they’ve fucked up the Democrats chances of taking over Congress because the 5 year anniversary of the horror happens to be 8 weeks before an election and some movie is going to do them in.
Sell that shit to the tourists ok?
Uh-uh. Don’t answer the question with another question we’ve already answered. You won’t shoo the elephant off the table that way.
Are you really too stupid to know the difference between a documentary about World War Two and a documentary all-but-blaming the largest terrorist attack on American soil on the administration immediately preceding the current one? Or are you just pretending because you know you have no case and can’t do anything about it except repeat yourself, beat strawmen and constantly ask the same irrelevant questions even after they’ve been, if not answered, then dealt with?
As for that big bold quote, why don’t you read it?
Sad that you find these facts so difficult to deal with. Sad and revealing.
I’ve got no problem with an unbiased, factual movie being “shown.” I do have a problem with rightwing propaganda being shown — TO CHILDREN — and immediately in advance of an election.
There are simple, basic lies in this film. It is not fit for presentation as balanced, claiming to be based on the 9/11 commission report and yet contradicting it. And it should not be promoted in our schools. That you cannot deal with this fact says it all. By all means, keep bringing up JFK, as if it were at all relevant. It shows the quality of your case quite nicely.
Are you really too stupid to know the difference between a documentary about World War Two and a documentary all-but-blaming the largest terrorist attack on American soil on the administration immediately preceding the current one?
Have you seen the movie? How can you possibly know that the movie all-but-blames the the largest attack on American soil on the administration immediately preceding the current one?
And are you too stupid to realize that the 9/11 attacks were in the works during the administration that preceded the current one? Are you too stupid to realize that people in the previous adminstration, from George Tenent, Janet Reno and Sandy Berger often quashed some efforts to go after Al Qaeda. Are you too stupid to realize that interagency fighting and the failure to share information (which was rectified by The Patriot Act) was largely responsible for many of the snafus that allowed these attacks to happen?
There were tons of errors, mistakes and miscalculations that occurred by the previous administration – THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. The samee errors, mistakes and miscalculations were made once the Bush administration took over.
There’s enough blame to go around. The problem is, the Bush administration was only in office for SEVEN MONTHS. It stands to reason that the PATH to 9/11 spent most of its time developing during the Clinton administration.
That’s what happened and it’s just too fucking bad. Deal with it.
Are you really too stupid to notice that the previews mention that the movie give special attention to the August PDB and takes Condoleeza Rice to task? To say this is a Bush whitewash and a Clinton hit job is … a lie.
I do have a problem with rightwing propaganda being shown — TO CHILDREN
What CHILDREN are being forced to sit in front of the television and watching it?
And what is with describing teenagers as CHILDREN?
Why is it okay for the film to claim to be based on the 9/11 commission report, and then to contradict it? Why were the producers, in their words “conciously” hiding this film from Clinton, while sending it to every right wing blogger in the swamp? Why do they feel the need to invent errors of the Clinton administration out of whole cloth? Errors that never occurred?
The simple answer is tho have an airing of Farenheit 911 on National TV. That at least uses real footage.
Why is it okay for the film to claim to be based on the 9/11 commission report, and then to contradict it?
Nowhere do the producers claim that the film is based ENTIRELY on the 9/11 report. If that were the case, you would have a point, but it isn’t. It is also based on personal interviews and John Miller’s book, ‘The Cell.’
Round and round and round and round and round and round we go.
You do realise you didn’t address my point? Good, just checking.
I think that once they say it’s “based on” the 9/11 report, then it becomes an act of dishonesty to turn around and contradict it. Why would you defend that manipulative, deceptive practice? I submit it is because you have sacrificed all your principles and even your personal honor on the altar of GOP power. Very, very sad, Jay.
I wonder what kind of copyroght protection Disney is trying to buy.
You do realise you didn’t address my point? Good, just checking.
Sure I did. You just don’t like what I have to say.
I think that once they say it’s “based on” the 9/11 report, then it becomes an act of dishonesty to turn around and contradict it.
What exactly happens in the film that is contradicted in the report? Stop giving me your faux sympathy and answer a fucking question for once.
Here is what it says:
ABC will present “The Path to 9/11,” a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event that will air with limited commercial interruption.
So. Again I ask. Exactly what in the movie CONTRADICTS what is in the report? Details please. And please. Something happening in the movie that isn’t in the report isn’t a contradiction. The 9/11 report is not gospel.
A good way for ABC to balance their Disneyland 9/11 wankfest with an an equal number of commercial-free minutes of Fahrenheit 911.
Well, this thread has been entertaining, to say the least.
As for me, I’m eagerly waiting for the DNC to perhaps take a second look at the generously documented fakery and distortions that ended up in “Fahrenheit 911.” I mean, it’s all about “truth,” isn’t it?
No problem mikey, just give us uninterrupted airtime on ABC to air F9/11, right before an election, and we’ll get right on it.
Let us know so we can print up the lesson plans to distribute to the schools.
(By the way, F9/11 is 100% documented and backed up
http://www.michaelmoore.com)
No, you didn’t. You changed the subject completely.
Farenheit 9/11 has been brought up and dealt with over and over already.
jay says that bush’s seven months of ignoring alQaida is all Clinton’s fault and we should ‘deal with it’. Does he blame the 1993 WTC bombing on GHWB or on Clinton?
Well Mike, it appears to me that those who advocate showing ‘Fahrenheit 911′ as a ‘balance’ to TPT 9/11 are conceding that Moore’s film contains lies and untruths.
What’s really amusing is to see our liberal friends, who celebrated The West Wing, the television drama designed to make Bill Clinton look good, and Commander-in-Chief, which some saw as designed to get America ready for a female president, just in time for Senatrix Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and all sorts of celebrities coming out and telling us what great people the Democrats were, but get one thing that might reflect negatively on President Clinton’s policies, and they’re squealing like the guy in Deliverance.
jay says that bush’s seven months of ignoring alQaida is all Clinton’s fault
Learn to read bub. This is what I wrote:
There were tons of errors, mistakes and miscalculations that occurred by the previous administration – THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. The same errors, mistakes and miscalculations were made once the Bush administration took over.
No, you didn’t. You changed the subject completely.
I did no such thing. You seem unable to comprehend that a movie called ‘The Path To 9/11′ has to start prior to take place prior to January 20, 2001.
“Something happening in the movie that isn’t in the report isn’t a contradiction.”
Sure it is. Inventing a confrontation in which Bin Laden is “let go” by U.S. troops at the behest of sinister, evil liberals is quite clearly CONTRARY to the report, CONTRARY to reality, and CONTRARY to everything except the dishonest GOP narrative you’re peddling.
On pages 199 & 508-509 of the 9/11 Report: George Tenet directed by Sandy Berger and Pres. Clinton to take out Bin Laden.
Rightwing masturbatory “docudrama”: Sandy Berger tells CIA not to take out Bin Laden.
A contradiction.
Anyone with a moral compass would acknowledge this. Which are you, Jay? Did your parents teach these twisted “morals”?
Well Mike, it appears to me that those who advocate showing ‘Fahrenheit 911′ as a ‘balance’ to TPT 9/11 are conceding that Moore’s film contains lies and untruths.
No such concession is stated or implied.
What are you talking about? You went off on one about not seeing the film.
Yeah, all of those schoolchildren are now going to vote Republican.
Jay,
The outrage is over a scene that depicts Special Ops troops who have been deployed in Afghanistan, ready to swoop down on OBL and capture him. When the Spec Ops leader radios Washington for final approval, the bureaucrats stall, then tell the field commander that he is on his own, then supposedly Sandy Berger hangs up on the field commander.
The 9/11 Commission report details a 1997 CIA plan to capture OBL at his hideout at Tarnak Farms in Afghanistan, but this plan never got past the planning and rehearsal stage.
And in his book published a few years ago, “Dereliction of Duty,” Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson alleges that the CIA did actually have operatives on the ground in position to capture Bin Laden, (though I can’t remember if it was at Tarnak Farms) but Bill Clinton was busy golfing and Sandy Berger could not get him to give a final executive go-ahead for the plan.
It seems like the screenwriters created a composite of those two events, which is something that is done all the time in works of fiction. It’s called “creative license.”
What really happened? My best guess is that the documents that could either disprove or (more likely) corroborate these events disappeared down Sandy Berger’s pants.
Perhaps the moral of the story is, hide the truth and you become prey for the fiction writers in Hollywood.
“And in his book published a few years ago, “Dereliction of Duty,” Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson alleges …..”
You do know that 100% of that book has been discredited, right? What sheeple.
So what you’re saying is that they made a composite out of a) a balanced, non partisan report, and b) a right wing attack screed — and then hid behind the 9/11 Commission report to pretend they were balanced?
I think that’s the point we’ve been trying to make all along. The work was made to promote a right-wing agenda. I’m glad we agree about that. Because of that agenda, it’s not fit to be presented as “balanced”; and until it is either corrected or presented honestly as a right wing screed, it should not be shown.
And since it has a right-wing agenda, it should definitely not be presented to students as “fact.”
Looks like we all agree! Hooray!
It’s sort of like if a movie denying the holocaust was made, then claimed to be a “composite” of Eli Wiesel’s Night, Schindler’s List, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
“But it’s based on Schindler’s List!”
Dr., once again you seem to misunderstand what ‘dramatic license’ is all about.
The aborted raid on Tarnak Farms in 1998 is the basis for the scene in question. It was George Tenet that ultimately called it off, after having conferred with Sandy Berger and the Delta Force team.
Did the whole thing go down as dramatically as told in the film? No. But so what? The fact of the matter is, there was a plan in place with people on the ground ready to take action and people in the highest levels of our government didn’t want to go through with it because of concerns about civilian casualties and whether or not a conviction could be secured against bin Laden. There was a CIA field officer in charge of the operation.
Then again, you people need to be told over and over again, that that this is not a documentary and that creative license like this taken all the time.
Yeah, I know. BUT IT’S NOT GIVEN OUT TO THE CHILLLLLLLLDREN!! AND NOT BEFORE AN ELECTION!!!
“there was a plan in place with people on the ground ready to take action”
This is not a fact, and your wishes and masturbatory fantasies will not make it so. Dramatic license based on a lie is also a lie. Scholastic is already backing off of this scurrilous, deceptive, right wing trash — good for them! Why do you support the corrosion of a decent company with right wing propaganda, Jay?
This is not a fact
Fix.
Sorry. Try Again.
Oh, well, if Mooreexposed.com thinks F9/11 is WHO ARE YOU KIDDING
Oh, well, if Michael Moore thinks F9/11 is WHO ARE YOU KIDDING
You are a satirical genius. Or a moron, one or the other.
At least Bill has some bollocks:
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/bubba_goes_ballistic_on_abc_about_its_damning_9_11_movie_nationalnews_ian_bishop_________post_correspondent.htm
I have one question: if this film isn’t propaganda intended to harm the Democratic party, why is it that previews were only provided to right-wing media?
Re: Tarnak Farms: This would be one of those operations Bush derided as “swatting at flies,” right? But contrary to your unsourced, undocumented claims, it was the CIA who called off the raid, not anyone in the White House. From the WP: “Tenet never formally presented the raid plan for Clinton’s approval”. Not to mention the fact that the reason it was shelved was because it was a risky plan, not due to liberal conspiracies.
Clearly, using the Tarnak Farms story as a basis for “we had bin Laden surrounded, but liberals let him get away” is a straight LIE. Calling it a “composite” reveals either your ignorance, or your desire to deceive for political gain. Keep trying, Jay.
This has been some of the best lunchtime entertainment I’ve read in a long time. Funny how one movie that possibly tilts to the right (for a change) can bring out the crybaby in those on the left.
Amazing.
After all the constant smears and slams on Republicans and the right in movies, on TV, and in music and comedy, you all have your panties in a bunch over this one movie that none of you have seen.
It’ quite funny how panicked the Clinton people are on this one.
Great for me, but not for thee…
In order for your question to be truthful, Richard Ben Veniste would have to be a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Sad to say, the Right Wing isn’t THAT vast.
Re: Tarnak Farms: This would be one of those operations Bush derided as “swatting at flies,” right? But contrary to your unsourced, undocumented claims, it was the CIA who called off the raid, not anyone in the White House.
Actually, I wrote that it was called off by George Tenet. However, Sandy Berger was involved in those conversations.
Not to mention the fact that the reason it was shelved was because it was a risky plan, not due to liberal conspiracies.
I never said anything about liberalism or conservatism. YOU keep bringing that up. All I said is that there was a plan in place. There were people on the ground already. The logistics had been taken care of. The CIA agent in charge wanted to go forward despite the chance of success being 40%.
Clearly, using the Tarnak Farms story as a basis for “we had bin Laden surrounded, but liberals let him get away” is a straight LIE.
There you go again with the liberalism nonsense. The fact of the matter is a mission was planned, everything was in place and was called off. A couple of months later, the embassy bombings took place. The only thing that has changed here is that the movie has Berger calling it off instead of Tenet and composite CIA officer (played by Wahlberg) on the phone with him.
“The only thing that has changed here is that the movie has Berger…
..is that the filmakers want to blame the Clinton White House. They NEED to blame Clinton, saying he was distracted by Lewinsky, and misled by shady, hook-nosed conspirators into betraying our national security. (I’m just surprised Streisand and Soros don’t make an appearance along with Lewinsky.) They then heavily promote this pack of lies to the right wing blogs, and sending screening copies to Rush Limbaugh while preventing ex-Clinton officials from seeing it. As the producers say, blaming Clinton is “in the DNA” of the show. God knows what else they think is “in the DNA.” They then promote their deceptions and false tales as unbiased truth, sending it to our schools to pass along their lies.
And now, the fact that you’re defending it so desperately is just the icing on the cake. You can’t win elections by blaming Clinton anymore, Jay. You members of the blame-anyone-but-Bush crowd are being marginalized more every day, whether it’s for Katrina, for bin Laden’s continuing freedom, the stagnating middle class economy, etc. Don’t blame us for the fact that your movement’s out of ideas, out of uncorrupted leaders, and soon to be out of power. It’s your own mendacity that’s done you in.
LOLOLOLOL….
Normally, I don’t use chat room abbreviations, but wow. Reading Anatole’s unhinged rant above made me truly laugh out loud.
I am not defending the movie. I haven’t seen it. I am defending a process that is used by filmmakers all the time and questioning how people who haven’t seen the movie can know so much about it to know that it blames everything on Clinton and gives Bush a total pass.
Dude, go have a beer or something. Crikey. It’s a movie for crying out loud and here you are saying that it is an attempt by ABC to undermine
Didn’t get to finish…
…attempt by ABC to undermine the “real truth” by spreading propaganda through the airwaves and indoctrinating the children!
Good grief.
“The only thing that has changed here …”
What the good Doctor said.
And come on, Jay, it’s a little disingenuous to suggest that there’s no difference between swapping out Tenet for Berger, even for the sake of dramatic license. Even if Berger was “involved in the conversation” to depict him as THE GUY who made the decision, or rather in this case, failed to make any decision, it appears, can only be read as a deliberate attempt to shift responsibility from one player to another and all that entails.
After all, why bring Berger from the background to the foregrond when it is more factually accurate to keep Tenet at the center? What extra “drama” does the shift bring to the scene especially when most of the American public probably has no clue who Berger actually is? You have to admit that George Tenet, Medal of Freedom Winner, has far greater name recognition that Sandy “Who the fuck is that?” Berger. What good dramatic point is served by recasting the truth this way? I’ll tell you: zero. It’s purely politics.
Oh come on Frame. In one sentence you’re talking about how nobody knows who Berger is and in the next you’re saying the only reason they changed it from Tenent to Berger is because of politics.
Clinton is no longer in office and neither is Berger. What political gain does anybody get out of doing that? I can’t say for sure exactly why they had Berger on the phone instead of Tenet. Again, I haven’t seen the movie, nor have I seen the script.
You haven’t either, but you’ve already concluded that the scene in question is nothing but a political hatchet job?
Sorry, but I can’t help but think this has more to do with people concerned more with the fact that the public is going to get a closer look at the mistakes that were made by agencies such as the CIA and FBI while Bill Clinton was President and mistakes made by the Clinton administration.
Since that terrible day, that administration has basically been shielded from that kind of exposure simply because Bush is President and 9/11 occurred while he was in office. This movie won’t allow them to duck any more. Unlike all the other news shows, hearings, books and newspaper series, this is on television and lots of people are going to watch. And I sincerely doubt that even if these scenes were changed, opinions would change much either.
I mean, look at what is going on already. It is a FIVE HOUR mini-series, and yet a lot of people want this yanked because of a couple of scenes.
“…. this has more to do with people concerned more with the fact that the public is going to get a closer look at the mistakes that were made by agencies such as the CIA and FBI while Bill Clinton was President and mistakes made by the Clinton administration.”
Hilarious. Nobody knows who the hell Berger is but they know’ll from the film that he was Clinton’s man. That’s the whole point, Berger becomes a cioher for Clinton because no one knows anything about the guy except that he worked for Clinton. Now let’s not forget that Tenet worked for Clintona dn Bush and was on the job the on 9-11. Tenet is far more associated with Bush in the public’s mind at present because Tenet was front stage center in the initial phases of the war on terror.
If you want to suggest that the CIA made mistakes you put Tenet at the center. If you want to suggest that the Clinon Administration made mistakes you put Berger at the center. But in this particular instance, Berger is put front and center in place of Tenet when it was the CIA actually calling the shots. That’s prett big creative license there, don’t you think Jay?
Remember when conservatives got that Reagan documentary yanked? Maybe not.
But at least you’ve conceded that this documentary is factually false, and should not be taught in classrooms. I mean, you’ve admitted that the “drama” with which they’ve taken so much “licence” is their priority anyway. Further, having not seen it, it is clear that the filmmakers have an ideological axe to grind given that they made it available to Rush, Hugh Hewitt, Malkin, and Stormfront while refusing even to let Bill Clinton screen it. So we’re just niggling over details at this point, Jay.
Did the whole thing go down as dramatically as told in the film? No. But so what?
So what? Here’s what.
Both Rush Limbaugh and Cliff Kincaid have already singled that scene out for special mention as indicative of what the movie reveals about the errors of the Clinton administration.
They’re trumpeting this to listeners and readers who have NO CLUE that the event was entirely made up.
Once established, these little bits of misinformation never go away. Have you heard the one about Sudan offering to turn over bin Laden? It’s baloney, but it was bruited about right here last week.
How about, “Al Gore says he invented the Internet!” Totally false. Doesn’t stop the Washington press corps from dredging it up time after time.
It’s important, Jay, because it’s false. And falsehoods take root when we let them.
“It is a FIVE HOUR mini-series, and yet a lot of people want this yanked because of a couple of scenes.”
Oh and tell this to the idiots on the right who got The Reagans mini-series yanked off CBS.
“Once established, these little bits of misinformation never go away.”
Especially on the right. I can’t wait for the first time Save Farris posts about how Sandy Berger personally caused 9-11 because he refused to kill Osama Bin Laden while the two of them shared a Carribean cruise together.
A defeat for the right-wing noise machine! One less piece of rabid, rightwing, anti-Clinton propaganda in our schools!
From TPM Muckraker:
Educational media giant Scholastic, Inc. announced it’s dropping its original classroom companion guides to a controversial new docudrama, and replacing them with materials stressing critical thinking and media literacy.
“After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues,” said Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic, in a press release.
The Baby-Sitters Club is a subversive organisation!
Here, Jay, read this and shut up.
And don’t pass me off with the line that you didn’t care about “The Reagans”. Read what your people said. And compare.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/bush-supporters-condemn-fictionalized.html
This is why lies can’t be allowed to appear unchallenged on public airwaves.
These lies in this “drama” will be passed around for years among wingnuts-and some unsuspecting people will believe them.
Ever hear that Al Gore invented the Internet? Lie.
That Clinton was handed OBL on a silver platter 3 times? Lie.
That the Florida vote, all the votes, were counted several times? Lie.
Just like Goebbels, the cons have mastered the big lie. This is why ABC cannot air this “docudrama” Monday.
“I don’t know the facts here but …” said Gaffney. Hilarious. Is that not the perfect example of right wing debate?
Classic right wing debate, there are MANY instances on this thread. The trouble is, they don’t care about the facts, only spin.
Hilarious. Nobody knows who the hell Berger is but they know’ll from the film that he was Clinton’s man. That’s the whole point, Berger becomes a cioher for Clinton because no one knows anything about the guy except that he worked for Clinton.
The scene takes place in 1998. It’s too fucking hard to figure out that the people involved are members of the Clinton administration.
If you want to suggest that the CIA made mistakes you put Tenet at the center. If you want to suggest that the Clinon Administration made mistakes you put Berger at the center.
What’s the difference?!?! You could have put Mickey Mouse on the phone. It’s still part of the Clinton administration.
But at least you’ve conceded that this documentary is factually false
It’s not a documentary.
and should not be taught in classrooms
It never was going to be taught in classrooms.
Both Rush Limbaugh and Cliff Kincaid have already singled that scene out for special mention as indicative of what the movie reveals about the errors of the Clinton administration.
They’re trumpeting this to listeners and readers who have NO CLUE that the event was entirely made up.
Oh please. They’re preaching to the choir. This is what you guys are really afraid of. People are going to watch it and because people are ignorant and will believe anything they see, they will believe this.
Once established, these little bits of misinformation never go away. Have you heard the one about Sudan offering to turn over bin Laden?
You mean like the one where Reagan called ketchup a vegetable? The difference is, we are once again talking about a MOVIE.
It’s important, Jay, because it’s false. And falsehoods take root when we let them.
It’s a film. And there isn’t a film that has ever been made based on actual events where everything in the movie was 100% accurate.
Oh and tell this to the idiots on the right who got The Reagans mini-series yanked off CBS.
You’re right. They are idiots. The people who tried to get ‘The Da Vinci Code’ shut down were idiots too.
Here, Jay, read this and shut up.
And don’t pass me off with the line that you didn’t care about “The Reagans”. Read what your people said. And compare.
Your people? Sorry Nimrod, but unlike yourself, I am not some kind of drone. I think for myself. I am an artist. A photographer, a musician and a writer (sort of!). I don’t believe in silencing something simply because some people take issue with some aspects of the presentation.
Just like Goebbels, the cons have mastered the big lie. This is why ABC cannot air this “docudrama” Monday.
Right. So the answer to your problem is censorship.
Nice.
So we come back around to our hypotheticals, Jay.
In your book, it’s OK to make up anything about any actual person under the guise of “dramatic license”?
I can make a movie about young George Bush snorting some coke. Hey, it’s just a movie!
In your book, it’s OK to make up anything about any actual person under the guise of “dramatic license”?
Quaker, the scene in question did happen. The dramatic license used to enhance the drama was to have somebody on the phone with a person waiting for the word ‘Go!’
I can make a movie about young George Bush snorting some coke. Hey, it’s just a movie!
Apples and oranges Quaker. If the movie in question showed Sandy Berger committing a rape, then you would have a point. What this does is take a series of smaller events and rolls them into one bigger one.
What are you guys so afraid of?
“Quaker, the scene in question did happen.”
Actually, no, the scene in question did not happen. The CIA never had enough information to be at Bin Laden’s door. The CIA was never at Bin Ladin’s door. Sandy Berger never said “no” to catching him or killing him.
But yes, I’m sure that at some point in time Bin Ladin did live in a house.
The CIA never had enough information to be at Bin Laden’s door. The CIA was never at Bin Ladin’s door.
The CIA had information that bin Laden was in Tarnak Farms. Once again, the movie enhanced the drama by making it appear they were right outside, ready to take him out.
Did Berger say ‘No’ to catching bin Laden? No, but he was opposed to this particular mission because he was concerned about being to secure a conviction against him.
In ‘All The Presidents Men’ at one point, Deep Throat tells Woodward that he and Bernstein’s lives were in danger, implying the Nixon White House was willing to kill two journalists in order to stop them from doing their reporting.
What Deep Throat actually said was, “Everybody’s lives are in danger” and he was talking about everybody’s ‘livelihood’ with regard to the stakes involved.
You see what I mean about artistic license? Nobody in the White House ever planned to kill two journalists, but if one were an ignoramus and just believed everything they saw on a movie screen, that’s what one would believe.
Just read the official Democrat Senate leadership threat to take ABC off the air if “The Path to 9/11″ is not edited to their liking.
Hee-hee … I guess we’ve finally uncovered the real “inconvenient truth” for Democrats.
Nice going, guys. But I have a few suggestions for your next PR stunt. How about a big bonfire on the Capitol steps, using Ann Coulter books as kindling? And while you’re at it, I think Harry Reid and the boys would look really sharp in brown dress shirts with black ties and khaki pants. Maybe with a little American flag armband, too.
I think the Dems have officially jumped the shark here.
Conservatives were upset about Viacom’s Reagan hack job, but no one in the Republican party — and certainly not the Republican leadership and its senators en masse — ever sent a letter to Viacom discussing the status of their broadcasting license, or implying that they would violate the terms of their license by broadcasting the Reagan movie.
Mike,
You know, for a fact, that NO PERSON IN THE WORLD sent such a letter to Viacom saying such? You’ve paged through EVERY LETTER of correspondence from the company’s corporate records?
Quaker, the scene in question did happen.
When? Where? Some alternate universe?
Did. Not. Happen.
“This is what you guys are really afraid of. People are going to watch it and because people are ignorant and will believe anything they see, they will believe this.”
Um, exactly. Then people who should know better will exploit that ignorance for their own political ends. Sounds great doesn’t it?
If you’re not a drone, why would you spend this entire thread proving the exact opposite?
Did. Not. Happen.
Was there in a plan in place to kidnap bin Laden from Tarnak Farms? Yes.
Was Sandy Berger opposed because he thought the US would not be able to secure a conviction against bin Laden? Yes.
Was the plan called off? Yes.
Were the embassies in Africa attacked shortly thereafter? Yes.
If you’re not a drone, why would you spend this entire thread proving the exact opposite?
Excuse me? The drones are the ones here showing no consistency. Fahrenheit 911? No problem. The Reagans? Wonderful! ‘The Path to 9/11′? GET IT OFF THE AIR!!!
If you refuse to deal with the truth, crazy jay, I really can’t help you.
If you refuse to deal with the truth, crazy jay, I really can’t help you.
It’s a movie Factcheck.
A movie.
A movie.
A movie.
Just to give everybody a little fat to chew on (you guys can check it out on your own), but has anybody seen the movie ‘The Perfect Storm’? It was the one with George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg and was centered around a fishing boat called the Andrea Gale. The crew went out and got caught in a storm and were lost at sea.
The ex-wife of Billy Tyne (portrayed by Clooney) and families of two of the other crew, filed a lawsuit against the studio (can’t remember who it was) saying that her ex-husband was slandered in the film because he was portrayed as a down on his luck Captain who irresponsibly took his guys one more time to try for that one big catch. He was in fact, doing quite well at the time and the last trip out was like any other one.
Tyne was also portrayed as a cowboy, willing to take his boat and his crew into the middle of a storm to bring a catch back and make money, mostly due to his desperation.
This was not true either. Tyne was a young captain and a very good one and not one that would jeopardize his own life and that of his crew just to make some money.
Her lawsuit didn’t go anywhere. Regardless of the fact that so much of what you see on screen in that movie is complete fiction, the overall premise and main events did take place. However, for dramatic effect, things were made up. People were shown doing things they didn’t do, etc.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, in ‘All The Presidents Men’, there was a scene where the audience is led to believe the Nixon White House was ready to kill Woodward and Bernstein. This impression seemed on target because it appeared as though these two guys were basically on their own, when in reality, the majority of that newsroom wanted in on that story.
It is pretty sad and quite pathetic that some are so afraid that the poor little Clinton administration may get some added heat out of this television mini-series that they advocate censoring it.
Jay,
Do you remember The Reagans? Conservatives drove that mini-series off CBS because they didn’t like the way St. Reagan was portrayed and I don’t recall you getting all fired up about “censorship” then.
I personally don’t think ABC should pull or edit the show if they don’t want to. They can air whatever the fuck they want. But there’s a big difference between factual accuracy, dramatic license and just making shit up and passing it off as true.
Hell, conservatives are all in a tither about DOAP, a work of speculative fiction playing at the Toronto International Film Festival this week, in which Bush is assassinated in 2007. That’s a work of total fiction, presented as fiction and conservatives are outraged.
So please stop with the bullshit about liberals unable to handle criticism. Hell, Bush can’t even take questions from a real, unscreened, non-loyalty tested audience. The man lives in a bubble of dramatic license: “Yes, Mr. President everything is great in Iraq.”
“Was there in a plan in place to kidnap bin Laden from Tarnak Farms? Yes.”
Very good.
A plan.
Now here’s the relevant question, so pay attention.
How is “a plan” different from “CIA agents and soldiers on the ground right outside the farm, on the phone to the White House asking for permission to go ahead?”
No difference?
I “plan” to make a billion dollars, Jay.
Hooray! I’m rich!
Do you remember The Reagans? Conservatives drove that mini-series off CBS because they didn’t like the way St. Reagan was portrayed and I don’t recall you getting all fired up about “censorship” then.
Unless I am mistaken, Oliver never covered the subject. But I was opposed to CBS pulling the movie. I think it set a very bad precedent.
Hell, conservatives are all in a tither about DOAP, a work of speculative fiction playing at the Toronto International Film Festival this week, in which Bush is assassinated in 2007. That’s a work of total fiction, presented as fiction and conservatives are outraged.
I think it is in entirely poor taste that the movie is done that way with the President portrayed in the movie still in office. However, if anybody is advocating any kind of censorship of the movie, then it’s wrong.
How is “a plan” different from “CIA agents and soldiers on the ground right outside the farm, on the phone to the White House asking for permission to go ahead?”
No difference?
You still don’t get it. And frankly, I am tired of explaining it to you. Please, read my comments about ‘The Perfect Storm.’ Cripes, try and step outside of the box for a moment.
So the official con line on this is “fake but accurate”?
Why does that sound so familiar?
“I think it is in entirely poor taste that the movie is done that way with the President portrayed in the movie still in office.”
And making shit up about a president’s administration while that President is still alive and actively engaged in politics is a-okay?
Just knock it off with the “Liberals can’t stand criticism” crap. Just remember that republicans set the precedent you so abhor.
And making shit up about a president’s administration while that President is still alive and actively engaged in politics is a-okay?
Nice how you leave out the rest of my comment:
“However, if anybody is advocating any kind of censorship of the movie, then it’s wrong.”
You see, I can complain about it. However, unlike others, I am not actively hoping something like that is censored. Big fucking difference guy.
Just knock it off with the “Liberals can’t stand criticism” crap.
That is the second time YOU wrote that. I never said anything about “liberals can’t stand criticism.”
Just remember that republicans set the precedent you so abhor.
Yeah, well like I said, at least I am consistent on the issue. So you can go on with your, “YOU STARTED IT!!!” baby bullshit if you’d like. It has nothing to do with me.
No, Jay.
You moved from defending the scene on the grounds of artistic license to insisting…wait, let’s get your exact words…”the scene in question did happen.”
No CIA agent. No military on the scene. No operation undertaken. No phone call to Sandy Berger.
Now how do you get “the scene in question did happen” out of that?
And let me ask.
If the scene were changed, and it was a bunch of people sitting around talking about this plan, knowing there were people on the ground ready to carry it out and a CIA agent in charge wanted to go for it. You have Sandy Berger objecting because of the reasons he did and George Tenet finally issuing a ‘No’ on the action, you’d be fine with that?
That you would be ok with, right?
Today, we also learn that the White House has asked for airtime during the airing of this “fictional film” for Mr. Bush to talk about the fifth anniversary of the attack.
No blurring of fact with fantasy there.
and it was a bunch of people sitting around talking about this plan, knowing there were people on the ground ready to carry it out and a CIA agent in charge wanted to go for it.
Didn’t happen.
Your assertion was: “the scene in question did happen.”
Are you sticking with that?
I have an idea.
Let’s show that hurricane disaster pic and give Al Gore 15 minutes in the middle of it to talk about global warming.
Hey, it’s just a movie!
You moved from defending the scene on the grounds of artistic license to insisting…wait, let’s get your exact words…”the scene in question did happen.”
No Quaker, the events surrounding the scene did happen. What the filmmakers did was add a composite character, had Berger make the final decision and have set up as though they were getting ready to go in at that time.
That’s the artistic license. What is this so fucking difficult for you to comprehend?
What would rather have? A guy on camera for 5 hours reading the 9/11 Commission’s report?
Thank God you weren’t in charge when they were making a classic like ‘All The President’s Men.’ It would have bored the world to tears.
No CIA agent.
There was a CIA agent involved with the planned Tarnak Farms. His name was Gary Schroen.
No military on the scene.
The CIA had a team of 30 fighters which included Delta Force agents ready to go.
No operation undertaken.
No shit.
No phone call to Sandy Berger.
Sandy Berger was consulted and he objected based on his feelings that a conviction could not be secured based on evidence they had.
And here is how the scene actually plays out according to Editor and Publisher:
Back in Afghanistan, the operatives plan for the snatch job anyway, hoping for approval once it’s clear they have their man. One night, they call Langley — they are ready to get bin Laden, he is nearby. “Do we have clearance?” they ask. Berger says he doesn’t have authority, he would have to check, they’re not all on “the same page.”
A CIA official tells Berger the president has approved snatches in the past. Berger wonders about the quality of the intelligence. The CIA woman says it’s never 100%. With that, Berger punts and asks Tenet if HE wants to offer a recommendation to the president. Tenet asks: Why does the buck always stop with me, like with the Waco disaster?
At that point, Berger simply hangs up — and the operatives abroad pack up and leave.
Seems to me the only thing made up entirely is Berger hanging up the phone.
Here’s how the 9-11 commission report tells it:
On May 20, Director Tenet discussed the high risk of the operation with Berger and his deputies, warning that people might be killed, including Bin Ladin. Success was to be defined as the exfiltration of Bin Ladin out of Afghanistan.28 A meeting of principals was scheduled for May 29 to decide whether the operation should go ahead.
The principals did not meet. On May 29, “Jeff” informed “Mike” that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern Division. The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation. “Mike” cabled the field that he had been directed to “stand down on the operation for the time being.” He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties-”collateral damage”-was too high. They were concerned about the tribals’ safety, and had worried that “the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation-and probably recriminations-in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive.”29
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.
No operatives who go ahead with the plan. No one waiting outside bin Laden’s farm. No military officers on the scene. No phone call to Langley (and they call Langley and talk to Berger? Something’s missing there.) No “Berger punts.” No hang up.
And dragging Waco into it? That’s a great touch, isn’t it?
So you only see one thing that’s made up? I’m still waiting for you to tell us how “the scene in question did happen.”
September 7, 8:24 p.m.:
Quaker, the scene in question did happen.
September 8, 2:51 p.m.:
No Quaker, the events surrounding the scene did happen.
Weasel.
September 8, 2:38 p.m.:
What the filmmakers did was add a composite character, had Berger make the final decision and have set up as though they were getting ready to go in at that time.
September 8, 2:38 p.m. (Yes, try to believe it, folks! The very same post!):
Seems to me the only thing made up entirely is Berger hanging up the phone.
Wonderful. You left out a LOT of stuff:
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.17
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 1997.18
By early 1998, planners at the Counterterrorist Center were ready to come back to the White House to seek formal approval. Tenet apparently walked National Security Advisor Sandy Berger through the basic plan on February 13. One group of tribals would subdue the guards, enter Tarnak Farms stealthily, grab Bin Ladin, take him to a desert site outside Kandahar, and turn him over to a second group. This second group of tribals would take him to a desert landing zone already tested in the 1997 Kansi capture. From there, a CIA plane would take him to New York, an Arab capital, or wherever he was to be arraigned. Briefing papers prepared by the Counterterrorist Center acknowledged that hitches might develop. People might be killed, and Bin Ladin’s supporters might retaliate, perhaps taking U.S. citizens in Kandahar hostage. But the briefing papers also noted that there was risk in not acting. “Sooner or later,” they said, “Bin Ladin will attack U.S. interests, perhaps using WMD [weapons of mass destruction].”19
Clarke’s Counterterrorism Security Group reviewed the capture plan for Berger. Noting that the plan was in a “very early stage of development,” the NSC staff then told the CIA planners to go ahead and, among other things, start drafting any legal documents that might be required to authorize the covert action. The CSG apparently stressed that the raid should target Bin Ladin himself, not the whole compound.20
The CIA planners conducted their third complete rehearsal in March, and they again briefed the CSG. Clarke wrote Berger on March 7 that he saw the operation as “somewhat embryonic” and the CIA as “months away from doing anything.”21
“Mike” thought the capture plan was “the perfect operation.” It required minimum infrastructure. The plan had now been modified so that the tribals would keep Bin Ladin in a hiding place for up to a month before turning him over to the United States-thereby increasing the chances of keeping the U.S. hand out of sight. “Mike” trusted the information from the Afghan network; it had been corroborated by other means, he told us. The lead CIA officer in the field, Gary Schroen, also had confidence in the tribals. In a May 6 cable to CIA headquarters, he pronounced their planning “almost as professional and detailed . . . as would be done by any U.S. military special operations element.” He and the other officers who had worked through the plan with the tribals judged it “about as good as it can be.” (By that, Schroen explained, he meant that the chance of capturing or killing Bin Ladin was about 40 percent.) Although the tribals thought they could pull off the raid, if the operation were approved by headquarters and the policymakers, Schroen wrote there was going to be a point when “we step back and keep our fingers crossed that the [tribals] prove as good (and as lucky) as they think they will be.”22
Military officers reviewed the capture plan and, according to “Mike,” “found no showstoppers.” The commander of Delta Force felt “uncomfortable” with having the tribals hold Bin Ladin captive for so long, and the commander of Joint Special Operations Forces, Lieutenant General Michael Canavan, was worried about the safety of the tribals inside Tarnak Farms. General Canavan said he had actually thought the operation too complicated for the CIA-”out of their league”-and an effort to get results “on the cheap.” But a senior Joint Staff officer described the plan as “generally, not too much different than we might have come up with ourselves.” No one in the Pentagon, so far as we know, advised the CIA or the White House not to proceed.23
In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.24
On May 18, CIA’s managers reviewed a draft Memorandum of Notification (MON), a legal document authorizing the capture operation. A 1986 presidential finding had authorized worldwide covert action against terrorism and probably provided adequate authority. But mindful of the old “rogue elephant” charge, senior CIA managers may have wanted something on paper to show that they were not acting on their own.
Discussion of this memorandum brought to the surface an unease about paramilitary covert action that had become ingrained, at least among some CIA senior managers. James Pavitt, the assistant head of the Directorate of Operations, expressed concern that people might get killed; it appears he thought the operation had at least a slight flavor of a plan for an assassination. Moreover, he calculated that it would cost several million dollars. He was not prepared to take that money “out of hide,” and he did not want to go to all the necessary congressional committees to get special money. Despite Pavitt’s misgivings, the CIA leadership cleared the draft memorandum and sent it on to the National Security Council.25
Counterterrorist Center officers briefed Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh, telling them that the operation had about a 30 percent chance of success. The Center’s chief, “Jeff,” joined John O’Neill, the head of the FBI’s New York Field Office, in briefing Mary Jo White, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and her staff. Though “Jeff” also used the 30 percent success figure, he warned that someone would surely be killed in the operation. White’s impression from the New York briefing was that the chances of capturing Bin Ladin alive were nil.26
From May 20 to 24, the CIA ran a final, graded rehearsal of the operation, spread over three time zones, even bringing in personnel from the region. The FBI also participated. The rehearsal went well. The Counterterrorist Center planned to brief cabinet-level principals and their deputies the following week, giving June 23 as the date for the raid, with Bin Ladin to be brought out of Afghanistan no later than July 23.27
According to you, the filmmakers should have put ALL of the above on film.
In fact, the mini-series should have been 2349 hours long because it should have filmed every event and every scene from the 9-11 report exactly as precisely as it happened.
Otherwise, everything else would have been a lie.
Keep your head in the sand, ok? There WERE operatives there. There WERE members of Delta Force there. There was a CIA agent in charge named Gary Schroen there. There WERE dry runs (how did they do it if nobody was there? With a fucking video game?). Sandy Berger did object because he was afraid they didn’t have enough evidence to capture him.
“That’s the artistic license. What is this so fucking difficult for you to comprehend?
What would rather have? A guy on camera for 5 hours reading the 9/11 Commission’s report?
Artistic license! It really happened! No, artistic license! It happened!
Flippity-floppity.
You left out a LOT of stuff:
Correct. I did not reproduce the entire report. That’s why God and Vint Cerf gave us hyperlinks.
According to you, the filmmakers should have put ALL of the above on film.
I said that? You’re mistaken.
What I keep asking is: where is the part where “the scene in question did happen” as you asserted yesterday?
And I don’t see your 30 Delta Force fighters in your expanded passage. Where’d they go?
Artistic license! It really happened! No, artistic license! It happened!
No jackass. That’s called a COMPOSITE SCENE. Look it up.
I never said the scene played out EXACTLY AS IT WAS SHOWN ON SCREEN.
I have been saying all along that events that took place over time were put together to form ONE SCENE. That’s what a composite is.
Do you understand, or do I need to pull out another example from another movie to show you?
“I have been saying all along that events that took place over time were put together to form ONE SCENE. That’s what a composite is.”
But Jay, at no point did Berger speak directly with a CIA officer in Afghanistan nor did he hand up the phone. Tell me how that fiction in anyway increases the “drama” of the moment.
Quite frankly, I am through arguing the point because I could sit here and give a lecture on filmmaking techniques and I’d still see “LIES!! LIES!!” because people just cannot comprehend how it works.
That being said, it would probably have been better for the filmmakers to have left this scene out. All it has done is see fit to distract from the Clinton administration’s absolutely horrible and almost criminal record in the fight against terrorism.
I am through arguing the point because I could sit here and give a lecture on filmmaking techniques and I’d still see “LIES!! LIES!!” because people just cannot comprehend how it works.
I’d like that. Please do give a lecture to Mr. Frame about filmmaking technique.
I’d be interested in that.
it would probably have been better for the filmmakers to have left this scene out.
Why? You said it happened.
Clinton administration’s absolutely horrible and almost criminal record in the fight against terrorism.
“Almost criminal”?
Maybe after your filmmaking lecture, you can expound on that.
September 7, 8:24 p.m.:
Quaker, the scene in question did happen.
September 8, 2:51 p.m.:
No Quaker, the events surrounding the scene did happen.
September 8, 3:22:
I never said the scene played out EXACTLY AS IT WAS SHOWN ON SCREEN.
Even real weasels admire your weaseliness.
Anyone hungry for waffles?
And here is how the scene actually plays out according to Editor and Publisher:
TPT911:
Back in Afghanistan, the operatives plan for the snatch job anyway, hoping for approval once it’s clear they have their man.
9-11 Commission:
On May 29, “Jeff” informed “Mike” that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern Division. The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation. “Mike” cabled the field that he had been directed to “stand down on the operation for the time being.”
TPT911:
One night, they call Langley — they are ready to get bin Laden, he is nearby. “Do we have clearance?” they ask.
911 Commission:
Uh, what phone call?
TPT911:
Berger says he doesn’t have authority, he would have to check, they’re not all on “the same page.”
9-11 Commission:
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.
TPT911:
A CIA official tells Berger the president has approved snatches in the past. Berger wonders about the quality of the intelligence. The CIA woman says it’s never 100%.
9-11 Commission:
Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured.
TPT911:
With that, Berger punts and asks Tenet if HE wants to offer a recommendation to the president.
9-11 Commission:
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.
TPT911:
Tenet asks: Why does the buck always stop with me, like with the Waco disaster?
9-11 Commission:
Records no such question.
TPT911:
At that point, Berger simply hangs up — and the operatives abroad pack up and leave.
9-11 Commission:
No phone call, no hang up. And the “operatives abroad”, the Gary Schoen you mentioned, did not “pack up and leave.”
“Mike” cabled the field that he had been directed to “stand down on the operation for the time being.”
Jay: “Seems to me the only thing made up entirely is Berger hanging up the phone.”
Haw!
Quaker, you can use semantics all you want. I’ve been consistent on this from the beginning. You said the entire thing is an outright lie, yet so many of the things contained within the scene are true. How is that possible? Oh but wait! It can’t be true if it didn’t happen EXACTLY and WORD FOR WORD like it was written in the report!
I suppose you’ll never watch a film ever again where it is based on a true story, since unless it is totally and 100% to the ‘t’ just like it happened in real life, then the movie is nothing but a lie.
Stephen Glass didn’t write bogus stories for ‘The New Republic’ because ‘Shattered Glass’ was filled with lies.
The crew of the Andrea Gale are still alive and well and still fishing. They have to be because ‘The Perfect Storm’ was filled with lies.
Richard Nixon was not involved in Watergate because ‘All The Presidents Men’ was filled with lies.
Al Capone was never involved in illegal bootlegging in Chicago in the 20’s because ‘The Untouchables’ is filled with lies.
The Chicago White Sox did win the World Series in 1919, and never betted with gamblers because ‘Eight Men Out’ is filled with lies.
The 1980 USA Hockey team did not defeat the USSR because ‘Miracle’ is filled with lies.
Henry Hill and Jimmy Conway didn’t rob or kill anybody because ‘Goodfellas’ is filled with lies.
Nobody should ever be allowed to see ‘United 93′ because it is filled with lies.
“All it has done is see fit to distract from the Clinton administration’s absolutely horrible and almost criminal record in the fight against terrorism.”
That’s hilarious, “almost criminal.” How about the Bush administration’s actually, demonstrably criminal record in the fight against terrorism?
You said the entire thing is an outright lie,
Once again, you are mistaken.
you can use semantics all you want.
Uh, you mean like the meanings of words anstuff?
I suppose you’ll never watch a film ever again where it is based on a true story, since unless it is totally and 100% to the ‘t’ just like it happened in real life, then the movie is nothing but a lie.
More weaseling.
You said, “The scene in question did happen.”
You posted a description of the scene from E&P.
You said the only thing you could see that was entirely made up was Berger hanging up on the call.
I’ve gone to great pains to look for the part that “did happen.” I’ve asked you time and again to tell us.
You won’t do it because you can’t and you won’t back off of your claim that it’s all true because…well, I don’t know why.
As near as I can make out, your argument seems to be: It really happened because other filmmakers make stuff up too.
September 7, 8:24 p.m.:
Quaker, the scene in question did happen.
September 8, 2:51 p.m.:
No Quaker, the events surrounding the scene did happen.
September 8, 3:22:
I never said the scene played out EXACTLY AS IT WAS SHOWN ON SCREEN.
September 8, 4:10 p.m.:
I’ve been consistent on this from the beginning.
I’ve gone to great pains to look for the part that “did happen.” I’ve asked you time and again to tell us.
And I did, but because it didn’t happen exactly as it did in the report, you claim that it didn’t happen.
Tenet did confer with Berger about bin Laden and Berger did object to snatching him because he was afraid a conviction could not be secured. But YOU say this didn’t happen because the filmmakers put it into a scene with other events.
There was a CIA agent in charge on the scene in question, but YOU say that it’s not true because the agent depicted in the movie is a composite character.
There was a plan in place and dry runs were conducted about how to go about it and those who put it together wanted the go ahead. But YOU say that it’s not true because the filmakers decided to put it together with the other parts to form one scene.
The plan was not given the go ahead but YOU say that it’s not true because the filmmakers decided to have somebody saying ‘No’ over the phone.
Again, you claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a comosite scene out of smaller events spread out over time to save time.
I keep trying explain this as a filmmaking technique to you but you keep saying it’s not a filmmaking technique, but lies. As such, I merely pointed out in other films the filmmakers put together nothing but lies because they used the same techniques the filmmakers used in this particular movie.
I’ve gone to great pains to look for the part that “did happen.” I’ve asked you time and again to tell us.
And I did,
You did? Heck, I’m sorry, Jay. I missed it. Just give me the timestamp of the post where you explain which parts actually happened and I’ll go back and read it before I post anything else.
Tenet did confer with Berger about bin Laden and Berger did object to snatching him because he was afraid a conviction could not be secured. But YOU say this didn’t happen because the filmmakers put it into a scene with other events.
You’re mistaken again.
There was a CIA agent in charge on the scene in question,
Source? I’m interpreting “on the scene in question,” as at the farm on the night portrayed. Maybe you mean “in the same country”?
but YOU say that it’s not true because the agent depicted in the movie is a composite character.
Actually I don’t say that.
There was a plan in place and dry runs were conducted about how to go about it and those who put it together wanted the go ahead. But YOU say that it’s not true because the filmakers decided to put it together with the other parts to form one scene.
There was a plan in place and dry runs were conducted about how to go about it and those who put it together wanted the go ahead. But YOU say that it’s not true because the filmakers decided to put it together with the other parts to form one scene.
I do? I say that? I should listen to myself more carefully. I thought I was saying that making a plan and executing a plan are two different things. That there’s a difference between things that “did happen” and things that are just planned to happen.
The plan was not given the go ahead but YOU say that it’s not true because the filmmakers decided to have somebody saying ‘No’ over the phone.
Mistaken again. I say that the movie portrays Mr. Berger as making the decision. The 9-11 Commission says something quite different.
Again, you claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a comosite scene out of smaller events spread out over time to save time.
No, really I don’t. I claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a composite scene out of smaller events that never actually happened.
I keep trying explain this as a filmmaking technique to you but you keep saying it’s not a filmmaking technique,but lies.
Can I have a nickel for every mistake I point out? I have never said that it is not a filmmaking technique.
As such, I merely pointed out in other films the filmmakers put together nothing but lies because they used the same techniques the filmmakers used in this particular movie.
And here we are, right back at good old square one.
“It must be true because other filmmakers make stuff up too.”
You’re mistaken again
No, I am not mistaken. It is right there in the report:
In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.
There it is. One of a part of series of events over a period of weeks or months that was put into a single scene.
Source? I’m interpreting “on the scene in question,” as at the farm on the night portrayed. Maybe you mean “in the same country”?
There it is again. Your ignorance on display of the technique of creating composite characters. I’ve already told you that the agent in charge was Gary Schroen. Another part of the composite character is the CIA agent ‘Mike’ in the report who we now know is Michael Scheuer, who has been very critical of Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger and George Tenet (as well as the Bush administration, calling the Iraq war a colossal mistake).
Actually I don’t say that.
Sure you did.
I do? I say that? I should listen to myself more carefully. I thought I was saying that making a plan and executing a plan are two different things. That there’s a difference between things that “did happen” and things that are just planned to happen.
Quaker, in the movie the plan is not given the go ahead and in the report the plan is not given the go ahead. Who made the claim the plan was executed? The difference is, in the movie, drama is added by having the team waiting and ready to go instead of the team being told no while they’re sitting around in a camp somewhere.
I say that the movie portrays Mr. Berger as making the decision. The 9-11 Commission says something quite different.
Right and as I pointed out, it seems that this is the only part that was completely made up.
No, really I don’t. I claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a composite scene out of smaller events that never actually happened.
But they did happen (aside from Berger being the one who made the decision). It was a series of events and decisions that took place over a period of weeks that was compressed into a single scene.
OK, I’ll go easy on you this time, Jay.
I’ll list all the stuff you wrote that I agree did happen:
Tenet did confer with Berger about bin Laden and Berger did object to snatching him because he was afraid a conviction could not be secured.
Mostly agree. The 9-11 Commission report says Berger worried about getting a conviction. It doesn’t say he objected to the grab because of his worries. But close enough.
There was a CIA agent in charge on the scene in question,
Agreed, as long as “on the scene” means “in the country during the same time period,” not standing in the dark at the edge of the farm on the night portrayed in the film.
There was a plan in place and dry runs were conducted about how to go about it and those who put it together wanted the go ahead.
Agreed. They “stood down” before the plan was ever actualized, though. They didn’t actually call up the White House (or Langley) and say “We’re out here at the bin Laden place. Can we go in now?”
The plan was not given the go ahead
Right.
So let’s review:
Tenet and Berger talked about a plan. Berger was worried about what would happen after the grab if the plan succeeded. There was a CIA agent in Afghanistan working on the plan.
The CIA ran some rehearsals (the 9-11 Commission report hints that those rehearsals were here, though, not in Afghanistan), but the CIA, specifically George Tenet, decided not to go ahead with the plan.
Which of these events are portrayed in the scene at the center of the controversy?
“In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.’
There it is. One of a part of series of events over a period of weeks or months that was put into a single scene.”
No, it is a lie because the scene in question NEVER HAPPENED. There is a difference between having meetings to discuss what would happen if bin Laden was cornered and you know, cornering bin Laden. The operation never found its man.
You can’t have a scene where a cornered bin Laden was let go because, bin Laden was never cornered!
The screenwriter is “supposing” what would have happened if OBL WAS cornered. He doesn’t get to do this and call it “based on the 9/11 commission report”.
I’d like my waffles now.
Tenet did confer with Berger about bin Laden and Berger did object to snatching him because he was afraid a conviction could not be secured. But YOU say this didn’t happen because the filmmakers put it into a scene with other events.
You’re mistaken again.
No, I am not mistaken. It is right there in the report:
You’re mistaken about the other part. The part where I say that it didn’t happen because filmmakers put it into a scene with other events. I never said that.
Source? I’m interpreting “on the scene in question,” as at the farm on the night portrayed. Maybe you mean “in the same country”?
There it is again. Your ignorance on display of the technique of creating composite characters. I’ve already told you that the agent in charge was Gary Schroen. Another part of the composite character is the CIA agent ‘Mike’ in the report who we now know is Michael Scheuer, who has been very critical of Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger and George Tenet (as well as the Bush administration, calling the Iraq war a colossal mistake).
“On the scene” Jay? Do you mean standing in the dark at the edge of bin Laden’s farm? In Afghanistan? If we take this to extremes, I was on the scene in question: Earth.
but YOU say that it’s not true because the agent depicted in the movie is a composite character.
Actually I don’t say that.
I do not say that it’s not true because the agent depicted is a composite. I say it is not true because the events depicted did not occur.
Quaker, in the movie the plan is not given the go ahead and in the report the plan is not given the go ahead. Who made the claim the plan was executed? The difference is, in the movie, drama is added by having the team waiting and ready to go instead of the team being told no while they’re sitting around in a camp somewhere.
Who made the claim the plan was executed? The movie, as you described it. It shows the CIA agent and U.S. military officers at the farm, putting the plan into operation and having bin Laden within their reach, calling the White House for permission.
The difference is, in the real life, the events shown did not happen.
I say that the movie portrays Mr. Berger as making the decision. The 9-11 Commission says something quite different.
Right and as I pointed out, it seems that this is the only part that was completely made up.
Before, it was Berger hanging up that was the only part that was completely made up. We’re making progress, Jay. Now we have two things you’re willing to admit were made up.
Again, you claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a comosite scene out of smaller events spread out over time to save time.
No, really I don’t. I claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a composite scene out of smaller events that never actually happened.
But they did happen (aside from Berger being the one who made the decision). It was a series of events and decisions that took place over a period of weeks that was compressed into a single scene.
We’ll have to break this up into two parts: 1) I do NOT claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a composite scene. 2)The events that did not happen: the approach to bin Laden’s camp, the presence of the leader of the Northern Alliance at bin Laden’s farm, the presence of U.S. military officers at bin Laden’s farm, the presence of the CIA agent outside bin Laden’s farm, the phone call, Berger’s dithering, Berger’s deferral to Tenet, Berger hanging up.
Other than that, the scene is perfectly factual.
Analogy time:
I planned to sleep with Helen Thomas.
I didn’t call her or actually go to her house and I’ve never actually met her.
I coulda nailed her, though.
Quaker, please choose a better looking analogy next time.
Hey, Helen’s a babe. I’m like into eyebrows.